Mother Teresa and Biblical Christianity
The first time I spoke out against Mother Teresa is when I saw her picture on the front cover on Christianity Today. I checked her background, beliefs and supposed good works, and came to the conclusion that she was more a demon than she was a saint; and that she was an anti-Christ and an apostate if there ever was one. I went on my radio program and gave my opinion that she was a fraud. Of course, I was attacked by the evangelical media for being mean, unloving, and unkind. The natural theologians such as Frank Pastore, Greg Koukl, J. P. Moreland, etc. gushed over Mother Teresa like teenage girls over a pop-star. She was praised and honored throughout the evangelical world, and I was the “lone voice in the wilderness” warning people that she was a fraud.If you have not been watching the news, then you no doubt missed the fact that a new biography of Mother Teresa has been published. The author is a Roman Catholic who was granted permission to study her written documents. Now that Mother Teresa has been canonized a saint, everything she wrote has been archived. What did this official biography reveal?
Mother Teresa had become an agnostic many, many years ago. Not only did she doubt the existence of God and of Jesus, but she finally came to the position that doubt was the only thing her soul possessed. She never preached the gospel or talked about Jesus to her Hindu, Muslim, or Sikh patients. She herself had no assurance of faith and no assurance of hope.
I watched to see if the evangelical natural theologians, who had praised her as an example of what it means to be a Christian, would now come to my position that she was a fraud. But, lo-and-behold, they have been busy in the evangelical media defending her doubts and agnosticism as healthy, vigorous, faith. I sat listening to the Hugh Hewitt Show, and The Frank Pastore Show, on KKLA, telling their audiences that Mother Teresa was a great Christian because she had her doubts that God existed. Various magazines have come out and stated that Mother Teresa was a great woman because she admitted her doubts, and we ought to follow her example by admitting that we also doubt God, the Bible, and the Gospel. One evangelical radio program in LA devoted an entire program to have Christian people call in, and explain how they doubt the existence of God, the inspiration of Scripture, the Trinity, and the Deity of Christ. The host boasted that he was as honest as the saint Mother Teresa, because he had the same kind of doubts she had.
I picked up my cell phone and called the program, and was told that they would not accept calls from people who were not honest about their doubts. I had told her that I had “full assurance of faith” (Heb 10:22), and “full assurance of hope” (Heb 6:11). I was prepared to quote 2 Tim 1:12, 1 John 5:13, and Rom. 8:38-39, that the true believer has absolute confidence and assurance not only that God exists but that he is a child of God, his sins forgiven, and he is on his way to Heaven. I was told that I was dishonest by claiming I have full assurance of faith.
After reflection, I now clearly see that natural theology cannot give assurance of faith or hope to anyone. They can only claim that what they believe is probably true. I am so happy that I can confess full assurance of faith and hope.
This is why you must understand why natural theology and natural law are unbiblical and fraudulent. If you have not audited or taken the course on Natural Theology, you should do so in the light of how the natural theologians have canonized a woman who was devoid of faith or hope. Please continue to pray for me as I write a major book refuting natural theology. It will probably be the size of my work on the Trinity, and will be quite controversial as I tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
29 Comments, Comment or Ping
Josh in AK
AMEN Dr. Morey! I recently received your audio on Natural Theology, and I’m excited to hear this one to say the least.
I can’t tell you how glad I am and thankful to you for taking the time here.
Your teachings have been excactly what I have needed, I’ve learned more in the past year and a half than I have learned my whole life! I thank God for raising you up to speak the truth without exception.
God bless you Dr. Morey!
Oct 4th, 2007
Dr. Robert Morey
Thank you. I am so use to people throwing rocks at me that a few roses are a surprise. Those who do not compromise have a rough sea to sail today. But with God’s help, we will sail to heaven’s shore with flags waving.
Oct 5th, 2007
Tim A. Blankenship
I too have always had a problem with all the elation and praise given to “Teresa”. When anyone prays to someone other than to the Father through Jesus Christ I believe their supposed faith needs questioned.
Thanks for writing about this.
T.A.
Oct 6th, 2007
Glenn Hendrickson
Where is the documentation for Mother Teresa’s agnosticism? did she write a book or are there any online articles? I would be interested to read about it. People should accept the evidence as it is (both about Teresa and about the Scriptural understanding of assurance and doubting).
-glenn
Oct 7th, 2007
Steve
Thank you, Dr. Morey, for that excellent commentary on Mother Teresa’s beliefs.
Thanks for your willingness to take the slings and arrows of outrageous criticism as you seek to encourage us all to completely submit our minds to Truth as revealed in Scripture.
We do a disservice if we don’t clearly articulate the beliefs that condemn a person in Scripture. Thnak you for your faithfulness in this. Excellent article!
Oct 20th, 2007
Stephen Macasil
Joseph,
“Remember what Francis of Assisi said: Preach the Gospel. If necessary, use words.”
Perhaps you’ve misunderstood Frank’s point. The “if necessary, use words” is because when he preached the gospel, he did so with howls, barks, grunts, whistles etc. That is how one MUST preach if he or she is to preach to animals. When dealing with humans, the howls, barks, grunts, whistles etc., are insufficient means of communication because when communicating to humans, the “use of words” gets the point across best.
Anxiety and Jesus?
No.
Download Morey’s sermons on anxiety so that you may learn something that will benefit you the rest of your days.
Start with these http://faithdefenders.com/podcasts/august/
Also, you have no idea about Morey’s experiences. Are you not arrogant and petty to criticize him?
Oct 26th, 2007
Joseph D'Hippolito
Dr. Morey, you should remember the following:
1. Mother Teresa has not yet been formally canonized. The late pope removed a lot of impediments to her possible canonization but that’s certainly not the same thing as being canonized.
2. The Catholic Church published these writings against her expressed wishes that she made while she was alive. The fact that the church did this is despicable. Private papers are private papers and churches are not totalitarian states.
3. I would like you to consider the following: If you had to confront the kind of pervasive, incorrigible poverty and human distress that she had to confront in Calcutta day in and day out for nearly 50 years, how would you react spiritually? Isn’t it just possible that, if she had the kind of superficial “faith” that many evangelicals promote these days (i.e., take two Scripture verses and call me in the morning and don’t bother me with your personal pain), that she never would have been able to influence anybody for God? How do you know that not one Hindu became a Christian because of her and her orders’ work? Remember what Francis of Assisi said: Preach the Gospel. If necessary, use words.
Besides, even Jesus wept at Lazarus’ death. Even Jesus wept at the fate of Jerusalem. Even Jesus experienced tremendous anxiety and outright terror at Gethsemane. Even Jesus cried out on the cross, “My God, why have you forsaken me?”
Dr. Morey, you have every right to criticize and challenge Catholic beliefs and practices. Many need to be challenged. However, you become arrogant and petty when you do so by criticizing somebody about whose experiences you couldn’t possibly have any idea.
Oct 27th, 2007
Becky
To Joseph, i would just like to say that someone doesn’t have to go through poverty to trust in God’s revealed Word. Look at Paul, sitting in jail and praising God. He wasn’t doubting the existence of God. Read the Bible; it’s great.
Oct 27th, 2007
Joseph D'Hippolito
Becky, I have studied the Bible thoroughly. Of course, nobody has to go through physical poverty to trust in God’s revealed Word. But the same Spirit that inspired that Word also inspired the Messiah to proclaim, “blessed are the poor in spirit, for they shall see God. Nobody can deny that Mother Teresa was poor in spirit (in every sense of that term, not just physically).
Stephen Macacil, several points:
1. If you seriously believe that Dr. Morey (or any other preacher, theologan, priest, etc.) has endured what Mother Teresa endured to the point that she endured it, then I think you discount the degree of suffering that the people of Calcutta experienced.
You also discount the following idea: Perhaps Teresa underwent what she did at God’s urging and under God’s direction to make her more empathetic to those she served.
2. Moreover, your blithe comments about Francis reveal how little you and your fellow travellers understand about God’s demands. God wants His redeemed to act and act according to His Will, not just preach. I John and I Peter are full of such admontions to Christians, along with Paul’s epistles to the Romans and Corinthians (first book).
Some of you quasi-Calvinists are so afraid of acting or sounding like Those Evil Catholics that you substitute your own man-made traditions for God’s Word. One of those is denying the necessity to act in a Christian manner toward the vulnerable. Or have you not read the parable of the good Samaritan. For some of you, substituting the word “Catholic” for “Samaritan” accenutates the point.
#. Finally, regarding “anxiety and Jesus,” don’t you realize that the Messiah experienced the breath and depth of the human condition (except sin) not only so He could be the perfect kinsman redeemer but also so He could be the perfect heavenly high priest who is well-acquainted with our sorrows and pain, as the letter to the Hebrews states?
Some of you should stop listening to other people and start reading Scripture for yourselves, without Dr. Morey’s (or anybody else’s) filters.
Oct 27th, 2007
Stephen Macasil
Joseph D’Hippolito,
1. You are the one who said “However, you become arrogant and petty when you do so by criticizing somebody about whose experiences you couldn’t possibly have any idea.” The question to you was whether or not you were doing the same to Morey as you judged him for doing to Teresa. Based on your own initial response here, unless you do in fact have an idea of Morey’s experiences, to judge him makes you a hypocrite.
Yes, I discounted that idea.
2. Francis believed that the entire creation needed to hear the gospel, including dogs, trees and clouds. So it makes sense that he would sometimes include using words to preach the gospel, if necessary. Hardly a good example.
Since you’ve stooped so low as to revert to name calling and ad-hominem, answering “the fool” in this case is unwise.
#. I am glad to see that you believe Jesus was without sin. How many times did Jesus himself say: Do not be anxious?” Would it not be sin to disobey a command from Jesus? I think it would be. In Ph. 4:6 Paul gives the imperative “do not be anxious about anything.” To classify the person and work of Jesus as being with anxiety refutes your own statement that he was without sin.
Your argument is stupid because from it, one can conclude that he was also a homosexual and a fornicator.
Then you said “Some of you should stop listening to other people and start reading Scripture for yourselves, without Dr. Morey’s (or anybody else’s) filters.” Joseph, should we listen to you and do that?
You are guilty of hypocritical and unrighteous judgment. Happy Reformation Day!
Oct 27th, 2007
Joseph D'Hippolito
Well, according to your reasoning, Stephen, Christ’s “sweating blood” at Gethsemane and His anguish to His Father on the cross was nothing but playacting. In fact, according to your reasoning, any suffering that Jesus experienced was nothing but playacting.
That suffering is a fact that not even the most arrogant Calvinist can ignore.
So, according to your reasoning, Jesus was not “fully man,” merely “fully God.”
How does it feel to be in the company of heretics, Macasil?
Oct 27th, 2007
Stephen Macasil
You’re also guilty of equivocation: anxiety/suffering
Oct 27th, 2007
Joseph D'Hippolito
Moreover, Stephen, why else would Christ say “Father, let this cup pass from me” while at Gethsemane?
That didn’t express a normal, natural anxiety? If you find such anxiety sinful, Stephen, then may God help anybody in your congregation who is depressed, sad and overwhelmed by fear — because, by God, you and your Reformationist purists won’t do it.
Your answers reveal to me that the quasi-Calvinism that you and others on this thread profess is nothing different that what the church at Ephesus in Revelations 2 professed. You “know” a lot of things and you’re “proud” (in the fullest biblical sense) of your “orthodoxy”. There’s just one thing: You’ve forgotten your first love. You may have a head for Christ but you have no heart for Christ. I don’t mean that in the gooey, hyperemotional, sentimentalist sense of mamy churches today. I mean that in the sense that you have lost any empathy for the suffering and the vulnerable. Instead, you try to fit anybody who tried to help them yet who’s “theologically incorrect” (according to your terms) into your straightjacket. Indeed, you and your kind seem to worship the Reformation and the Reformers more than Christ; you do the exact same thing that you claim the Catholics are doing regarding saints!
Otherwise, why would you react the way you did when I pointed out that the redeemed have the obligation from God (as expressed in I John and elsewhere) to concern themselves with the vulnerable? Why else would you react the way I did when I suggested substituting the world “Catholic” for “Samaritan” in the parable dedicated to that noble man whom Christ Himself edified, even though he was part of a group of despised people?
The next time you decide to criticize a critic, Stephen, look in the mirror first. Given your responses, there’s much to examine.
Oct 27th, 2007
Joseph D'Hippolito
You’re also guilty of equivocation: anxiety/suffering
First, if you don’t believe that anxiety is a form of suffering, then you have no insight into the human condition. Second, if you believe that equating anxiety and suffering is equivocation, then you have no knowledge of words. Equivocating is saying one thing and then backtracking, such as Sen. John Kerry saying that he voted for that $87 million before he voted against it. I certainly wasn’t doing that. And you’re trying to make a living using words?
It’s like Dr. Morey trying to say that Mother Teresa was made a “saint” when no such thing happened yet. Yes, she was beatified but that’s an entirely different thing. There might not be a dime’s worth of difference between the two definitions but the definitions exist. All you have to do is go to a dictionary.
Really, gentlemen, if you are going to be taken seriously as theological commentators, the least you can do is get your terms right.
Oct 27th, 2007
Stephen Macasil
Joseph, I am not able to answer your questions since they begin with false assumptions.
If you look at what I said, you’ll see that I refused to answer “the fool” that Proverbs 26:4 speaks of. In this case it’s you, a name calling, hypocrite that judges unrighteously (Matt. 7:1-6, John 7:24)! Repent of your ways and I will be delighted to have meaningful dialogue with you.
Anxiety:
Jesus Christ revealed to Paul what he revealed to us in Scripture.
Paul gave the imperative “do not be anxious for anything,” something that is consistent with what Jesus taught.
Paul’s cure for anxiety was prayer and supplication with thanksgiving, and making your requests known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus.
“Let this cup pass from me” does not imply anxiety. Jesus, in his earthly ministry, commanded “do not be anxious.” To ascribe anxiety to him is to charge him with sin.
As for those in our congregation that suffer depression, are sad and overwhelmed by fear, yes, amen, may God help them, for only He can!
The mirror lies, I examine myself by Scripture.
What is your point in all this? Are you on the prowl for an argument? Where did you get your delusions that you accuse me of? No heart for Christ? Lost empathy for the suffering and vulnerable?
The charges against you stand Joseph. You’re a name calling hypocrite that judges unrighteously. The log, it’s that thing in your eye!
Oct 27th, 2007
Stephen Macasil
Joseph,
The term “equivocation” refers to a logical fallacy that you are guilty of.
Please see the following syllogism:
Anxiety is a form of suffering.
Jesus suffered.
Therefore, Jesus suffered anxiety.
Your argument is fallacious because you equivocate Jesus’ suffering with all known forms of suffering. Since all known forms of suffering include anxiety, your conclusion is that Jesus experienced anxiety, tremendous anxiety.
This assertion flies in the face of what is revealed in Scripture.
Yes, anxiety is a form of suffering. It is a form of suffering that reflects a distorted view of the sovereignty of God in all things. Thank God that he has provided a cure (Ph. 4:4-7)!
Oct 27th, 2007
Joseph D'Hippolito
Stephen, I don’t give two micrograms of dessicated rat droppings about your “charges.” The reason you don’t want to answer my questions isn’t becuase they are based on “false assumptions”; it’s because I’ve hit a nerve of truth that you and your quasi-Calvinist fellow travellers have long ago anesthetized out of your own arrogance and cowardice.
The fact of the matter is that you misuse Scripture to support your Calvinist man-made tradition of Superman Jesus, which flies in the face of all legitimate biblical analysis (such as Isaiah’s prophecy of the Messiah being a “man of sorrows”). It flies in the face of Christ’s own life, which you and your mentor have successfuly caricatured by stuffing it into a bunch of confessional statements and theological propositions.
Moreover, your discounting of the suffering of those in Calcutta (which is a separate issue from Mother Teresa’s reaction to it or whatever doubts she experienced) opposes the biblical ideal (enunciated in the OT) of protecting and providing for the vulnerable. What do you think the OT’s laws gleaning at harvest time were about, among other things?
What most frustrates you is the fact that my arguments reflect the totality of Scripture more than yours do, especially since you pride yourself on your biblical “knowledge,” for you cannot respond to them except with irrelevant snipets.
And if you think my attitude is “judgemental,” remember what Jeremiah, Ezekiel and even Christ Himself said about the self-promoting religious authorities of their respective eras. Compared to them, I am relatively gentle.
Oct 28th, 2007
Stephen Macasil
Joseph,
Like many sympathizers of Rome, you are irrational and temperamental. You are unable to deal with the fact of your logical fallacies, therefore you attack my character. That’s argumentum ad hominem, an old trick.
Why don’t you read everything again, notice your irrationality and stupidity like the rest of the world does, and then post a response? In doing so, you should notice that in several places you make reference to something that I never said. These are delusions. You have imagined that I said something and responded to what you imagined. That is why when I and everyone read them they appear to be entirely illogical.
Here are some examples:
1. You wrote to me: “You also discount the following idea: Perhaps Teresa underwent what she did at God’s urging and under God’s direction to make her more empathetic to those she served.”
Show me where you got this information from. If it cannot be produced, then you have made an unrighteous judgment. John 7:24 says not to do that.
1. You also said: “Some of you quasi-Calvinists are so afraid of acting or sounding like Those Evil Catholics that you substitute your own man-made traditions for God’s Word. One of those is denying the necessity to act in a Christian manner toward the vulnerable. Or have you not read the parable of the good [sic] Samaritan. For some of you, substituting the word “Catholic” for “Samaritan” accentuates [sic] the point.”
Demonstrate how I am a “quasi-Calvinist.”
Demonstrate how I am so afraid of sounding like “Those Evil Catholics.” Show me where I referred to Roman Catholics as “Those Evil Catholics.” Give examples of man-made traditions that I have substituted for God’s Word. From what did you learn that I deny the necessity to act in a Christian manner toward the vulnerable?
Prove your judgment of me that I have lost my first love.
Prove that I have lost empathy for the suffering and the vulnerable.
Provide at least one example of my worship to any Reformer that is exactly like a Catholic worshipping a saint.
Refute this syllogism:
1. Anxiety is a form of suffering.
Jesus suffered.
Therefore, Jesus suffered anxiety.
Your argument is fallacious because you equivocate Jesus’ suffering with all known forms of suffering. Since all known forms of suffering include anxiety, your conclusion is that Jesus experienced anxiety, tremendous anxiety.
Then we can possibly get to your last comment which is full of the same false charges, ad hominem attacks, irrationality, logical fallacies etc.
As it stands, regardless of what you think, you’re an idiot! That charge against you is proven and can be evaluated by anyone who reads this page. You make false claims based on false assumptions and answer back to false arguments. You sound like an insane person with imaginary friends. Setting up a straw man, knocking him down and claiming victory over him is one of the most underhanded tactics a sympathizer of Rome like you can do.
Oct 28th, 2007
Joseph D'Hippolito
“You also discount the following idea: Perhaps Teresa underwent what she did at God’s urging and under God’s direction to make her more empathetic to those she served.”
Stephen, you consider that an unrighteous judgement based on, what, exactly? Again, you show that you have no understanding of words. “Perhaps” indicates possibility. Didn’t Jesus suffer such agony on the Cross so He could (among other reasons) fully identify with the human condition as our Heavenly High Priest, as Hebrews says? Didn’t Jesus also suffer the agony of various kinds of suffering associated with living on this planet — poverty, deliberate misrepresentation of his ideas, being abandoned by His friends, etc.? If Mother Teresa spent nearly half a century caring for those in abysmal poverty and disease, wouldn’t she need to empathize with such people? This is not to equate, let alone compare, Jesus with Mother Teresa. Nevertheless, Proverbs says that those who offer cheerful songs to those undergoing distress are like those who rub salt in wounds.
Besides, despite her apparently weak faith, Mother Teresa kept at it and kept a her work for decades before she received public recogniztion, so she certainly wasn’t in it for herself. And, in the end, she never abandoned Christ when she easily could have; others have done so under far less strain.
2. Anxiety is a form of suffering. Jesus suffered.
Therefore, Jesus suffered anxiety. Your argument is fallacious because you equivocate Jesus’ suffering with all known forms of suffering. Since all known forms of suffering include anxiety, your conclusion is that Jesus experienced anxiety, tremendous anxiety.
Your syllogism is fallacious because it runs counter to the truth express in Scripture.
My “fallacious” argument is based on Scripture (just read my previous comments on this thread); your counter-argument is not only non-biblical but anti-biblical. If Jesus did not suffer anxiety during His prayerful time at Gethsemene, then what did he undergo? Why would he need to ask His closest disciples to pray with Him? Why would He “sweat blood”? On the cross, how could He proclaim, “My God, why have you abandoned me?” and not suffer from anxiety, particularly with the full weight of sin bearing down upon Him?
You have had ample opportunity to provide biblically based counter-explanations, yet you haven’t. Is it just possible that you can’t, because those counter-explanations don’t exist?
You also said: “Some of you quasi-Calvinists are so afraid of acting or sounding like Those Evil Catholics that you substitute your own man-made traditions for God’s Word. One of those is denying the necessity to act in a Christian manner toward the vulnerable. Or have you not read the parable of the good [sic] Samaritan. For some of you, substituting the word “Catholic” for “Samaritan” accentuates [sic] the point.”
Demonstrate how I am a “quasi-Calvinist.”
Demonstrate how I am so afraid of sounding like “Those Evil Catholics.” Show me where I referred to Roman Catholics as “Those Evil Catholics.” Give examples of man-made traditions that I have substituted for God’s Word. From what did you learn that I deny the necessity to act in a Christian manner toward the vulnerable?
Prove your judgment of me that I have lost my first love.
Prove that I have lost empathy for the suffering and the vulnerable.
Provide at least one example of my worship to any Reformer that is exactly like a Catholic worshipping a saint.
Well, Stephen. you are afraid of sounding like “Those Evil Catholics” because you and your fellow travellers consider Catholics evil. You can start by defending the following:
(Dr. Morey) checked her background, beliefs and supposed good works, and came to the conclusion that she was more a demon than she was a saint; and that she was an anti-Christ and an apostate if there ever was one.
It is one thing to refute Catholic theology; it’s quite another to condemn somebody to Hell, as Dr. Morey does with Mother Teresa. If I have made an unrighteous judgement regarding you or Dr. Morey, then Dr. Morey made a far more unrighteous one, based essentially on nothing but his own willfullness and agenda.
You do not refute Dr. Morey’s statement. Therefore, I assume you accept it and agree with it.
There’s also Dr. Morey’s comments about Frank Beckwith: I saw the tails and teeth of Beckwith years ago and gave the alarm that he was more papist than evangelical.
In case you don’t know, Stephen, calling a Cathoic a “papist” is the same thing as calling a Jew a “kike” or a black man a “nigger.” Dr. Morey can express his disgruntlement and disagreement without such bigotry and arrogant puffing up.
Finally, there’s Dr. Morey’s condemndation of Mel Gibson’s “Passion Of The Christ” solely becuase part of it included the visions of a German nun, Anne Emmerich. First, any film is going to be based on a director’s vision (and I’m using that term differently than I did in the previous sentence). Second, most evangelicals neither knew nor cared about what Emmerich allegedly saw; they cared about the death of their Savior. How many evangelicals did you see rushing to Catholic churches to get baptized as the result of this film?
I realize you don’t “worship saints.” But you and your Calvinist fellow travellers have done so much to re-interpret Scripture along Calvinist lines that you effectively worship Calvin more than Christ. The Calvinist attitude toward predestiniation is one such “man-made tradition” because no other Reformation-based faith holds that (unless you want to say that Lutherans and Anabaptists are apostates, as well).
Andn to deny that this site is Calvinist is to deny that grass is green.
Regarding your lack of empathy for the vulnerable, I cite the following from earlier in this discussion:
JD: If you seriously believe that Dr. Morey (or any other preacher, theologan, priest, etc.) has endured what Mother Teresa endured to the point that she endured it, then I think you discount the degree of suffering that the people of Calcutta experienced.
SM: Yes, I discounted that idea.
I interpreted your remark to mean that you discounted the suffering of those Mother Teresa helped. I seriously doubt that Dr. Morey has ever been to Calcutta and seen for himself the desparate situation that those people lived in.
However faulty Mother Teresa’s methods and however weak her faith, nobody can seriously deny that she acted upon Christ’s commands as she best understood them. That doesn’t make her immpeccable by any stretch of the imagination. By the same token, however, that does not make her a demon or an antichrist.
I stand behind everything I said regarding your attitudes because the anti-Catholic bigotry on this site is thicker than the smoke that eminated from the recent wildfires in Southern California.
One can disagree with Catholic theology without engaging in the rhetorical bullying, self-justification and puffing up that Dr. Morey uses. Since you don’t challenge, let alone question, those tactics, I assume that you approve and agree with them.
If that’s the case, then you’ve truly lost your first love. When Christ came, He came to save sinners, not to judge them (that will happen later, as you well know). Dr. Morey seems content upon strengthening his own ego without bothering to attempt to convert “apostates” and sinners. Indeed, if such people convert, then he will have lost a chance to do what he apparently loves to do: condemn those who don’t think like him, even those who try to help the abysmally distressed, however feebly.
If Dr. Morey finds himself, “persecuted” for “telling the truth” (with is the last rhetorical recourse for all self-described victims), then it’s his own bloddy fault.
Oct 29th, 2007
Joseph D'Hippolito
One more thing, Stephen: The fact that you fail or refuse to refute my position with substantive biblical analysis, and that you fall back on an anal, inquisitorial (the irony is delightful) use of logic and even calling me an irrational and tempermental sympather of Rome merely reflects the theological and spiritual fallacy of your position.
Oct 29th, 2007
Joseph D'Hippolito
Finally, Stephen, Dr. Morey said that he “checked her backround” in the original post. Why didn’t he provide links to his “evidence”? Why does he not bother to support his claims? Or are people just supposed to take him at his word? Scripture tells Christians to “check the spirits to see which are from God,” i.e., evaluate all evidence. If Dr. Morey is correct in his assumptions, then what is he afraid of? Or, could it be that Dr. Morey is more interested in ego-gratification than the “truth” he allegedly proclaims?
Oct 29th, 2007
Stephen Macasil
Whether or nor “perhaps” indicates possibility has nothing to do with your judgment that I discounted the idea that you yourself put forth. John 7:24 implies that judging is not wrong, only wrong when it isn’t done rightly. Since you pronounced judgment on me that I discounted a particular idea that I never made the slightest reference to, but rather, you did, then it is not a right judgment and you have made an unrighteous judgment on me.
By trying to escape the biblical charge Joseph, from an argument based on the definition of a word used after the judgment has been falsely made, is like me judging you and saying that you hate Corvettes, perhaps because they only seat two. The judgment has been made that you hate Corvettes. The possibility of why you hate them or the certainty of why you hate them does not change the fact that judgment has been falsely made.
In your unrighteous judgment, lies the dangerous precursor to hypocrisy. If you remain undisciplined in assessing what you judge for a lengthy period of time, it can lead to judging freely with yourself as the origin of truth, justice, morals, meaning and beauty. This autonomous state is also known as humanism.
I called you an idiot and had irrefutable evidence that it is true.
Evidence that you are an idiot can be found in such statements as: “You do not refute Dr. Morey’s statement. Therefore, I assume you accept it and agree with it.” This is dangerous Joseph. I do not refute Hillary Clinton’s statements. Does this mean that because I do not, you have sufficient grounds to assume that I do?
See, you’re an idiot!
If you are autonomous and operate freely based on ungrounded assumptions, is it no wonder that someone call into question your epistemology?
The discussion between us began with my response to your referencing Francis of Assisi. Since Francis believed that the entire creation needed to hear the gospel, including hills, goats, and lilies, then for him to say that it is sometimes necessary to use words to communicate the gospel is no surprise since it would be more effective with humans rather than chirps, slaps, and wind noises.
I disagreed with you that Jesus suffered anxiety based on the scriptural references that record Jesus commands not to do so. If He commanded not to be anxious, to do so would be sin, something that Jesus was without, according to the Scriptures. Paul picks up on this and commands the same: do not be anxious about anything! The biblical position on anxiety is that it is sin. We all sin, all the time, but Jesus didn’t. He did suffer, that is not in dispute. I dispute that he suffered anxiety because in addition to His commands not to, and Paul’s, anxiety is a manifestation of a distorted view of God. That is why Jesus and Paul offered the cure: trust in the sovereignty of God. Paul reveals the antithesis to anxiety: the peace of God that surpasses all understanding (Ph.4).
Lastly, I pointed out a hypocritical statement that you made. You passed judgment on Dr. Morey for criticizing Teresa without knowing her experiences. I stated that you do not know all of Dr. Morey’s experiences and based on your own autonomous principles I asked you if doing the same made you arrogant and petty. It is a very clean line of argument.
From there you just shot off your mouth like a wild animal. You made so many irrational claims. Where does one begin? You have shown yourself to be someone who is very difficult to communicate with because you introduce irrelevant issues to create division. That is why I asked you what your goal in all this was. Was it to pick a fight?
You made numerous stupid statements like: “your blithe comments about Francis reveal how little you and your fellow travellers understand about God’s demands.” Where is the logic in this? How can you decipher the quantity of the understanding of God’s demands, of my “fellow travelers” and me, from my statement of Francis of Assisi? This is ridiculous reasoning.
“God wants His redeemed to act and act according to His Will, not just preach. I John and I Peter are full of such admontions [sic] to Christians, along with Paul’s epistles to the Romans and Corinthians (first book).”
This is something we fully hold to. Where is the connection between an alleged denial of this and anything that I ever wrote or said in my life? This is a straw-man, a serious logical fallacy.
All of this pseudo-intellectualism that is on display whenever you type words, of course leads to your charge against me of heresy.
First of all, in your religion, you are not authorized to make such a charge. Second, in doing so anyway, you are rebelling against your religion and your Papa in Rome. Third, I affirm that I am a heretic, as it is charged by Papists, Mormons, JW’s, Muslims, Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda, Eastern Orthodox, etc. From your view, I am honored to receive such a charge as heresy!
You’re out of your league Joseph. You don’t make sense in several places. You don’t provide any meaningful contribution to the discussion. You are here to pledge allegiance to a dead woman in Hell. Why not write about the World Champion Boston Red Sox instead.
If you want to talk about the gospel, we can point you to the cross and perhaps God will save you and deliver you from the bondage of the darkness of Rome.
Oct 30th, 2007
Dr. Robert Morey
Stephen,
I read with interest the back and forth comments about the shocking unbelief of Ms Teresa. Her letters and diary are sufficient to prove she was not a Christian. Heb. 1:6 “must believe” is still in the Bible.
D’Hippolito rants and personal attacks are an example of the classic “red herring fallacy.”
It is logicaly irrelevant how much suffering I or anyone else either witnessed or experienced. Suffering does not mean truth.
Terry either believed that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone or she went to hell. This is true according to what Jesus stated in John 14:6.
D’Hippolito clearly has mental issues and deep doubts himself. If Terry went to hell, he is next in line.
Oct 30th, 2007
Joseph D'Hippolito
Bob, serious scholars do not refer to Catholics as “papists.” They do not refer to Catholicism as “Romanism.” They can refute Catholic doctrine without such adolescent name calling.
They also put out their evidence for all to see instead of insisting that their acolytes take their words for it.
You know, Stephen and Bob, you’re quite a pair. When confronted with biblical explanations for Jesus’ behavior, you conveniently ignore those explanations, fall back on prooftexting based on only one text, then, when all else fails (espeically when your anti-Catholic bigotry is exposed for what it is), you make unsubstanciated assumptions about my spiritual and psychological state (which neither of you, btw, are quaified to do).
Ever hear of “shooting the messenger”? That’s the game you boys are playing.
You can hide behind such games but God sees you for what you are: arrogant, bitter, venal men who are so infatuated with themselves and their agendas that they have conveniently forgotten that only God can make the kind of decisions that Dr. Morey makes about “apostacy” and “antichrists” and “heresy.”
I would suggest that the both of you study Matthew 5: 21-23. both of you appear to be experts in murdering the reputations of anybody who dares to disagree with you or who doesn’t fit your self-defined, self-righteous agendas.
Neither of you are interested in truth. In fact, you disregard truth. You’re interested in beating people. You’re interested in being “number one” at all costs; you just use the Calvinist interpretation of
Christian doctrine as a facade for your own miscreance.
If the two of you were among the Pharisees and Saducees living in first-century Judea, you’d put Jesus on the cross no less quickly than they did, and for the very same reason: He represented a threat to your power, agendas and egos.
Oct 30th, 2007
Joseph D'Hippolito
BTW, gentlemen, stop making this about Catholicism. If the two of you ever converted to Catholicism (or Buddhism or Islam or anything else), you’d be no different than you are now. You’d still worship your own anger, bitterness and self-righteousness, as disguised by your own “loyalty” to whatever theology or ideology you claim to represent.
Oct 30th, 2007
Stephen Macasil
Dr. Morey, I am glad that we are in agreement that Joseph D’Hippolito’s responses are some of the best real-life examples of the old red herring!
It is also a sobering reminder that there truly are full-blown hypocrites out there. The worrisome part is that it appears that he is unaware of it.
He condemns you for “adolescent name calling” and turns around and calls both of us names.
He accuses us of “prooftexting” and turns around and prooftexts.”
He whines about what he calls “unsubstanciated assumptions” about him and turns around and makes unsubstanciated assumptions about both of us.
On, and on, the hypocritical statements flow.
Here’s the kicker: “both of you appear to be experts in murdering the reputations of anybody who dares to disagree with you or who doesn’t fit your self-defined, self-righteous agendas.” - said Joseph D’Hippolito while appearing as an expert in murdering the reputations of anybody who dares to disagree with him or who doesn’t fit his self-defined, self-righteous agendas.
It’s hilarious.
Just remember, when discussing issues relating to Roman Catholicism, stop making it about Roman Catholicism.
Want a footnote for that?
Joseph D’Hippolito, October 30th, 2007 at 12:46 pm e biblicalthought.com/blog/mother-teresa-and-biblical-christianity/comment
Pure comedy!
Oct 30th, 2007
Dr. Robert Morey
Joseph,
When you said that “serious scholars” do not use such words as papists, popery, Romanism, etc. you revealed that you have never read Reformed books. Evidently, you have no knowledge of the historic documents relating to the Reformation period. I suggest you read my little book, A Reformation View of Roman Catholicism, so you get the facts straight. The cult you belong to has been called the “Great Whore of Babylon” and the “synagogue of Satan.”
I can only guess what you mean by “serious scholars.” Perhaps you mean “ecumenical scholars?”
First, what makes a “scholar?” 1. Earned degrees in the field of discussion;
2. published works that have received academic approval by his peers;
3. membership in various scholarly organizations.
What makes a scholar “serious?” It means that the scholar really and sincerely believes in what he is teaching. He is “serious” and not playing games.
Serious Protestant scholars down through the centuries have viewed the “Roman Catholic Church” as a false and apostate church. It is referred to as popery and its deluded masses as papists to emphasize the Pope is the head of that cult, not Christ.
Serious Papist scholars in the past viewed Protestants as heretics to rape, torture and murder (ala the Inquisition). Recent Roman scholars view Protestants as only “separated brethren” (ala Vac. II).
Joseph, we sincerely tell you that are lost and on your way to hell because you are not trusting in the finished work of Christ as the sole basis of your acceptance before God. Salvation is by grace alone, apart from any merits you or any other sinner can earn. It is received by faith and not by works. It is based upon the Bible as the final court that decides truth and morals. You are a member of the world’s largest killer cult that has the blood of millions of people on its hands. It is anti-Christ and its doctrines are heretical to the core.
We are “serious” about these truths. We are “serious” that you must flee the Whore and embrace Jesus Christ alone as the basis of your hope of heaven and forgiveness of sins. Renounce the Pope as just one more anti-Christ. Renounce the mass as cannibalism. Repent or perish! Turn or burn! Of you will be cast into the lake of fire forever and forever. Jesus is your only hope, not the cult of Rome.
Oct 31st, 2007
Joseph D'Hippolito
You know, Bob, you’d be pretty funny if you didn’t take yourself so seriously or act like such an adolescent drama queen who was just told she was cut from the cheerleading team.
But you know what’s really funny? Calling me a member of “the world’s largest killer cult that has the blood of millions of people on its hands.” More than Islam, Bob? If so, then why don’t you talk to all the Christians in the Middle East who have suffered under Muslim tyranny for centuries. That’s a big number, Bob, and you might have to get back into your time machine to get them all.
You are nothing but a caricature of the Fred Phelps brand of false Christianity. You claim to uphold (and proudly, with all the biblical implications of that word) the Reformation ideals. One of those ideals was re-emphacizing the Gospel, right? Well, where in all of the balderdash and wasted electrons that you’ve expended have you shown that you know anything about what Jesus Christ demands? One of those demands is to not act in the place of God (which you are more than willing to do in the place of me, Mother Teresa, Catholics, “Emerging Church” advocates, Pentacostals or anybody else who doesn’t submit to your theological anality).
Now, I’m sure you’ll say that you’re only exercising “discernment.” Well, if you’re so “discerning,” then please explain to me under what auspices you are able to say that I have “mental issues” (without ever having earned a degree in psychology or examined me personally), have never accepted Christ as Lord and Savior (when everything that I’ve argued has a sound biblical foundation, including my criticism of your obnoxious behavior), have “deep doubts” (when, again, everything I’ve argued can be substanciated biblically), assume that I’m Catholic (when I’ve never posited any argument in favor of any element of Catholic theology in this whole discussion) and am “lost and on my way to Hell,” merely for defending a dead woman from your and your associate’s vicious attacks?
You can’t — and if you try to put the onus on the Holy Spirit, then you’re guilty of blasphemy because 1)the Holy Spirit is the ultimate harbinger of truth and you’ve said nothing about me that’s even remotely true 2) even in convicting of sin the Holy Spirit would never act in the ham-handed, self-righteous fashion in which you and your associate clearly are acting.
The fact of the matter is that you and your acolytes love to dish it out but you can’t take it. You’re not only bullies but you’re cowards (which all bullies ultimately are).
You might be able to fool your acolytes, hangers-on and Internet fans with your gibberish. But you can’t fool God. I assure you, Morey, you and your associates will pay for taking His name in vain to satify your own emotional lusts.
Nov 1st, 2007
Stephen Macasil
This is too funny. I’m seriously beginning to consider that someone is playing a joke and that it is not the real Joseph D’Hippolito. Joseph D’Hippolito has written articles for USA Today, the L.A. Times, Frontpage Magazine with David Horowitz, and more. This can’t be that guy. Who would have ever hired this guy? It would shame and embarrass any orginization. The advertisers would pull out from a publication that featured this cat. Someone is playing a joke.
Notice that his name is not linked to any url. I know that’s not proof, but this day in age, it’s common for most to have a url.
But here’s the real evidence.
What kind of mental condition would one have to be in, in order to make statetements like this? “One of those demands [of Jesus] is to not act in the place of God.” And then say “But you can’t fool God. I assure you, Morey, you and your associates will pay for taking His name in vain to satify your own emotional lusts.” Does that not sound like one acting in the place of God? Any professional reporter or writer should see that, shouldn’t they?
Also, a true journalist, or whatever the real Joseph D’Hippolito’s title is, would never publicly call Islam the world’s largest killer cult. This Joseph D’Hippolito did call Islam the world’s largest killer cult by implication. The real Joseph D’Hippolito would certainly know that Christianity views Islam as a false world religion, not a cult like Popery or JW’s.
Seriously, this must be a joke. The real Joseph D’Hippolito would at least put together cohesive sentences. Take a look at what the imposter wrote: “But you know what’s really funny? Calling me a member of “the world’s largest killer cult that has the blood of millions of people on its hands.” More than Islam, Bob? If so, then why don’t you talk to all the Christians in the Middle East who have suffered under Muslim tyranny for centuries. That’s a big number, Bob, and you might have to get back into your time machine to get them all.” I mean, follow the sentences, they don’t make sense. If so, leads to getting in a time machine to get them all? What??? This is a prank!
The imposter also claims that he can read minds, and when he does read minds, he has conversations with the voices that he hears in imaginary friends heads. Look: “Now, I’m sure you’ll say that you’re only exercising “discernment.” Well, if you’re so “discerning,” then please explain to me under what auspices you are able to say that I have “mental issues.” In case you missed it, Morey never answered “discernment” to the fake Joseph D’Hippolito. This is all happening in the fake Joseph D’Hippolito’s head. This is like the slippery slope fallacy that is in the Course in Logic.
That’s it! Someone that has gone through Morey’s Course in Logic is playing a prank on us, using the largest possible combination of logical fallacies that can be shoved into one paragraph. Now that is funny! That explains the whole thing. What a great exercise. Thanks, whoever you are!
People are not really as bitter and angry as our prankster was. Professional freelance writers know how to hide their emotions behind their writing. This imposter has not shown to be able to do that. The imposter who claims to be Joseph D’Hippolito (USA TODAY, LA Times etc.), is not able to hide his/her emotions. In fact, since it’s a prank, I bet the person went out of their way to make irrational emotionalism seep through the responses, as incoherent as they’ve been.
I got to tell ya, that was pretty funny. We should use this to train the men. It’s an excellent resource.
The time machine thing was probably funniest.
Nov 2nd, 2007
Reply to “Mother Teresa and Biblical Christianity”