• 19
    May 20th, 2012 @ 7:34 am by Kevin

    Dr. Morey’s closing words:

    Leave the Christian Church…. Stop cluttering up the pews. We who remain will be in revival the moment you hit the door because the greatest hindrance to revival and reformation are the dead beat unregenerate humanists who clutter up the churches – shouldn’t be here because you don’t submit to the Scriptures – you shouldn’t be here. You have your own religion. Good, go for it! Then you will know that you are in need of a Savior.

    Received this courtesy the folks at Hope Beyond Hell.


leave a comment on this post (19 Comments)

  1. I got physically sick when I watched this. disgusting.

  2. Lee Schwartzrock May 20, 2012 at 10:19 am

    8The Lord is gracious and compassionate,

    slow to anger and rich in love.

    9The Lord is good to all;

    he has compassion on all he has made. (Psalm 145)

    Don’t be so sure you fully understand the Bible! Can you explain this?

    32For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all. (Romans 11)

  3. Luckily, I saw this a year or so back so when I listen to it this time, the shock is minimized. The discomfort he gave me and gives first-time listeners is to be expected. A person who doesn’t get shocked after hearing something like is means he isn’t listening. No one comes out of the womb with this understanding of God.

    I am familiar with a fella very similar to this one. His name is Paul Washer and I can’t thank him enough for setting me straight in my thinking about God and man. Here is a great link: http://bit.ly/Kxoebl

    The last 5 seconds of my link and the last sentence of the video above is the climax and ultimate message of the two videos. Both Morey and Washer are not moody, staunch, Calvinist intellectuals that couldn’t care less about other people. I would argue they care about other people more than most others including me. Their preaching and exegesis proves it.

    To change gears and conclude, I appreciate how Morey rephrases the question in the video. “Does God love anybody?” The humbled and non-entitled attitude behind that questions is appropriate when coming before God for revelation.

    Thanks again.

  4. I watched part of this over at http://www.hopebeyondhell.net , but I couldn’t finish it. It was just too painful. I don’t enjoy being angry, and I was becoming very, very angry . . . >:(

    • Cindy, nobody enjoys being angry. However we need to be sometimes. Do you not burn when you hear of terrible injustices? What about heresy? (if you even ackowledge such a thing exists) When people blaspheme God, does that not anger you? If not, you are of a different spirit than God, the prophets, Jesus, the Psalmists…pretty much every righteous person who ever lived.

  5. Wow, physical sickness for sure. His problem, is he uses a few verses that use some catch phrases that he thinks justifies his truth, but he forgets all of the Bible that builds up what the character and nature of God is, and therefore negates all of what he had to say. Those verses could indicate something like that except that they do not testify to Gods character. The other problem, is he defines “hated” and “anger” as “doesn’t love”. I have been angry at people that I love. If true love that is taught for us is to love our enemies, how are we expected to do something that God doesn’t? How is that becoming more like Him? If Christian maturity is learning unconditional love even for those we would hate, and that doesn’t come from a Jesus who modeled that love, then our faith is in shambles. He is literally saying we then get to choose who we love and who we should hate as God does. “does not even a wicked man know how to give good gifts to his children?” what seperates our God from any other deity or human, is His ability to unconditionally love. If its got conditions, we have no standard of what love is. It has been shattered.

  6. I, too, cringe at Morey’s smugness and disdain for non-Calvinist believers. That being said, his message is a LOT closer to correct than MANY preachers today would like to think. This reminds me of a hypothetical choice I cooked up once: If I had to be stuck on the proverbial desert island with the sermons on one man to listen to and the choice was between Fred Phelps (Westboro Baptist Church) or Joel Osteen, I would not hesitate a single nanosecond…I would choose Phelps. It is far more accurate to present God as angry, vengeful and jealous than the sappy, all-inclusive, mindless love machine so many have invented and erected in His place.

  7. This guy shows a complete misunderstanding of what God’s wrath is and how it functions.

    Gods wrath is not judgment from a punitive judge, but rather correction from a loving parent that refuses to give up on his/her children and bears with them correcting them in order to bring them from a bad place full of misery to a good place full of joy and dancing.

    In Hebrews 10: 30 where the writer says “the lord will judge his people” and “to me belongs vengeance, I will recompense” he is directly quoting from Deutronomy 32. This text is entirely about God’s judgment where the Hebrew word translated as “judge” is “Mishpat” which is better translated as “vindicate”….. in other words to make right before God (in the New Testament – justification). The text later talks of the nations “shouting for joy with his people”

    In other words God’s judgment has corrected them and brought them into a good place. God’s judgment and wrath is not separate from his mercy and compassion as is clearly expressed in the prophets (especially Isaiah). It is restorative justice, being correction and restoration for the oppressor and justice for the oppressed.

    This guy also really gets Romans wrong, being that Romans 9 should not be prooftexted but rather read in context. At the beginning of Romans, in Romans 1 and 2, Paul gives us an example of how God’s wrath functions (at least in this particular context). In Romans 1 and 2 Paul clearly says that God’s wrath allows people (gives people over) to follow their own ways and go into their own depravity….. but that while this is happening God is bearing with them in patience waiting for them to repent and return to him and his mercy.

    Thus Romans 9: 21 – 24, when not prooftexted, is re-itterating this concept and fleshing it out with more depth. This is easier to see in the better translations like the Jonathon Mitchell Bible.

    It’s saying that God’s wrath allows people to go their own ways into their destruction (meaning personal loss), and dishonour…..but when they repent and come back to him they will have an intimate understanding of his mercy, and become vessels of honour and glory.

    These Calvinistic types have this text wrong. The vessels of honour and dishonour mentioned in Romans 9:21 are not two different people, one group chosen for God’s wrath, and the other for God’s glory, but rather the same person.

    The person who is the vessel of dishonour BECOMES the vessel of honour. This can be seen in 2 Timothy 2: 20-22 where Paul describes the concept of the vessels in some detail. In 2 Timothy the vessel of dishonour is purged and becomes a vessel of honour “hallowed and useful to the owner”.

    So in Romans Paul is talking about the same concepts. God wrath allows people to go their own ways and become vessels of dishonour fit for destruction (personal loss), but God is patient and longsuffering with them, so that when they repent and cry out for God’s mercy they become vessels of honour, with an intimate understanding of God’s mercy that they never would have had if they never had have followed their own paths into their own depravity. Thus God’s wrath (in this sense) has allowed them to go their own ways into sin, and in the end they learn their lessons the hard way, but also learned about God’s mercy in a truly deep way. They have learned about the horror of sin and the depth of God’s mercy.

    So when people repent and come back to God and his mercy they become vessels of glory, having an intimate understanding of God’s mercy…. and thus a deep understanding of God’s grace and love, that they never would have had if they had not gone astray.

    So to re-itterate God’s wrath allowing people to go into sin and depravity ultimately leads to people crying out for his mercy and then having and intimate understanding of his mercy leading to a deep understanding of God’s grace and love.

    The fall didn’t fool God….Sin hasn’t fooled a loving God….. it is ultimately the path to mercy through justice.

    Therefore what Paul is saying in Romans 9: 20 – 24 lines up with what he’s said earlier in Romans about God’s wrath….. it lines up with what he’s said about the vessels of honour and dishonour in 2 Timothy….. and it lines up with what he says later in Romans about God locking ALL up in sin that he may be merciful to ALL.

    It lines up with the ultimate reconciliation text of Romans 5.

    Also God’s character, ways and wrath don’t change in the afterlife….. any afterlife judgment is still a path to mercy through justice. He will eventually be merciful to ALL just as Romans declares.

    This fits with a loving God’s great plans for ALL of the human race, where justice and mercy kiss, and “mercy triumphs over judgment”…. just as the scriptures say.

    Dr. Morey’s exegesis of God’s wrath as set forth in Romans is a bunch of nonsense, and anybody who is truly in tune with their conscience (which Paul says in Romans is in tune with God’s law) knows it. Him and his ilk are like the Pharisees, in that they know the scriptures (or think they do), but I have to question if one can really tuly know Jesus Christ and his love, and say things like Dr Morey has espoused.

    • Thank you for this thorough response, Christopher. I suspect you’ve been reading Thomas Talbott. He makes a similar argument.

      • Yes. I’ve read Talbott’s book. But this understanding I expressed actually came later when I started reading through the very good “Jonathon Mitchell bible”, and realized that in Romans 9 the two vessels are the same person. In this understanding the pieces start to fall together more and more. I started studying ultimate reconciliation several years ago after Holy Spirits leading (one of the first books I read was Brad Jersak’s – which I understand you edited), and have come to see more and more that the better Bible translations (and they are growing in number) do not teach eternal hell.

        When one looks at the scriptures through the understanding that I’ve expressed above then the “pieces fit”, as the say.

        It probably goes with out saying that in Dr. Morey’s understanding a whole lot of pieces don’t fit. 🙂

        • Oh…. and as well he made the typical Calvinist argument that In John 3: 16 “the world” is meaning those that Jesus died for, being in their understanding, only the “elect”.

          But earlier on in John the writer cleary says

          John 1: 10

          “In the world He was, and the world came into being through Him, and the world knew Him not. To His own He came and those Who are his own accepted him not.”

          So if “the world” that he came for is only the “elect” that are Christians…. then one has to ask… how is it that he came to those who are his own (the world), who DIDN’T accept him?

          John 1: 10 clearly shows what John’s understanding of “the world” is…. it’s everybody, including those who rejected Christ (in this particular case many of the Jewish people).

          So if the world is everybody then there is this part of John 3 to consider.

          “For God does not dispatch His Son into the world that He should be judging the world, but that the World may be saved through him.”

          I actually agree with Dr. Morey about something. God IS going to save “the world”. 🙂

          Otherwise Jesus will have failed God in his task

          I think that guys like Dr. Morey know that if Jesus isn’t going to save the world that he’s failed in the task set before him, but of course their understanding of “the world” being only the elect makes it so that their view of a sovereign God, who can surely accomplish all he has set out to do, remains intact.

          Yet John 1:10 crumbles this theology showing that these neo-Calvinists like Dr. Morey are wrong in their understanding of who “the world” is….. which means that either they are wrong in their understanding of eternal hell, or in their their understanding of God’s sovereignity. This is because if their understanding of God’s sovereignity is right, then God’s got to save everyone…. which would mean that their understanding of eternal hell is wrong.

          Of course then, if their understanding of eternal hell is right then their understanding of God’s sovereignity is wrong.

          Dr. Morey’s theology doesn’t crumble before just “mystics”, “tender hearts”, and such, it crumbles before the Bible (and easily I might add). The “mystics” and “tender hearts” are the people who are also picking up on what Holy Spirit is saying, and who are tuned into their consciences (which as I pointed out are tuned into God’s laws). Every one of these sources of God’s truth cries out against Dr. Morey’s theology.

          • Christopher, it basically comes down to word games, if the word ALL is used in a positive sense, then it means only the elect. If the word ALL is used in a negative sense, then it means everybody without exception.

  8. Hi Robert.

    I’m not sure what you are getting at? Are you saying that you agree that All means All of mankind, or that it can sometimes mean only a few and at other times mean All of mankind depending on its context?

    FWIW…. One of my Bibles says the following about All.

    The Greek word pas (all) is both masculine and neuter in some of its forms. With many translations you will only find the neuter rendered, for example with a plural “all things”. This version gives renderings of botht he neuter and the masculine, when such is the case, translating the masculine as “people; humanity; or mankind” and example of this is found in 1 Corinthians 13:

    “Love continuously covers all mankind; it is habitually loyal to all humanity; it constantly has and expectation for all mankind; it is continuously remaining under and giving support to all people. (Or, since “all” can also be neuter; It progressively puts a protecting roof over all things; it is habiually trusting in, and believing for, all things; it is continually hoping in or for all things; it keeps on patiently enduring all things)”

    So with this understanding of pas (all) in mind this particular Bible translates Romans 11: 32 (It seems – here, understanding All to be set forth in it’s masculine form) as the following.

    “For you see, God encloses, shuts up and locks all mankind (everyone; the entire lot of folks) into incompliance, to the end that He could (or; would should) mercy all mankind (may make everyone, the all, recipients of mercy)!’

    • Just thought of another thing worth mentioning. Early Christian fathers such as Gregory of Nyssa, Origen, Macrina, etc. spoke, read, and thought in the Koine Greek language that the Bible was written in. The were highly educated people, and Koine Greek was their mother language.

      In their writings there are places, including in their understanding of 1Corinthians 21-28, where they clearly expressed their understanding of All in this scripture to mean All of humanity, not just the elect.

      In this whole “eternal hell debate” so many using our philosophy to understand words such as “all”….. as well as philosophy to try to help understand words such as aionos (the use of philosophy to understand Aionos seems to have began with Augustine). The early Greek Christians didn’t need to use philosophy to understand what these words meant, any more than I would need to use philosophy to understand what the word “computer” means. The Greek was their mother language and they clearly new what these words said and they clearly expressed this in their writings.

      They understood All to mean all mankind and ain/os to mean age or ages.

      The following is taken from the book “Christianity and Classical culture” in it’s glossary of Greek technical terms.

      “Gregory of Nyssa (in his writings) maintains a clear distinction between the terms aeonios (from aeon) and aidios (from aei.) He never applies the second term to the torments, and he never applies the first term to bliss or the Deity. “Aei” designates that which is superior to time or outside of time. This is the sphere of the Divinity. Creation however, abides within time and can be measured by the passing of the centuries. Aeon designates temporality, that which occurs within time”.

      As well a quick quote from the Greek speaking Clement of Alexandria.

      “”He, indeed, saves ALL; but some (He saves) converting them by punishments; others, however, who follow voluntarily (He saves) with dignity of honour; so that every knee should bow to Him, of things in heaven, and things on earth, and things under the earth, that is, angels, men and souls that before His advent have departed from this temporal life (Strom. 7.16).”

      Now some have argued that Clement’s use of All meant All who believe in Christ, being not just the “Orthodox” Christians but also the heretical Gnostic Christians of his time. But this view doesn’t stand up in the understanding that Clement believed the early text “the Apocalypse of Peter” to be divinely inspired scripture….. and “the Apocalypse of Peter” clearly and irrefutably says that God is going to save and have mercy on everyone (being all of mankind).

      • Christopher, I agree with you. Here is an example of how they play the game. For as in Adam all (All humanity regardless) die, so also in Christ shall all ( Only the elect) be made alive. 1 Cor 15:22

        • Oh good.

          Yes. I know. My argument to that would be Romans 5 use of the word “many”

          Romans 5: 16-17

          “For if by the offense of the one the MANY died, much rather the grace of God and the gratuity in grace, which is of the One man Jesus Christ to the MANY superabounds.”

          Romans 5:19

          “For even as, through the diobedience of the one man, the MANY were constituted sinners, thus also, through the obedience of the One, the MANY shall be constituted just.”

          So here they have the same problem with All… being that they have to change the word MANY to also have two meanings in the same sentence. But this can’t be …. because Romans 5: 17 says the the grace superabounds to this MANY that they would want to consider to be only the “elect” Christians.

          Yet later on it says that “where sin increases, grace superexeeds” So grace is superexeeding to anybody that is sinning……and Romans 5:7 says that the Grace is superexeeding to this MANY….. which is anybody that is sinning,…..and therefore not just the elect.

          So these folks don’t just have to contend with Romans 5 using the word “ALL” in the context of all mankind being saved. They also have to contend with it’s use of “the MANY” in this very same context.

          Plus moving to 1Corinthians 15…. I’d ask people who believe that one use of ALL means just “Christians”….. then what about 15:26 where it says that God will be “placing ALL of his enemies under his feet………. for he subjects ALL under his feet……. now whenever ALL may be subjected to him then the son himself will be subjected to him”

          You see here the ALL is used in the context of “ALL of God’s enemies”….. which surely isn’t meaning just Christians. The text says that ALL of these people will be subjected under Christ’s feet. So of course some would argue that this subjection is punitive punishment of God’s enemies…… but this cannot be….. because in this text Christ is later included in this same subjection to the father, after the ALL, and it is clear that at the end of time Christ is not going to be subjected to the father in a punitive judgment way, but rather in loving submission.

          So This text is clear from several different angles….. All of God’s enemies will be subjected to God in the same subjection that Jesus will be….. Which is loving subjection to the father.

          This view of ALL having different meanings is a hard one to buy into.

  9. PuddleglumsWager May 23, 2012 at 6:13 pm

    Is the Calvinist God worth worshiping? Is it possible to love this God with all my heart? I certainly cannot. Therefore I reject this God with loathing. If I am wrong, Calvinists believe their God will torment me forever while they look on with rejoicing. I suspect this tells me more about Calvinists than about the true God.

You decide where Hellbound? Releases

Want to be among the first people to see Hellbound? Demand the movie in your city and help spread the word. The more requests we get from your city, the sooner we'll release there.

Demand The Movie

Links to external site