Robert Morey of Faith Defenders and Jacob Prasch

A Response To Robert Morey

To Whom It May Concern:

An unexpected series of demonstrably bogus allegations regarding the beliefs of Jacob Prasch by California preacher Robert Morey has resulted in some confusion among certain of our West Coast readers, due to the absurd nature of these charges. The substance of these fabrications are so wild and fanciful that it is unbelievable someone in their right mind could publish them when they are automatically disproved prima facie by published and recorded material by Jacob Prasch already long in the public domain and easily accessible by anyone. Inexplicably this includes material Robert Morey himself cites ” “ how be it out of context. Moriel has original copies of Robert Morey”s false assertions on record.

As we shall document, given that Jacob Prasch has outspokenly challenged annihilationism as unscriptural in his internationally circulated tape on this erroneous belief, we are bemused by Robert Morey’s proposal to debate annihilationism with Jacob defending it. How can someone logically debate in support of something they openly and publicly oppose? Morey’s proposal is as fanciful and ludicrous as his other wild assertions. Asking someone to debate in favor of something they themselves oppose is absurd.

1. Robert Morey claims on the basis of the Divine Aristocracy chapter of Jacob’s book More Grain For the Famine that Jacob Prasch denies “Providence”.

While in fact, in that very chapter of that book on page 75, as anybody can read for themselves, Jacob emphatically states, “There is certainly Providence ” “ God can and does intervene on behalf of His people.”  Jacob believes that all elements of chance can only occur within the permissive will and divine foreknowledge of God, and that time and chance are over-ruled by Providence when God so chooses to divinely intervene. Yet, Robert Morey has demonstrably not told the truth and has been caught not telling the truth in public print. Again as anyone can readily read for themselves, Jacob Prasch states and believes the diametric opposite of what Robert Morey has falsely accused him of believing and teaching. This is visible to all in the plain text on page 75. Robert Morey has very clearly not told the truth and if not retracted this can only be publicly construed as an unmitigated lie.

2. Robert Morey launched a prolonged diatribe against Jacob Prasch on the grounds of “suspecting”  Jacob Prasch is an annihilationist and on this basis (which he calls “a sneaky suspicion” ) falsely infers Jacob ‚  subscribes to what Robert Morey calls “apostate European, Gentile, theological liberalism” like Britain’s John Stott. This is followed by inflammatory rhetoric demanding Jacob”” ˜lay his cards on the table” further accompanied by unwarranted vitriol like “stop pretending to be a Bible-believing Christian”.

In fact, many thousands of people have heard Jacob’s tape challenging the error of annihilationism and the unbiblical beliefs of John Stott from the Hebrew and Greek texts, and warning this deception is a disincentive to evangelism. Jacob’s tape against this error (Hell – Universalism ” “ Annihilation), that Robert Morey falsely suspects Jacob of (being an annihilationist, is based on the strength of groundless extrapolation, void of any documentary or recorded evidence whatsoever, is available globally through any branch of Moriel and via the Moriel web site and immediately disproves Robert Morey’s absurdity for the cheap brand of defamatory nonsense it is. It is common knowledge that Jacob was among the very first and most vocal in the UK and Europe (even prior to David Pawson) to publicly oppose and confront the annihilationist position of John Stott.

As anyone can hear for themselves from the tape, Robert Morey has proposed the patently hideous, and used his badly fabricated proposition as a structurally unsound foundation upon which to erect further detracting insinuations of liberalism and apostasy, concluding with a demand that Jacob Prasch “lay his cards on the table and stop pretending to be a Bible-believing Christian” . Morey again does this purely on the basis of a “suspected” belief that Jacob is unmistakably shown not only not to have, but also to outspokenly and publicly oppose on a wide scale and in a globally circulated taped message! Public use of such provocative terminology such as “stop pretending to be a Bible-believing Christian” based on groundless speculation is itself ill-founded, but this is preposterous.

Indictment by unfounded suspicion or innuendo is malicious spectral folly, and was seen in Puritan England and colonial Massachusetts. It is an ugly form of gossip mongering injustice that certain brands of Calvinists have characteristically been notorious for historically. In what some see as the “guilty until proven innocent” world of Bob Morey’s “latter day Salem” , Jacob is vindicated by the contents of his tapes and published teachings, proving he holds the diametric opposite view to what Robert Morey suggests, while the unadulterated tripe of a “latter day Cotton Mather cum Robert Morey”, is debunked as “mirth-worthy”  foolishness. To launch into demanding language insisting that someone should “stop pretending to be a Bible-believing Christian” for allegedly holding a view they actually opposed to thousands internationally is irrational behavior of a caliber more befitting the maniacal, and may be not be the product of a stable mind.

If he cared to look on the table before playing his own dud hand and compulsively shooting off his mouth in public, thus making a public spectacle of himself, Robert Morey would have seen that Jacob’s cards regarding annihilationism have always been on the table ” “ all four aces!

Without a shred of evidence supporting the suspicion, and not first investigating to see the irrefutable proof to the contrary, there was simply no logic in such speculation to begin this unwarranted attack. But to employ the language of apostasy and liberalism against the wrongly suspected accompanied by a mindless outburst of “stop pretending to be a Bible-believing Christian” is reckless, irresponsible, and self-demeaning.

Such erratic “Morey Madness” with a de facto ” ˜in absentia’ conviction (Robert Morey questioned neither Jacob nor Moriel before publicly making these insinuations) is indeed commonplace in Taliban-style Islamic Sharia and in Moslem honor killings and fatwahs, where the victim is also vilified without first hearing ‚  from him. It was also common inquisitorial practice among the Dominicans. But within the Body of Christ, such Ecclesiastical McCarthyism is completely and utterly contrary to the Word of God (John 7:51, ‚  Proverbs 18:13, Proverbs 18:17, 1 Timothy 5:19).

For a figure claiming to be anti-Islamic, we must wonder ‚  why Robert Morey’s “modus operandi” is more ‚   Islamic than Christian? So far the only things missing are a minaret on the roof of his church and a muezzin instead of a choir director. Conversely, he would look the spitting image of Thomas Aquinas frocked in a Dominican cassock. We only wish he looked, sounded and acted more Christian.

We normally identify such abysmal behavior with the hyper-charismatic lunatic fringe who jump to ‚  such crazy conclusions with no evidence wrongly convicting others because of some claimed subjective divine revelation, but as church history shows, Calvinists invented this lunacy and Robert Morey is now carrying that torch to burn completely innocent Christians, of which Jacob Prasch is but one. As Dr. Martin Lloyd Jones said, “A failure to learn the lessons of church history dooms us to repeat its failures” . To those arriving at Robert Morey’s “FAITH DEFENDERS”  church, we can only say “Welcome Back To Salem”.

3 . Robert Morey charges that Jacob Prasch failed to read the original Hebrew of Ecclesiastes 9:11 but relied in the King James Version’s misinterpretation of “chance” , and gives what the people in his church were misled to believe is a solid treatment of the Hebrew text; but to anyone really knowing Hebrew this is grammatically and linguistically impossible. Yet on this basis, Robert Morey compares Jacob to cults.

In fact Jacob always gives priority to the original Hebrew and Greek, and while he did not use the KJV in his exposition of Ecclesiastes 9, the King James does not mistranslate it. ‚  The term simply means an unpredictable or chance event. In the context of this verse, it happens against the law of practical probabilities. In an endeavor one takes the chance that the unpredictable won’t happen.

Folly of follies, Robert Morey himself cites a linguistically very accurate Hebrew translation source, The Jewish Study Bible, which also translates it “Time of Mischance” , which obviously supports both the KJV in this instance, and Jacob’s view of it meaning “chance”  and directly contradicts Robert Morey’s own abject premise that it does not mean chance! This is a most uneducated standard of scholarly argument for someone with professed ambitions of running a seminary. It is not even logical in its approach.

God certainly knows the future! Robert Morey knows that Jacob Prasch firmly believes this, because they recently discussed Jacob’s opposition to Clark Pinnock who denies providence, and in his book Jacob states that God can and does providentially intervene, when it is in accordance with His purpose to do so, and God can cause a result that is unpredictable to man and contrary to all of the odds. While this is biblically true and Jacob clearly believes it, it ‚  is not however what Ecclesiastes 9:11 is saying.

Robert Morey borrows vocabulary from lexical commentaries, but seems ignorant of the fact that scholarly commentaries assume readers have the academic and linguistic background to understand the implications of what is being said. Yet, Robert Morey completely ignores the grammar, which in Hebrew defines the meaning of a verb and nouns derived from verbs. A hendiadys, which is but one kind of a composite uniting two words to form a compound term with a single idea, plays no role in defining what the term itself or the words that compose it, actually mean. Definition in Hebrew (as in other Semitic languages with some variation) is rather determined by shoresh and binyan.

In Hebrew, the root or shoresh etymologically relates a verb or noun to other words sharing the same root, and the binyan gives the exact definition of a verb and of nouns derivative from it, by the nature of its action and ramifications. This has no resemblance to anything in English grammar, although in certain aspects is vaguely related in a limited and qualified way ‚  to case endings used in Greek, Latin, or German ” “ except that in Hebrew, they are not endings, but are always verb structures – not nouns, and not only define the performers and identify the recipients of an action, but unlike in western languages, define the precise meaning of the verb itself. Definitions of verbs and nouns derived from them ‚  are determined by which binyan or structure they are conjugated in.

This term used in Ecclesiastes 9:11 is et v’paga. Et is a literary synonym for “time” (not the conventional zmon). Paga is a noun which derives from the Binyan CAL verb “To Meet”  (with which it shares the same root) in its infinitive (shem ha poal). In other contexts it can also mean to “fall upon”  or in some cases “to reach”, again, always depending on the binyan conjugation. The verb in this verse is “yikra” (happen or occur) is also in the CALbinyan structure. The CALbinyan always means an “unplanned action” .

Where “PAGA” is used for a planned action, it must be in the binyanHIF EL, never in the CAL. It can’t be, because in Hebrew it would redefine the word with a completely different meaning altogether. An example of this where PAGA is a preplanned action (as Rob Morey ignorantly and mistakenly argues from the Hebrew text Ecclesiastes 9:11 is) is found in the Book of Isaiah chapter 53 where it is in the HIF EL and means “intercession”  (not a chance event) In this text, the preplanned action of God was for Jesus to be crucified to make intercession for our sins by means of propitiation (literally – Jesus was “fallen upon”).

There is no reflexive HEET PA EL binyan conjugation for PAGA existing in Hebrew (where the performer of the action is the recipient of its consequences), and more importantly no PE-EL conjugation for PAGA exists in Hebrew. PE-El is the strong predetermined or planned intent to fulfill the nature of the infinitive (e.g. the people rose up to play ” “ Exodus 32:6). Paga can only be conjugated in the CAL (unplanned action) or HIF El (Planned action) in the Hebrew, and both the verb in this verse and the verb from where the noun derives, are both very clearly in the CAL binyan, and in Hebrew the conjugation defines the word’s meaning.

There are many composites in Hebrew of different kinds, and often follow a phrase introduced by a preposition (as in : Tahot Ha Shemesh ” “ “under the sun” ). Even in synonymous composites where two synonyms not sharing a common root/shoresh are used together as in Nissim v’Niflaot (“Signs and Wonders”), only indicates a coactive effect, but definition is not established. Another kind of composite phrase is called b’nigud (contrast) such as Masaou o’Matan (“give & take” , the idiomatic Hebrew colloquialism for “negotiations”). Yet again, definition is not arrived at by the contrast, but by conjugation. ‚  Hendiadys is just another kind of composite (and Hebrew scholars are cautious about concluding that et v’pago‘ is an absolutely definite hendiadys anyway; for the sake of brevity I won’t technically explain why). Such tandem word inclusions within a composite only indicate the presence of a unified idea, they do not define what the idea is or means. This is rather done by conjugation. Robert Morey quite simply does not appear to know what he is talking about. The Binyan of both the verb and the verb from which the noun derives are both clearly CAL and hence the action is unplanned. The unmitigated fact is that If it were planned, it could not be CAL, but must be HIF El as it is in Isaiah 53, where God pre-planned the death of Christ.

We do not wish to accuse Robert Morey of charlatanism or academic fraud, (although that is certainly how he makes himself look) but he displays a very obvious ignorance of Hebrew grammar. Certainly he has in his paper misrepresented himself as having a level of expertise, which the evidence clearly shows he does not have. How can he teach what he clearly does not know?

But it is not only Robert Morey’s Hebrew that is “weighed and found wanting” . His claims that the concept of associating “sleep” with “comatose” is a modern one, also brings into some considerable doubt his knowledge of Greek. In light of the New Testament using the word koimaiomai (sleep, repose) from where the word “coma” originates, nine times as a term for the death of a believer, we must respectfully wonder if Robert Morey really has any idea of what he is actually talking about, or if he just makes it up as he goes along?

In addition to Dr. Siam Bhayro, assistant professor of Semitic philology at Yale as an academic advisor to Moriel, and Hadassah, an Israeli graduate in biblical Hebrew & Aramaic working as a translator with Moriel, Jacob Prasch himself speaks fluent Hebrew and his biblical Hebrew was of a sufficient standard to be exempt from Hebrew in seminary. Jacob was also academically certified in Judaism by Cambridge University, England (1987), qualifying him to teach it at university degree level (which he does at Midlands College, University of Wales). If Robert Morey wishes to correct Jacob’s Hebrew, may we respectfully suggest that he first learn it himself?

Very sadly, this is not the first time that Robert Morey has been publicly apprehended in pseudo-scholarship and in what some are understandably tempted to identify as charlatanism. Who can believe Robert Morey’s claim to have read everything in the U.S. Library of Congress on Islam? There are over 7,000 volumes! On debunking Robert Morey’s book “Islam Invasion” , Waleed Nasser, who directs a recognized international ministry training Christians to evangelize Moslems, points to 6 different types of fundamental blunders betraying an underlying ignorance in a field Robert Morey misrepresents himself as expert (indeed, without knowing Arabic it is impossible to be a genuine expert in Islam). Despite his self-orchestrated fanfare, Robert Morey, is no expert in either Hebrew or Islam. Once again, he has been publicly caught out lacking academic credibility in areas he falsely claims to have it.

Robert Morey has tried to use a Hebrew text he obviously does not understand to vindicate a view of determinism that is essentially Islamic, and not biblical. It is amazing to see how some kinds of people can become what it is they hate most when the “Stockholm Syndrome” comes to church. The original Hebrew text of Ecclesiastes 9:11 disproves the Islamic determinism of Inja Allah which Robert Morey, in effect, seems to be teaching in this paper.

4. ‚   ‚   Most ludicrous of all, Robert Morey, again on the basis of Jacob’s book More Grain for The Famine, falsely alleges that Jacob believes in the doctrinal ‚  error of “soul sleep”. While on Page 71 of the book, as anyone can plainly read for himself or herself, Jacob clearly states the contrary belief: “Relative To The One Who Dies He Is With The Lord” . Once again, Robert Morey has been publicly caught not telling the truth.

The multiple New Testament verses describing the death of a believer as “sleep’; either komaiomai (from where we get the word “comatose” ) as in John 11:11, 1 Thessalonians 4:5, 1 Corinthians 11:30. Or katheudo (from where we get the clinical term “catatonic” ) Mark 5:39, Matthew 9:24, only describe the unconscious state of the deceased relative to those still alive in time, as the book states. The pre-resurrection consciousness of the dead continues relative to them in eternity because they have left time and entered eternity. The narrative of Lazarus and the Rich Man confirms this and in More Grain For The Famine Jacob Prasch openly affirms it.

Conspicuously, Robert Morey avoids any attempt to explain the pertinent verses employing the term “sleep” as a metaphor for biological death. Jacob Prasch does, however, address them and his conclusion is certainly not the false doctrine of “soul sleep” as Robert Morey falsely accuses him of teaching. In the THANATOLOGY tape series, (in the public domain for 3 years now) Jacob again dismisses “soul sleep” as unscriptural. Jacob has moreover, on various occasions, warned against the “soul sleep” beliefs of 7th Day Adventists ‚  and other aberrational sects whom he regards as cultic. Twisting one sentence out of context from a book ‚  as a basis of accusation, when the previous page makes it clear that the accusation is certainly not the author’s belief is precisely how the corrupt witnesses of the Sanhedrin falsely accused Christ.

Once again however, this is hardly the first time that Robert Morey has exposed his own lack of honesty and integrity in public.

Baptist professor Dr. Gregory Boyd, author of two books opposing “One-ness” theology, was similarly falsely accused by Robert Morey of holding the heretical positions by misquoting certain passages out of context, even though other passages in the same books (Oneness Pentecostals and The Trinity and Trinity & Process) prove Dr. Boyd holds the opposite views. The same manner of crazy charges directed against Jacob of theological liberalism were also aimed at Dr. Boyd denouncing him as a “radical liberal”  and a “denier all Christianity stands for”, (plus other groundless allegations of adoptionism). In fact, when read in context the very books Robert Morey misquotes from prove Dr. Boyd’s views are again the very opposite. Robert Morey then goes on to falsely assert that Dr. Boyd is a devotee of the writings of Charles Hartshorne, just the same as he falsely asserts that Jacob Prasch is a subscriber to the ideas of A. Custance (whose views Jacob is not even familiar with). There is a pattern of such warped and unethical action.

From his apparent intellectual fraud documented by Waleed Nassar, to his open policy of easily disprovable dishonesty practiced by misquoting authors out of context and assigning them beliefs they actually argue against in the same books read in context, prove Robert Morey to be an untruthful man whose conduct appears not only illogical but ethically and morally distorted. Jacob Prasch has not been the first victim of this sad individual, and we fear not the last. It is difficult to see how anyone but a disturbed person would chronically perpetrate in public such malicious litanies of unfounded detraction against others knowing that these crude inventions can be so readily disproved. If Robert Morey is not a troubled man who desperately needs help, must he not be an unprincipled man who has infiltrated the Body of Christ with some kind of deranged agenda driven by a narcissism and fueled by a spiritual pride that is almost of unbelievable proportions?

We were unpleasantly perplexed not only by Robert Morey’s list of false allegations, but by the fact they instantly stand as abject and publicly disproved ‚  by mere virtue of what Jacob has publicly recorded and published for all to see for themselves. We were moreover flabbergasted by the hideous nature of his pretended linguistic competence in Hebrew, seemingly not knowing that word definition of verbs and derived nouns is determined by conjugation. We have since learned however that this is not exactly the first time he has pulled this kind of silly, self-demeaning, and unbecoming stunt, but that he has taken similar unwarranted aim at others. We emailed Robert Morey, (with copies to witnesses) asking him to retract, but there has been no retraction. Jacob has also stated that he sought no apology, but simply a withdrawal of the untrue statements.

It is erroneous enough to falsely ascribe to someone views they do not hold. But it is preposterous and outlandish to falsely attribute such views to them when they themselves have publicly and in recorded and/or printed format, and in no uncertain terms, ‚  opposed the very views they are wrongly accused of propagating. Such nonsensical and dishonest behavior is not merely morally wrong, but nothing short of ridiculous and self-discrediting.

It is tragic to see one professing to be a follower of Christ with apparently so much to ‚  offer in the areas of apologetics to be getting ‚  himself publicly caught in what can only be ‚  euphemistically described as “untruths”. We wish there were additional euphemisms for defamation and slander. A number have advised us that spiritual pride will be his downfall (Proverbs 16:18), Moriel hopes this won’t come true. Published and recorded material in public circulation available to one and all establishes prima facie that Jacob Prasch does believe in Providence, is not an a annihilationist and does not believe in “soul sleep”, contrary to the ranting of Robert Morey in his diatribes. To label Robert Morey’s pathetic antics as bordering on lunacy would not be hyperbolic.

Finally, Christian integrity demands that one publicly caught issuing statements to the intended detriment of another, which are proven to be false, retract them publicly. ‚  If Robert Morey is truly a saved regenerate Christian or not, is not a matter for us to judge. But having been repeatedly and openly caught in public making plainly false statements that can conclusively shown to be false, if Robert Morey is indeed a saved Christian, he will behave like one and retract all his papers against the various Christians he has publicly attacked without substance or reason.

Anyone interested in acquiring copies of Robert Morey’s false allegations may send a self -addressed stamped envelope to Moriel USA (P O Box 100223 Pittsburgh, PA 15233) requesting copies. All Moriel materials proving Jacob hold views opposite to what he is accused of by Robert Morey are available on-line from Moriel or through our catalogue. Online

0 0 votes
Article Rating
(Visited 2 times, 1 visits today)
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x