SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : General Topics : Why is heresy (J. Morrell) permitted on this message board?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 Next Page )
PosterThread
HeartSong
Member



Joined: 2006/9/13
Posts: 3156


 Re:

[b]Galatians 5:14-16 (KJV)[/b]

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another. This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

 2009/11/6 23:41Profile
hmmhmm
Member



Joined: 2006/1/31
Posts: 4991
Sweden

 Re:

I read some things, and some accusation towards Jesse, some things are very hard and serious, and proof should be given, link or quotation to this accusation, i have read much what Jesse have written heard much of his preaching, some i dont agree with, some i do agree with. What gives me a bit of worrie tho is with what force some come against him?

I understand some think the gospel are at stake, but i think God is in control. we just be faithful in our ministry god called us to. and if God has called us to openly expose false teachings let us be the humblest of men and graceful about it.

What is common not just here is one side misrepresenting what the others are saying or believing. i sense it is so here a bit, and tomake statements like ravenhill and wesley and alike, tozer, t.a sparks or who ever you will from arminian side to be false teachers and in hell. That to me is just as needed of repentance as false doctrine. If such statements are true.

The verdict of who is in hell is gods alone scripture says, and we are commanded not to make such judgements. whatever theology you might hold just se to it we keep away from the pitfalls.

There are five point calvinist in hell right now, there are arminians in hell right now.....

Tim Conway, a calvinist shares much good thoughts here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoQ860GEIp0


_________________
CHRISTIAN

 2009/11/7 3:07Profile









 Re: The Pea and God.

I generally agree with you hmmhmm concerning concerning personal dogma, or elite ideas that exclude EVERYONE who does not line up with you as heretics.

Without holiness no man shall see God, and possibly the crux of this argument has to do with that, and the age old battle between works and grace. The book of James makes it abundantly clear that our works are important, and those sitting on the Grace side of the river may point over to the works crowd and accuse those of heresy, but it is not always so.


The holiness movement, which has had a profound effect, and mostly a good one, on the church, sits smack dab in the center of the works crowd. It is ludicrous to think that some of the men mentioned by you are heretics.


hmmhmm pointed out;


"What is common not just here is one side misrepresenting what the others are saying or believing. i sense it is so here a bit, and to make statements like Ravenhill and Wesley and alike, Tozer, T.A sparks or who ever you will from Armenian side to be false teachers and in hell. That to me is just as needed of repentance as false doctrine. If such statements are true."


Absolutely. It is ludicrous and immature, to be kind, at the least, to accuse these men as heretics. I believe that this idea that my faith is bound up in the fortress of my mental construction, and any one who invades it, or challenges it, is my enemy, and a heretic to be destroyed, is foolish.


The Gospel may be just a bit broader than your pea brain, and more inclusive than your accusations and final judgment to execution.


Saying that, there are links where you can here this young man Morrell preaching. He is quite bright, and bold [follow the YOU TUBE VIDEO LINK and watch all of it], but definetly he does not believe in original sin. This, to me, does trip over the line of sound doctrine, and into heresy. Jesus did not need to die, if we could redeem our nature through moral action.


It would be similar to Jehovah Witness doctrine, which has a cascading effect on all other holy doctrine; kind of a breach in the wall causing collapse, if you will. He does not preach the Cross, and the resurrection, and being born again, and maybe the most important redemptive doctrine; OUR CONTINUED NEED FOR CLEANSING, AND OURSELVES WALKING IN THE CROSS TO BECOME HOLY.


He is yet young, but for now, he preaches another gospel. To take a smidgen of works , and classify it as the same, and thereby condemn anyone you may believe is preaching works as salvation is very foolish. Doing so, will deprive you of grace, for as you judge, [wrongly] you will be judged.



 2009/11/7 8:53
KingJimmy
Member



Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC

 Re:

The challenge Jesse makes of Joseph Urban's article is a challenge that does not need to be met. The fact of the matter is that Jesse does not deny that he holds to any of the positions that Joseph Urban claims he does. Jesse only makes this challenge so that you might look him up on his web site, and read his writings, and be further infected with his false teachings. His challenge is merely rhetorical and self-serving. Perhaps Joseph could have been a bit more scholarly in his approach, and gave specific citations where Jesse espoused these doctrines.

But, I don't think such is necessary, as: 1) People would only look Jesse up on the internet because they have interacted with him via the internet or heard him preach on campus or 2) If you have any basic understanding of theology, and the different schools of thought, you will quickly recognize that all the things that Joseph said in his article are true after having interacted with Jesse. As one who has had about a dozen or so e-mail exchanges with Jesse, and as one who has received his newsletter (which I seem to still get in-spite of unsubscribing), and as one who has encountered him on this forum a hundred times, it doesn't take too much discernment to realize that the doctrines Jesse espouses clearly lay outside of evangelical orthodoxy, and are in total accordance with Joseph's article. Additionally, I have talked with other brothers who have in times past traveled with Jesse on his campus tours who will tell you the exact same things.

God bless our brothers and sisters who think the strong responses given to Jesse are simply a difference of opinion on theology. I will admit to you that I am deliberately heavy in my response to him, though I still walk gently and humbly in the fear of God when I do respond. I would not act this way if I thought Jesse were a born-again Christian, and a brother of a like and precious faith. But because he espouses doctrines that are clearly out of the realm of orthodoxy, and is a false brother and a false teacher, I feel it necessary to speak in a way that shows that there is a vast difference between the gospel he preaches and the gospel of Jesus Christ. I do this so as to make the gospel all the more clear.

I do not hate Jesse or wish him any ill will, I wish he would actually get saved. The pastoral spirit which resides in me from our Chief Shepherd constrains me to speak in such a manner for the sake of my brothers and sisters who do frequent this forum, and do not quite realize that much of what Jesse says might sound good on the surface, but is altogether rotten underneath. If you think Jesse's gospel is within the realm of evangelical orthodoxy, then either you have not understood and discerned what Jesse is saying, or you yourself do not truly understand the specifics of what the gospel really teaches. And if you do not understand what the gospel really teaches, you may be mislead by something that is another gospel altogether.

You might be impressed with his zeal and his boldness in his campus preaching, but all of this is simply smoke and mirrors that he uses in order to deceive you into believing he is a legitimate brother in Christ and minister of the gospel. And I can say that as one who has stood on street corners and gone on college campuses in order to preach the gospel in the open-air. I've been harassed by the police, have been threatened, and had beer bottles thrown at me in order to carry out the preaching of the word. I conducted Bible studies in a homeless shelter for a year, and sometimes wondered if I would leave safely due to fights, shootings, and drug activity that happened there. These things he has experienced as well, but these things are not what makes one legitimate. It is one's faithfulness to the preaching of the true gospel that makes one legitimate. And there is a vast difference between the man-centered moralism Jesse preaches, and the Christ-centered preaching of the gospel.


_________________
Jimmy H

 2009/11/7 10:31Profile
IWantAnguish
Member



Joined: 2006/6/15
Posts: 343
VCU @ Richmond, VA

 Re:

Beautiful post brother Jim.

The true gospel, and the true Christian life will ALWAYS glorify God and humble men.

A man centered gospel has no power, and will only attract proud, self centered men, who feel like God owes them salvation.

Every man, woman, and child could go to hell and God would still be God. But God is love, and chooses to save those who He shall. This is unmerited grace.

Does your gospel glorify God? Or does your gospel focus on men?


_________________
Sam Yoon

 2009/11/7 10:53Profile









 Re:

KingJimmy, I wholeheartedly agree with what you're saying in this thread. I too, desire nothing but the best for Jesse, that he would believe the Gospel and trust in the righteousness of Christ to save him. I also echo the heart and comments of several others along those lines.

Yet it is seriously deviations from biblical truth that he promotes, and that is the issue here.

This is not about Calvinism vs. Arminianism at all. This is about historic Christianity (to the which both Calvinism and Arminianism would agree) against the historic heresy of Pelagianism which makes the grace of God of none effect, as brother Tom pointed out on page 1. I may be accused of being a "Calvinist" by Jesse and others, but little do they know, that I preach the Gospel every week along side Arminians! Any who have my Lord Jesus as their Lord are my friends and brothers. And while I may not plant a church and write a statement of faith alongside a staunch Arminian (after all a church has to have some kind of defined doctrine), I would much rather pray alongside or open air preach alongside an Arminian on fire with the Holy Ghost any day over doing such with a dead Calvinist that has a big head and no heart. And for these reasons and many others I think debates between the two are many times unfruitful and grieving to God and unnecesarily divisive.

Two preachers that have moved me the most and edified me the most in my life are David Wilkerson (a Pentecostal Arminian) and John Macarthur (A Baptistic Calvinist) [-oh Lord, please forgive the titles]. God bless them both and give them many souls for His glory!

Quote:
Interestingly enough, I read this: "Josef Urban is a man who believes that Charles Finney and John Wesley are in hell right now because they were “false teachers”. He also believes that Leonard Ravenhill, Albert Barnes, and Paris Reidhead were heretics."

WOW! After reading that, I can't take any posts made by Josef Urban seriously!



This is a false accusation.

I would never dare say such horrible things!

And furthermore, I deny this accusation. While I believe that Finney taught some definite heresy in his life as is promoted in his Systematic Theology, I am the judge of no man and dare not say he is in Hell. How do I know whether he found repentance?

Wesley delved into the realm of 'sinless perfection' during his life but was far more Orthodox than Finney, and never seemed to beleive he was actually sinless despite the fact that he taught it. While I disagree strongly with Wesleyan theology, I dare not pass judgment upon the man's soul.

And as far as the others, I again deny the accusation. I think every church on earth would do better to have a healthy dose of Leonard Ravenhill's sermons and exhortations on prayer! I have listened to tons of his sermons myself.

I don't know where Jesse got this information from (other than the inventions of his own mind to cast dirt on me to try to discredit my refutation of his false doctrine).

Well, I don't have time to finish what I intended to post. But thank you Paul West for your comments in response to my questions, your time and patience is greatly appreciated.

But till the day I day, I will earnestly contend for what I perceive to be the true faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.

CHRIST IS EVERYTHING.

 2009/11/7 17:43
PaulWest
Member



Joined: 2006/6/28
Posts: 3405
Dallas, Texas

 Re:

Brethren, the fulcrum of the issue at hand here is essentially one man's soteriology versus another. It is my opinion that a man can have a soteriological difference with me and still be considered a brother. I do not hold to the doctrines of pelegianism or semi-pelegianism, arminianism or any other "ism" exclusively. But I hold to the sovereignity of God in salvation to the extent that many of you reading this (including Calvinists) would probably be offended.

But I do not share my convictions here for the sake of unity, and I will not refute the convictions of others for the same reason. I can fellowship with Finney, Wesley, Spurgeon, the Puritans...and, yes, Jesse Morrell too. Because I believe they all genuinely love the Lord, they are all genuinely born-again and, like myself, they all know only in part. Soteriology is different from Christology. I cannot, for example, fellowship with Russellites (Jehovah Witnesses), because here we are dealing with a Christological error, which I deem as fatal.

Moral Government theology is something I strongly disagree with, but I recognize brothers like Keith Green, Ravenhill, Pratney, Finney and acknowledge they too, like the Puritans, were accepted by God and fulfilled a wonderful role in the Body of Christ while on earth. I refuse to reject what God has accepted, just because my "dark glass" understanding is a different shade from theirs.

My job here is to not ban someone from the forum just because of a soteriological difference, because if that were the case, we would have to remove a large quanitity of great sermons from preachers who now "fit the mold".

However, if we perceive someone is spamming the forum with Moral Government or Calvinism or Arminianism (or any other "ism") for the purpose of aggressively subverting others to their pet doctrinal affiliation, this is where I will step in. As it stands I don't think trufaithsave has done this yet - and furthermore, I think it is presumptuous and disrespectful to accuse this guy of being someone whom he consistently denies. The way I see it, if you have even a shred of doubt that he might not be who you think he is, is it not therefore prudent to remain inconclusive until his true identity is revealed?

Brother Paul


_________________
Paul Frederick West

 2009/11/7 21:53Profile









 Re:

Amen brother Paul, I could not agree more......brother Frank

 2009/11/7 22:35
Eli_Barnabas
Member



Joined: 2005/2/16
Posts: 621
Cache Valley, Utah

 Re:

Quote:
Brethren, the fulcrum of the issue at hand here is essentially one man's soteriology versus another. It is my opinion that a man can have a soteriological difference with me and still be considered a brother. I do not hold to the doctrines of pelegianism or semi-pelegianism, arminianism or any other "ism" exclusively. But I hold to the sovereignity of God in salvation to the extent that many of you reading this (including Calvinists) would probably be offended.

But I do not share my convictions here for the sake of unity, and I will not refute the convictions of others for the same reason. I can fellowship with Finney, Wesley, Spurgeon, the Puritans...and, yes, Jesse Morrell too. Because I believe they all genuinely love the Lord, they are all genuinely born-again and, like myself, they all know only in part. Soteriology is different from Christology. I cannot, for example, fellowship with Russellites (Jehovah Witnesses), because here we are dealing with a Christological error, which I deem as fatal.

Moral Government theology is something I strongly disagree with, but I recognize brothers like Keith Green, Ravenhill, Pratney, Finney and acknowledge they too, like the Puritans, were accepted by God and fulfilled a wonderful role in the Body of Christ while on earth. I refuse to reject what God has accepted, just because my "dark glass" understanding is a different shade from theirs.

My job here is to not ban someone from the forum just because of a soteriological difference, because if that were the case, we would have to remove a large quanitity of great sermons from preachers who now "fit the mold".

However, if we perceive someone is spamming the forum with Moral Government or Calvinism or Arminianism (or any other "ism") for the purpose of aggressively subverting others to their pet doctrinal affiliation, this is where I will step in. As it stands I don't think trufaithsave has done this yet - and furthermore, I think it is presumptuous and disrespectful to accuse this guy of being someone whom he consistently denies. The way I see it, if you have even a shred of doubt that he might not be who you think he is, is it not therefore prudent to remain inconclusive until his true identity is revealed?

Brother Paul



My dear brother, with all due respect I cannot agree with you, and I am grieved by this kind of attitude that permeates so many hearts today. I also want to say that I believe it is this very attitude that is Sermonindex's greatest weakness and danger. If soteriology, the doctrine of salvation, is not a point of division, then I don't know what is. We maintain fellowship with others who don't agree with us concerning polity, tongues and end times, because we do not deem these as essential to salvation- but do we dare say that soteriology also is not essential, and that we may maintain fellowship with someone who does not believe the truth about salvation? If someone does not hold to the truth about salvation, how then can they be saved? And if they are not saved, how can we have fellowship with them, and pretend it is a non-essential?

The book of Galatians ought to sound a clear warning in our ears. "If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." (Gal. 1:8-9) Could it be more serious? Shouldn't we pay close attention to that which follows in this inspired letter? The apostle does not point out any problem in the Galatians Christology - it is entirely a matter of their soteriology. "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." (Gal. 2:16) This matter is the whole matter. And whatever one might believe this means - whatever the interpretation - it must involve the warning of 1:8-9, that whoever does not preach this gospel is to be accursed. Therefore we must discover what Paul was preaching, and we must preach it with the same exclusivity and urgency as he, demolishing anything other that sets itself up against the knowledge of God. "Which is not another gospel, but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ." (Gal. 1:7)

My dear brother, and all who are reading this, the attitude that we must have is the attitude of the apostle when it concerns the doctrine of salvation. If we lose this, we lose everything. If we accept Jesse as a brother in Christ we are foolishly entertaining a false and dangerous wolf in sheep's clothing. If we frustrate the grace of God, then Christ died for nothing. If we ignore the fact that Finney taught a false gospel, then we fail to do what the holy Spirit in Paul burned to do: confront Peter to his face. How many beloved sheep are being deceived by Satan's ministers of righteousness while we fail to sound the alarm? How long will it take before we realize the gospel is non-negotiable? Like Josef said, this is not about Calvinism/Arminianism. This is not about Romans 9, 10 and 11... this is about Romans 1, 2 and 3, and if we as Christians drop the ball here, we don't have the right to be called Christians.

"It is fine to be zealous, provided the purpose is good." (Gal. 4:18 NIV)

"Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God." (Rom. 10:1-3)

For the cross of Christ,
-Eli


_________________
Eli Brayley

 2009/11/8 0:06Profile
Laviver
Member



Joined: 2009/1/11
Posts: 98


 Re:

Wow. Solid post Eli_Barnabas.

 2009/11/8 0:34Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy