Return to "The Shepherd's Chapel and Dr. Arnold Murray" Main Page
From the Same Person as 27 and 28: Kenites, Israel, Election, and Attitude, in Multiple Parts
You are not as Intelligent as you let on Paul... you let slip your true nature," -- With Extensive Rebuttal
This mailer had become more and more focused on me personally; as opposed to the declared purpose and subject of this page, which is to discuss what I think are the false doctrines of the Shepherd's Chapel and Pastor Arnold Murray.
When one is being attacked personally, there is a point at which too vigorous a defense is not appropriate. On the other hand, some charges must be answered lest silence be mistaken for assent. I try my best to judge which is the best course at the appropriate time.
This was our final exchange and I did not take my usual care to answer every point made. I do address his claims, point by point in several editorial responses which follow my original responses.
The Question/Comment:
Additional Editorial Comments on Emailer's Message:
I said it was a "possibility." I think by his subsequent replies that I should have said more specifically what that meant to me. Alternate/multiple universes, aliens, and many other things are "possible." The evidence is lacking and the field so large, they cannot be ruled out because there is not enough evidence to deny these things categorically. That does not mean that they are "almost proven true" or even close to that. The exist merely as "possible," that is, not disproven (and may not be disprovable).
My Second (Original) Response:
This response is my original response and not a line by line demonstration of the flaws in his arguments, that follows under the next heading, "Additional Editorial Comments on Emailer's First Reply:"
Job 38: 4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. 5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? 6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; 7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Verse seven is the focus verse for those who believe this, and they provide an answer, saying that we were there (our souls) when God laid the foundations of the earth, we were those "Sons of God" But that is the exact opposite of the point of this passage, the point that God is making here is that man doesn't know anything about those events because we were NOT THERE, the answer is that man had nothing to do with any of those things. Man was nowhere.
When Adam was created, he was not infused with a soul, he became one.
Gen2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
The importance of this cannot be understated, the language is pretty simple, God formed man and brought him to life, and he became a soul right there on the ground. It is safe to say that this was Adam's absolute beginning as a being. One could argue that we all preexisted in the purposes of God, and that he had foreknowledge of what we would be (what he would create) but I have never found any scripture that makes it in the slightest sense possible that we ever pre-existed as individual beings.
The bible teaches (this is absolute) that our lives begin in our mother's womb, no earlier time is ever mentioned for our beginnings. The bible always talks about us as having originated from our mother's womb, and never as having originated from somewhere else, and being implanted there, the only case of that would be Christ.
John3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
"Again" in "born again" can also mean "from above." I have to mention what some wrongly suggest, that Jesus is indicating that, in order to be saved; our angelic persons, which we once were, have to come down from heaven ("from above" ) and be "born innocent of woman," and live in this flesh age, again, in order to be saved.
But that is not what Jesus was saying. We do have to be "born from above," but; "You must be born again" indicates some thing that we lack. We must not treat it like Jesus was informing us of something we already possess, but are ignorant of, as if saying, "You must realize you were born from above; we were all born from above."
Verse thirteen from John Chapter 3 is clear, Jesus alone is "he that came down from heaven" to be born of woman. No one else ever has. No one.
Also, the phrase "so is every one that is born of the Spirit." from John 3:8 implies that "born from above" is not a universal phenomena. If Jesus was trying to communicate that it was; he could have said, "everyone is born from above."
Whenever the scriptures wish to refer to the earliest possible time in someone's life, they unerringly refer to the womb:
Ps 22:10 I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly
Isa 44:2 Thus saith the LORD that made thee, and formed thee from the womb,
Isa 44:24 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb,
Isa 49:1 Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name. (Note: Not merely his "flesh body" but his person "me" and his name)
Jer 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
Dr. Murray uses Jeremiah 1 to back up his claims; claiming that God knew Jeremiah before he was born because Jeremiah had existed in that angelic age. But God here is speaking of the womb as the earliest period in Jeremiah's existence, Jeremiah was "formed in the womb," not just his body, but the person, Jeremiah. God Formed him in the womb and Jeremiah became a living soul, his body was not infused with a soul, the formation of the body and the bringing to life was the act of creation for Jeremiah.
The foreknowledge of God does not give us any cause to suppose Jeremiah had existed in an angelic body prior to this genesis spoken of in this verse. I suppose it could mean that, but that would really be pushing the issue, that is not what the scripture is teaching, that would be us teaching the scripture, you have to have a very compelling reason to make an interpretation like that, such as some good collaborating scriptures, which we have not found. Dr. Murray's students become conditioned so that it becomes very difficult to see it any other way.
Psalm 82:5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course. 6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. 7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
I used to look at this one and it really seemed like it said a lot, but I was just reading too much into it. Some teachers color the perceptions of the people who follow them, they see their story in the scriptures the same way I can make you see a dragon in the clouds, by suggesting to you that it is there and by you being willing to see it.
In these verses we are led to believe (BY SOME) that God is pronouncing judgment on the Angelic host and condemning them to die in the flesh as part of the lesson of this earth age.
Well, that is the way I took it. But really this is just a simple case of taking things out of context
Psalm 82:1 A Psalm of Asaph. God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. 2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.
3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. 4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.
5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course. 6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. 7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. 8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.
The second and third verses make it clear that this Psalm is in reference to earthly affairs and the men who rule in the Earth, but especially to the rulers of Israel. In the old testament the only people who God ever referred to as his children were the people of Israel.
And when people stand in the stead of God, handing down life and death, it is not unusual for God to call them "gods."
Ex7:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.
Referring to these earthly leaders as "gods" is an acknowledging of the power they have over the people, and is further reinforced by the admonishment to "deliver the oppressed" and etc.
The "all of you are children of the most high," refers to all the children of Israel, and he is reminding the judges and rulers that they are all part of that covenant and that they all shall die and be judged by the judge of all nations.
Most of this was taken from a response to someone else.
Additional Editorial Comments on Emailer's First Reply:
The following are additional comments I have written. Point by point, covering what he was saying and showing why it is wrong.. he later asserted I was "unable" to answer his remarks. The truth was that I was fed up with him and his ways, do I stopped giving his questions the respect I usually try to afford every question an opponent raises. After a year off from this fellow's company, I feel that I do not want to leave these points unresponded to.
Thank you for the honest and straight forward answer.
All my answers are honest and straight forward. This is a back-handed compliment.
I agree with you on the teachings of Dr. Murray you probably fought against Satan." thing, because I don't know for sure if I fought against satan,I my have been a fence sitter and I certainly do not want to entertain the thought that I may have fought on satans side.
What I said was, "I Just dispute the whole 'and you were there, and if you accept the teachings of Dr. Murray you probably fought against Satan.' thing." THE WHOLE THING.
He only agrees with me that acceptance of Dr. Murray's doctrines means that you fought against Satan. He strains out the gnat and swallows the camel. Really, though, to be fair to Dr. Murray, I think he says that if you, "have ears to hear," and can "hear" his doctrine, you "may be," one of God's elect. But the problem remains that this doctrine makes the election of God into self-selection, and there is really no other way to look at it. They do not say that God chose them to stand against Satan in "the world that was." They say that they chose God in the world that was, and that is contrary to the operation of grace as taught in the new testament.
The whole concept of this imaginary fable has been gone over on my web site, I believe, even in email exchanges with this fellow. He wants to run me around the block again.
I say this ,because for years I never persued studying Gods word even though I always believed in God and Christ
He is being voluntarily humble here, he wants us to know that he does not consider himself to be the "elect." Isn't that humble of him? It is ridiculous. He looks to his past to determine his election, But that is wrong, we should look to our future, to our progress in Christ to be sure of our calling and election.
2 Peter 1:10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: (plus preceding eight verses)
Regardless of that ,there was war in heaven and that simple biblical fact indicates...
"There was war in heaven," is from Revelation 12 and could very well be a vision of the future. It is not that "simple," because important details are not given, he supplies these details from the Shepherd's Chapel preconceived fable.
Rev 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
"Neither was their place found any more in heaven." In the book of Job, Satan appears in heaven. There are other passages which may indicate the presence of evil angels in heaven, in the present age (1Kings 22:19). So this war may not have even taken place yet. So it is not a simple Biblical fact, there are many things that are not known. The way he uses this passage is not reasonable, because he neglects to ask many serious questions before deciding what the passage "indicates."
"Intruding into those things his eyes hath not seen..."
and that simple biblical fact indicates that there where two sides and knowing human nature somewhat I know that there is also a middle ground where the rest stand who may or may not have leanings to one side or the other.
"Human nature?" It says "angels," and angels and humans do not have the same nature. Revelation 12 indicates "angels" not "humans." He assumes the two are the same, without question. And that is a very foolish thing to do. I will prove my point with a truly simple biblical fact.
Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
Jesus did not take on the nature of an angel in his incarnation. The fact that it is stated in this manner allows us to discern that there is something different out the nature of angels than the nature of men. Otherwise this passage is not very meaningful.
Angels are not pre or post incarnate humans. The bible never gives the least indication of this doctrine. And he certainly offers no scriptural no support, beyond "there was war in heaven." And from that point we just use a preconceived story, a fable, taught by Dr. Murray, to guide our thinking. No thanks.
It is arrogant to say, I know human nature, so this is how the angels must have behaved, the bible doesn't say it, I do. And that is what he is saying.
As I have indicated before,I do not believe that there is conflict in the minds of the elect as to where they stand from the begining.
In that statement there are too many unknowns for me to respond to. Like what he means by "from the beginning." But even he knows he is just stating his opinion. And I know it is an opinion based on a lie.
Also, If this was true then this scripture would not be true
2 Peter 1:10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: (plus preceding eight verses)
Which ever side of this debate one takes, both agree that God knows who his elect are, he is sure. It is we who are not sure and need to be convinced. This writer says no, that the elect have never had "conflict in their minds" as to where they stand, from the beginning." I don't know if he means from the beginning of their faith, from the beginning of the world (1st or second?). He uses vague language and would chasten me for guessing wrong what he actually meant.
This is another example of how this writer spends more time taking counsel with the thoughts of his own heart than immersing himself in the counsels of God. They use a few obscure verses which lack details and raise more questions than answers. Then they settle on answers based on what seems best to them. Then they say it is simple, factual, and irrefutable. When presented with scriptural evidence to the contrary, they revert back to the obscure scriptures which raise questions and declare that their speculations have been well documented. But they never really hear the scriptures, they never really hear the Apostles of the Lord. They only hear their own voices.
I do disagree with you in regards to time. I cannot comprehend an eternity of time ,infinity and everlasting let alone eternity, and I don't think any flesh can.
Good grief. What I said was, "Of course there was time before the first day of Genesis, there was an eternity of time."
I don't even understand the manner in which he disagrees with me, except that he has "different thoughts" than mine.
The universe was created to exist towards infinity within eternity ,eternity being timeless,granted it was created at a certain point towards infinity and brought into eternity.
Look, I just based what I said on the idea that God was eternal, there is no evidence that eternity is "timeless," this writer merely assumes that. Time is measured by the operation of matter in space. So in the strictest sense, before the universe existed, from the perspective of the universe there was no time. (I should call, what we call the universe, the Exclusiverse, because that is really what it really is, it is arrogant for us to call it the "universe," as if there was nothing more). But God is not bound by the universe, so we cannot say that God lacked what we would consider time (if we had his perspective) before the time measured in this universe. God could create multiple dimensions of time within eternity. Eternity represents the possibility of infinite dimensions of time. I can't say truly whether there would be or not, so my original statement about time is not strictly the truth, but neither is the idea that eternity is "timeless," eternity might be chocked full of time. Who can say? Was eternity spaceless? And motionless too? Personally, I lean towards the idea that eternity is full, rather than empty of space and time. But at least I know I'm ignorant.
We would be intruding into things our eyes have not seen. I realize this, but he does not seem to see that he is speaking arrogantly. he has no idea about any of these things. They are beyond all of us, he even says so, right before he tries to tell us all how it surely and really is.
Time is only relevant to the flesh,and it was for that purpose that God created it.
So says he. I don't know if that is true. For him to think he knows that, is arrogant and ignorant.
"...intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind."
Time was specifically created by God so that he and his children could step out of eternity into the flesh,for the purpose of the redemption of the souls of those children.
This guy needs to read Job 38.(yeah, I know) I don't know why God created time, specifically. Time may come before all this. There is no human way to know that the time in this universe is or is not all the time that exists. This is vain talk.
God created the world and THIS time for his own purposes, to create man and redeem some of mankind to be his sons.
What would I base a theory for the creation of time itself on? I don't even know if time is exclusive to this universe. I don't have an alternate theory for why God created time itself, how could I? To make facts out of fiction would make me like him, and I am not like him. This guy knows everything. Even things not taught by Christian doctrine are known to him. He figured out why God created time.
so that he and his children could step out of eternity into the flesh
That Fable. I know I went over this before, he just wanted to tell his little story again, to make me speak roughly to him to make me, "look bad," ha ha.
This is right out of the Dr. Murray storybook.
Once upon a time, there was God and his angels. One day, one special angel went bad and some others followed him (others sat on the fence, according to Bob). And there were some good angels that stood against him. God destroyed the world and made it again and told the angels that they would all have to be born "innocent" and "of woman" into "flesh bodies" To help God decide whether or not they would/could be redeemed. The angels that stood against satan were God's elect and they became God's special servants in the earth. The very baddest of Angels became the kenites, the sons of Cain, they were and still are the worst sinners, today most people mistakenly call the Kenites Jews. The rest of the angels were granted "freewill," something they must have all possessed in the beginning for any of this to happen in the first place. None of the angels knew who they were, except the very bad and except the very elect. (and they only after Dr. Murray went on the air). Anyway, all the angels were born into flesh bodies and God went into a flesh body too, and died for their sins. If they would just accept the truth, that he died for their sins, and they were all sons of God, and they must be born in flesh bodies, and the Jews are the Kenites, and the rest of Dr. Murray's teachings, they would be the elect, or join them. That, or they could be taught the truth in the millennium if they were blinded to the truth. Actually, this part is just a lesson, and God is checking to see if any of the kenites will choose good in spite of the fact that they are predestinated to destruction. At the end, God will take all the good angels and the reluctant angels and Kenites who figured out that God is more powerful than satan and all head back into eternity, where there is no time, and they will all live happily ever after.
And he expects me to form additional reasoned arguments against that? I have done so. But he is just repeating things I have already refuted and am still waiting for him to explain what is wrong with my refutations.
This emailer asks me questions, demands explanations and when I go through all the trouble of answering them, he simply ignores what I say, never responds and just repeats the same trash, over and over. It is a fairy tale, it is not the story of the BIBLE.
Isa 8:20 ...if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
Also this recreated universe was created with a set of finite physical laws ,for our own scientific world has stated the this universe is in decay.
And As I read this I'm thinking, "What is the point of all this blabber if I die in my sins?" This forum is to talk about Christianity and the doctrines of Arnold Murray, not this fellow's pet theories.
Yes God could have done it differently for all things are possible with God,but this is the way he redeems the souls of his children and who are you and I to question his ways?
Ha ha ha, good one. Those are not his ways. I tell this guy Gods ways and he questions them all the time. He hates predestination. He seethes over it. Then he comes back at me with his fables and tells me, "Who are you to question God's ways?" Ha ha ha. good one.
Once redemption has been accomplished ,time and the whole concept of time will disappear and be forgotten,for God will have taken his redeemed and gone back into eternity.
And how he knows that is the biggest mystery of all. Wait, no it isn't. He just makes it up.
Time and eternity are dimensional concepts and do not exist together in the same realm or space.
He says so. But no one can prove any of this. And he wondered that I didn't care to respond.
For God created the beginning of time (And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters) (The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end)and he will make a finite end of it at the end of the millennium.
A finite end of time? As opposed to, an infinite end of time? Wouldn't a "finite end" be the same as infinity? Like a double negative? "I'm going to stop stopping." If the end comes to an end, that means that whatever ended begins again. Imagine a car coming to an infinite stop, it stops forever. Now imagine a car at a stop sign, that would be a finite end, because it gets going again. The last second that I just experienced was a finite end of time. I'm not kidding, I'm just demonstrating that he does not know in the least what he is talking about, he is using words without regard to what they simply mean, he does not define what he means. And then he will blame us all if we fail to understand him.
Yet eternity shall be here on earth , for eternity and infinity reside where God is and where he sets up his kingdom.
Well, the new heaven and earth, that is what Revelation says. So the earth will have a "finite end." I do not know about time.
Is heaven not where God is?
That is what Dr. Murray says. "Heaven is wherever God is." I do not agree or disagree, because he is vague, God is indeed in heaven, "heaven is my throne," but heaven is not defined as being simply wherever God happens to be. Wrong again.
The thing about this stuff is that it is close to the truth. It sounds right, or that it could be right. But it is inconsequential and something is always amiss, something is just not right. When someone accepts false doctrine, even the truth he has becomes polluted by it. That is the message of "the leaven." A little false doctrine permeates and perverts all your doctrine.
Is this earth not where God set up his kingdom before the overthrow of satan?
I don't know the significance of the question, much less the answer. He is obviously referring to jeremiah 4, that is really the only place he has to run but I do not see how he can be so emphatic about it.
Jer 4:23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void (same phrase as Genesis 1, I know); and the heavens, and they had no light. 24 I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly. 25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled. 26 I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.
This passage is presumed to refer to a period of time between the first two verses of Genesis
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was (came to be) without form, and void;
I am not disputing that it is possible that a gap exists here (possible) I am disputing that Jer 4 fills the Gap.
Look carefully at what God himself says about this vision that Jeremiah saw.
27 For thus hath the LORD said, (this is what the above vision means) The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end. 28 For this shall the earth mourn, and the heavens above be black: because I have spoken it, I have purposed it, and will not repent, neither will I turn back from it.
So, what does it mean, does it refer to Satan's rebellion before the beginning of the world?
29 The whole city shall flee for the noise of the horsemen and bowmen; they shall go into thickets, and climb up upon the rocks: every city shall be forsaken, and not a man dwell therein.
30 And when thou art spoiled, what wilt thou do? Though thou clothest thyself with crimson, though thou deckest thee with ornaments of gold, though thou rentest thy face with painting, in vain shalt thou make thyself fair; thy lovers will despise thee, they will seek thy life.
31 For I have heard a voice as of a woman in travail, and the anguish as of her that bringeth forth her first child, the voice of the daughter of Zion, that bewaileth herself, that spreadeth her hands, saying, Woe is me now! for my soul is wearied because of murderers.
This is not the description of the destruction of the "former Universe" it is a description of the FUTURE destruction of Zion, future to Jeremiah, certainly, and probably future to us. That is a much more reasonable interpretation based on the CONTEXT. It is so very plain, so very simple.
The use of the "without form and void" language is in merely to create a stark picture of what the destruction of Jerusalem would be like.
The writer is way to emphatic over something which is not telling us what he says. He treats the scripture like it is filled with vague clues, while ignoring truly important points of doctrine. Points which pertain to salvation. That is one of the greatesst dangers of these doctrines, they turn our ears away from sound doctrine and truth unto FABLES.
Had God decided that the earth would be his favorite place in the universe after the millennium or did he decide that it would be his favorite in the universe from the very beginning of the creation of the universe ,
"his favorite place in the universe?" That is another Dr. Murray special. He says that. The bible doesn't. This is like asking someone, "When did you stop beating your wife?" The question itself may very well be invalid. Maybe you never beat your wife. "When did God decide," that would be a good question of Job 38. Tell me if thou hast understanding.
the place he intended to occupy from the beginning of the creation as he indisputably indicates in Isa 45-18
This verse indicates that?
Isa45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.
It just says "he formed it to be inhabited" he does not even indicate by what, for how long, etc. Another example of a scripture being handled deceitfully. Anyone whose mind has not been polluted by Dr. Murray's poison can see that this verse does not say what this person asserts it "indisputably indicates" Ha ha ha, big talk, but no truth to it.
The following verse is in reference to the point in eternity before the advent of time discussed previously at the beginning of Genesis.
We'll just let that slide for now. I refer the reader back up to the "time discussion"
It is in reference to the creation of the universe,after the creation of the host of heaven.:Isa.45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else. God specifies the earth out of the whole universe as having been created for the purposes of habitation,,and we know even in our insignificant flesh minds, how big the universe is.
I almost feel bad, what a blunder. 'God specifies the earth out of the whole universe as having been created for the purposes of habitation"
Is he serious? The verse did not say that the earth was the only place in the universe which was created for that purpose. That is just a lack of basic reading/logic. This is a total blunder. I do not know how else to say it.
This is just false. "God specifies the earth out of the whole universe." He never does that. This verse would not exclude other places being formed for habitation. We cannot assume they exist either, but this verse does not rule such a possibility out. I have to question his abilities. Because the only other option would be to assume he was purposely trying to pervert the word of God, and I can't believe that.
You can't read that information into that verse, that information isn't contained in that verse. This is every fact this verse gives us about the earth.
he hath established it,
he created it not in vain,
he formed it to be inhabited
You can't say that one of these is exclusive to the earth without including all three, because they are all given together with no differentiation.
Could we say that in this verse God specifies the earth out of the whole universe as having been established by him?
No.
Could we say that in this verse God specifies the earth out of the whole universe as having been not made in vain (tohu)?
No.
Could we say that in this verse God specifies the earth out of the whole universe as having been created for the purposes of habitation?
No. But he did. It is a complete blunder. "Irrefutably."
It is in reference to the creation of the universe,after the creation of the host of heaven.:Isa.45:18
Where does he get that "in reference to?" I'll tell you, it comes from having a preconceived story of the world firmly fixed in your mind. That is not the context in which that verse is given in the bible. That verse is never referenced elsewhere in the bible as having that reference. Bob merely gives it that reference because it fits into the false fabulous preconceived story of the bible which he is promoting.
Not all people can see that the earth was created for the host of heaven ,for there was no flesh, as we know it from the temporary dimension of time.
This is your brain on Dr. Murray.
The universe and Gods children where originally created towards infinity into the dimension of eternity.
I understand the sentences but I do not get the point. This is just a fancy way of stating the obvious. That which is eternal has no beginning or end. Everything except God has a beginning, so he is trying to map that out linguistically in terms of dimensions and eternity. I get the idea, but not the point. The part I object to most is the 'God's children" Dr. Murray-speak, it pervades all his talk here.
Infinity is in reference to creation being introduced into eternity and moving forward within eternity to everlasting.
Ok, so...
The remembrance of the flesh shall be erased as will the dimension of time, both finite
I don't know if that is true. This is extremely speculative. Are the following verses supposed to back all this up? They don't. He gives so little to support so much, it is really not worth my time except that I might say that, as much as it is humanly possible, I had thoroughly answered this nonsense.
Job:38-4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
I guess that settles it. ha ha ha. Groan.
Think about the subject that is being argued over here, the reason I don't argue is that I do not have a time-line, to me, this answers to the same type of folly as "endless genealogies." I know for some people these kinds of things become all-consuming problems which must be solved. But I reject his solution, and I do not offer an alternative because the SPIRIT of Job 38 is that man is ignorant
People like this emailer, and Dr. Murray, dare to answer God's questions and are essentially defying the spirit in which the message God gave to Job was delivered. Job actually feared God, and did not dare answer. These rather answer from their ignorance and their arrogance. Do not miss that point.
God has made the statement that the world would never end
No, he did not.
Jesus sure talked about the end of the world allot. Bob must know something Jesus didn't.
Matt 13:39 ...the harvest is the end of the world; Matt 13:40 ... so shall it be in the end of this world. Matt 13:49 So shall it be at the end of the world:
Mat 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? 4 And Jesus answered and said unto them ... WHAT DO YOU MEAN? I HAVE MADE THE STATEMENT THAT THE WORLD WILL NEVER END.
Or not...
Matt 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
Eph 3:21 Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.
Geneas tou aionos ton aionon. The generations of the age to the ages.
Not exactly a "statement" that "the world will never end." Not a bit. He hangs his hat on air. There is nothing there
Isa 45:17 But Israel shall be saved in the LORD with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end. (close, but is that what it means? That the world will never end? Or should we think of it in the same sense as Eph 3:21?)
I'm not saying that the earth is going to be physically annihilated, but I really don't know. But God never said what he said. I'm mostly interested in information which is helpful in making my soul escape annihilation.
so I have to assume that that statement includes the universe.
Why? Why does he have to assume? I guess that is just his way, he has to make assumptions based on thin information because that is just how he rolls.
God took the life out of the universe not just the earth , at the overthrow of satan
Fantasy on top of fables does not make sound doctrine. They are always speculating about the enemy as if this knowledge can save them from him.
and recreated a limited finite universe and flesh in the limited finite dimension of time at the advent of Gen 1:2.
Possibility becomes certainty and fable becomes fact, but where is the sound doctrine. They do not tolerate sound doctrine. I have already demonstrated as much.
If there were more verses to back up his claims I would gladly refute them, but they are not being given, because there is nothing more than has already been stated a thousand times and it is no more compelling now than before, except in the minds of those who believe in the preconceived story of Dr. Arnold Murray.
The whole universe was dead for he even had to recreate the light and divide the light from the darkness.
It does not say that. This is a side issue, but his own lack of perception is blinding him. I could speculate too, but it is not very tempting to me.
God did not destroy the actual universe as such,into nothingness ,but he took the life out of it and made it void and without form ,lifeless.
That is not right, if there is a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 there was much more than nothingness in Genesis 1:2, there was water, for one, there was the heavens and the earth, they existed, but they were not in their present form. I can certainly say that much.
He took his children to where they were before he created the universe,for the bible does not say that he destroyed the souls of his children ,only at the great white throne judgement does he destroy souls.
What this fellow says is a good example of doctrine that is not sound. A whole lot of what he says is based on what, as he just said, "the bible does not say." That is the best he could have said it, THE BIBLE DOES NOT SAY. Most everything he has to say is stuff the bible does not say.
2 Timothy4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
Regardless in what body the soul is in,if the connection be broken the spirit returns to God who gave it.
What connection? He ought to specify. I assume he means the connection between the soul and body, I do not see any evidence that this connection is EVER broken. When Jesus died, he "gave up the Ghost (the spirit)" but his soul remained with his body, we know this because the scriptures say so specifically. 'Thou shalt not leave my soul in hell, " according to Peter,refers directly to the Lord and his resurrection, the spirit returns to God but the soul, the person, the actual being stays put. That which is called the "spiritual body," is not equivalent to the spirit which makes man alive. Jesus affirmed as much:
Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
1 John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him
The resurrection body is not a flesh and blood body , but is similar enough in appearance for the Lord to say, "flesh and bones."
1Cor 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh 40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: 50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
51 Behold, I show you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
Death is compared to the sowing of a seed, it comes back up something different, but notice, the new body does not come out of a dead body until after it is planted, in other words resurrection comes later, not the instant you die.
Granted the following verse is in regards to the flesh,
Eccl 12:6 Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern.
7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.
It is in regard to life and natural death. The spirit returns to God but the spirit body is not yet raised,
1 Cor 15:42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.
Just like a seed.
John 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
1 Cor 15:42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.
That is just how it is, that is what the doctrine teaches us.
but the flesh is likened unto looking at the spiritual world as through a dark looking glass.
The way he is using that verse is not as intended. I don't really see what he is getting at with that statement.
1 Cor 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
I don't see what he is surmising from that connection.
For we know there is a spiritual body as well as an earthly body.
But let us not forget.
1Cor 15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
This is one more great reason to reject the preexisting souls doctrine. When I was a student of Dr. Murray, this verse used to trouble me in my (his) doctrine. The natural body comes first, NOT the spiritual. SPECIFICALLY, this verse is a total contradiction to what this fellow believes. I mean the false belief that "God's children entered time to enter flesh bodies," etc etc. trash.
The whole creation looks forward to the total renewing at the great white throne judgment .God will again recreate his universe to its former glory unto the everlasting and take his redeemed there with him with the promise of a more glorified body than the former.
This is the filler, mostly true, but in his mouth, it is a lie. Because his doctrines lead away from God's kingdom into darkness. His false doctrines leaven the whole teaching and make it all leavened, all false.
Rom 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, 21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
The whole creation (the children of God and the universe) groan and travail together.You and I will never agree as to what the whole creation consists of for we have hashed this over on more than one occasion
We will never agree. I see that more now than I did when we were actively communicating.
2Cor7:14 for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?
To you these facts might seem insignificant,but they are for our edification as believers in Gods word.
Facts mingled with fiction are not insignificant. It is the question you are pursuing that is not, not so much significant, but expedient.
The question that is in focus here is whether or not the earth was originally created into the dimension of eternity towards infinity or into the dimension of time.
I think our time would be better spent calculating how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.
The answer is that the host of heaven and the universe were created into the dimension of the eternity towards infinity and that time is a temporary dimension which contains the flesh and a temporary limited universe.
This is supposed to be edifying?
We know that God created a certain number of souls(the hosts of heaven) unto infinity into the dimension of eternity at the advent of Isa.45:18 and Job 38:4-7,
This is not what those passages say, I refer the reader to my above remarks in that regard. read those verses for yourself. Do they really say what he is suggesting? Or is he merely suggesting that is what they say? It is a clever trick to word things in this manner. He handles the word of God deceitfully. Look and compare!
"We know that God"
Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
This arrogant person thinks he knows. And he faults me for disregarding him?
the question is ,did he create more souls to be added to the dimension of eternity from the birth of flesh man from the temporary dimension of time with the advent of Genesis 1:2
It is a foolish and unlearned question. It cannot be answered. it should be avoided, because there is no profit.
2Ti 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.
Some might say that I have failed to heed Paul's warning, (this guy is just the type to say as much while himself doing the same) But I have liberty, what if the questions cannot be avoided, or to avoid them would give the enemy victory? It is a general rule, and I obey it in my doctrine but that is not what this is about. I am fighting in a different war, casting down imaginations. The foolish questions are ruling the hearts of men unrecognized, so they must be exposed struck down. I know his cynical response. I really don't care because his thoughts are always amiss. They do not trouble me, nor those who hear me.
Personally I believe that all souls where created before the creation of the universe and that the complete creation is the creation of the children of God and the creation of the universe .
Good for him, but I don't get it, This is not important. I don't even really understand what all this he is saying about infinity and dimensions is supposed to mean... It is speculation, and I'm supposed to nod my head and agree with him? I understand the words. But I would be as well off, having never heard them.
The verses mentioned herein irrefutably support this belief..
Lord, help me. "Irrefutably," again, and to no good cause. And he is not kidding. Inscrutable is the true and accurate way to describe the structure he has built to support these ideas.
Redemption started long before the flesh,the flesh is simply the vehicle through which it is accomplished.
He is welcome to form his own philosophy based on his beliefs. But the bases are not very steady...and that is my judgment, what else need be said, place your faith in sound doctrine, not shaky shake.
The very purpose of God creating the universe was for a habitation for his children.The very same reasons that we as adults in the flesh provide a home and food for our children,the family being the basis in both the dimension of eternity and the flesh dimension of time.That was his pleasure.
"His children" is more Murray-speak.
I'd prefer not to speculate on this subject beyond what is written. What this man does is take things from scripture, speculate on them, and then mistakes his speculations for the truth.
Vain jangling.
Do we need to absolutely know all these facts for redemption?
Much of it, is not even factual. "The verses mentioned herein irrefutably support this belief.. " Not so. And none of is seems to me to have any bearing on redemption.
I would say not all but we do need to understand some,such as the family relationship,
We need to understand "the family relationship" for redemption? No. Wrong.
All one need do is look at the penitent thief on the cross to understand what is needed for redemption. (Without mentioning God's election), recognition of our sinful state, faith in Christ, trust in Christ, and all the works that follow. The only work the thief had to perform was to be conformed to Christ's image, which he did effortlessly, and it is all of our work to try an do the same. I do not need to know any of the stuff this gentleman is saying to be saved. And also, I do not understand it. It seems that he has been conferring with himself within himself for too long.
regardless all these facts certainly are edifying for the student who searches deeper into Gods word.
These "facts" are fables and they turn men's mind from the facts of redemption they ought to be focusing on, i.e. conforming to the image of Christ. They are not profitable, they are a distraction and a deception, they are neither true nor useful and therefore to be despised.
You made the statement "Concerning myself with the implications of fragments of scripture hoping to prove the earth is older than the first day, which does not bring me any closer to being like Christ, is not something I occupy my time with." yet you have spent years refuting what you call implications of fragments so obviously you do occupy yourself in that respect,
No, wrong, I am making war on the enemies of the gospel,
This person was very irritating in this regard: he would chasten me for one thing (as above), or let us say, for not having an alternative answer to every scripture he misused or every false statement he made, except perhaps to assert that he was misusing it or misstating it (though he never specifically said it as I just said it)
But here now he tries to chasten me for knowing anything about the subject at all, and disputing over it, and he forgets, I studied profitless doctrines for over ten years, it was only in 2005 that I received the holy spirit and was changed in my thinking.
And as far as all this writing I do, it is not like I bring these topics up over and over, I said it once, Dr. Murray's doctrines are false, and they (his disciples) keep writing me, so I answer their challenges. He is always looking to catch me, like the pharisees did Christ, on some little point, but if you want to know what I'm really up to, this is it:
I am making war.
2Co 10:3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:
4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)
5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
6 And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.
I'm ready, believe me. This is the revenge of Jesus Christ against those who pervert his word.
2 Tim 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.
24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
That is what I do. Paul means that we should not strive after the fleshly manner. Like if I were to punch this character in the face. I am gentle and meek. Just as Christ was, and I take him for my example. And looking at the way he handled himself i'd say I'm probably too reserved and timid.
I call them facts that you refuse to or cannot corrolate or understand.
Well, I've been taking him one line or two at a time and I think I am pretty well showing the reader what these doctrines are. So I'll let the reader decide what is understandable here. It is not for any deficiency on my part that these things are hard for me to grasp. It is because they are made of smoke. Which is indeed hard to grasp.
The course of the greatest issues which you refer to have been in your own words ordained from the foundations of the earth and beyond your influence ,this is the foundation of your own beliefs.
In my own words? No, not mine...
2Tim 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
Notice, it is a gift, not according to works done in this world or any fabled "original creation."
Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
The ordination of God comes first, what we do is an effect, not vice versa. Is this really that hard? This fellow has a problem, he refuses to accept the DOCTRINAL PASSAGES of the scriptures as more authoritative than his PRIVATE interpretation of a few obscure passages. All the scriptures I am giving are speaking to the subject at hand, while all the scriptures he uses to establish his fabled facts are being handled DECEITFULLY.
1 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;
2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
3 But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour;
These passages are revelatory and doctrinal in their focus. That is not the character of the verses used by this person to support Dr. Murray's doctrines.
Is what I have brought forward really just fragments of scripture ?
Yes, absolutely. When taken in context, the fragments are reveal to be not doctrinal in character, but prophetic and therefore subject to interpretation. I'm not saying axiomatically that doctrinal passages are immune from interpretation and prophetic passages are always so subject, but one must handle the issue in a sound manner, taking all the pertinent facts into account.
Psalm 82 is a song, and Jesus Christ gives distinct clues to the interpretation of that song, and those clues definitely lead us away from this man's interpretation. (I.e. Jesus said "if he called them Gods unto whom the word of God came" which I argued clearly in my response a year ago (3/2009) means that the God was referring to Israel as his children, not all man kind. There is more to it than that, but my point is that Psalm 82 is definitely subject to interpretation, it is not doctrinal in character)
Job 38 is a narrative interrogation, the spirit of which is violated when reading into it preconceived stories of dubious origin. One must ask, what is God really trying to communicate by those verses in Job? Is he trying to give us clues to figure out the "deeper truths of God's word," are we supposed to answer God's questions to Job ("Where was I when you laid the foundations of the earth, God? Why I was there!" Is that what God wants us to know from Job 38?) or are the questions of Job 38 meant to intimidate us and communicate a greater perception of our ignorance? My opinion should be obvious.
Jeremiah chapter 4 is a prophecy directed specifically at the destruction of Zion (Jerusalem). All this person does is read into Jer 4 a preconceived story of dubious origin. When one reads the passage, one need not take the similarity of language between Genesis 1:2 and Jeremiah 4 to be an indication that Jeremiah 4 is a "closer look" at Genesis 1:2, it is much more likely that the destruction of Zion is being likened to the without form and void state of the Earth in Genesis 1:2 and that is certainly the flow of the context of Jeremiah 4. Read it.
He always mocked my beliefs about predestination, doctrines which are specifically described in detailed doctrinal passages in the bible. There is no comparison between the three passages he relies on here and the doctrinal passages of the book of Romans describing the facts of predestination. There is a clear distinction, not all scripture is equal. A doctrinal passage (one that is specifically meant to instruct) such as the New Testament epistles, is very different from a poetic or prophetic passage. (And the unlearned and unbelieving will stumble at both).
or undeniable facts from verses in Gods word, the said verses testifying unto one another?
Not in the very least. Not even a tiny little bit. Not at all. This man is very much mistaken. He is not a student of scripture, but rather the scripture is his student. The scriptures are his plaything. He mishandles the word.
Do I believe exactly as AM does ,well I don't think so,
He wants me to treat him special. He is neither this, nor that. All this really does is make him more annoying, because he doesn't always explain his view to me, but does not want me to assume he agrees with Dr. Murray, so I'm left scratching my head, wanting to answer but having to guess. When I decide to assume that his badly explained points are defending Dr. Murray's teachings, but that is not what he intended, I get the whole "You are so obsessed with debunking Murray!" thing thrown in my face.
He should start his own web site then. If he does not wish to discuss Shepherd's Chapel doctrine, then why is he here?
but I also do not believe exactly as you do either.
Vast understatement.
Regardless I do enjoy discussions with you when we do so on a civil basis.
I don't enjoy them. For one, I get tired of answering every single point he makes, only to have him totally ignore what I have said and reply with so much more of the same old trash I already threw out ten messages ago. He enjoys our talk because I give him the time of day, but he does not reciprocate. That is not a discussion. He is having a monologue and I am supposed to play his peanut gallery. I always have an answer for every single point he makes, but he never answers the points, he rarely acknowledges them and says WHY he is right and I am wrong. Maybe he thinks he has done that, if that is the case then he sets incredibly low standards for him self, and incredibly high standards for me.
After a while I run out of gas, there is only so much a man can take, all these words, all these words, at least I know that some people are being helped by this, otherwise I would absolutely quit. As it is, I put off answering this for a year, is it not obvious why? It is not that I had "no answer" to what he said. It is that I had "too much" of an answer, and I did not have the energy to make it at that time.
I hope I have made myself clear to you.
Well, not really, and also somewhat, I understand him inasmuch he agrees with Dr. Murray or makes himself clear. I find it baffling, though, he has this characteristic of making much of little or of nothing. Like when he begins to talk about the dimensions and eternity vs everlasting and declares timelessness to be the state of eternity when it could just as easily be a state of multidimensional infinite time. He has not thought things through, he makes "truth" out of speculation. That is not acceptable. I don't understand that. I don't think everything through either, but we have to try.
I know that some people make a big deal about debating what eternity is vs everlasting but really, it is not significant.
2Tim2:14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.
He would say that I violate this by arguing with him. But all I am really arguing is that these things are not profitable, so I am fulfilling the scripture. He is the only violator here. If the police have to speed to catch the speeder, are they guilty of breaking the law?
And he just wants to drag me down with him, because he knows he is not doing right, he just wants to accuse me of being like him. Ha ha ha. It doesn't work.
I do not usually delve this deeply into my own thoughts to put them in writting ,but this is basically how I understand the concepts discussed.
He did not really show me anything, I mean the "how" he gets where he goes. It was mostly a bunch of "Just so" type arguments which explain nothing. I know the scriptures, but I do not see WHY they fit in to his story. He did not explain any of that, he just said they did fit and claimed that the proof was irrefutable. That is very thin, but he is blind to that because he believes that this illogical approach to scripture interpretation is actually valid, actually preferred.
but this is basically how I understand the concepts discussed.
I think I understand, how he understands his concepts, better than he does, what do you say reader? Preconceived ideas read into mishandled scriptures.
Would I expect the average person to understand what has been written here. No
Goodness. I'm so glad I'm not like him. I am glad to say that I believe that the average person can understand what I write and what I think, that my thoughts are certainly not "too high" for any man. If some marvel at my "cleverness" it is precisely because it is understandable. To make the complex ordinary is greater than making something simple complex. And this gentleman falls into the latter party.
If average people cannot understand your thoughts, it is possible that your thoughts are so high that none of us can reach them, but it is also possible that your thoughts are just nonsense, and average people are puzzled and suspicious, perhaps not able to describe why they know this is wrong, I certainly find it a tangled web, but many of us clearly see what you are up to. My experience is that Dr. Murray and his doctrines dazzle the weakest minds for the longest periods, but God is able to enlighten even the weakest minds with the simplicity and sincerity of the truth.
I certainly would not ,but then yours and my thoughts are not average are they?
Gag me. This guy actually knows I post this stuff on the internet, I can't believe he actually said this.
But truly said, his thoughts are not average thoughts, they are far out of the average. I'm not interested in where people's intelligence lies. But this guy has vastly over-estimated his own. I see that with many people of slightly above average intelligence. They are kind of smart, but not smart enough to see the great deficiencies in their thoughts.
It is my FIRM belief that the truth is completely within the comprehension of the very least able thinker among us, otherwise salvation would merely be a contest of who the smartest people were. God has to give it to us. Wise and fools. Even the wisest cannot approach the truth without God giving it to them to understand. The gospel is not for the wise, or the strong, but for those whom God chooses.
Don't get me wrong because nothing is completely clear ,for we still look through that dark looking glass in this flesh.
"In this flesh" it is such a "Dr. Murray? way of talking, of thinking, it is not that it is not true but it arises from their fables.Paul did not say it was the flesh that we had trouble seeing through, it was the time.
1Cor 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
Paul was talking about maturity and love, and about time. Yes, when we see him our bodies will be changed, but notice how this person talks like Dr. Murray, but we need to imitate Paul and Christ. Not Dr. Murray.
Some just see clearer in certain areas than others.
Yes, well, that is true. Ha ha ha.
We have no influence as to who has Christ formed within him,but only as the father wills.
People like him will argue with me about the will of God and they always feel compelled to pay it lip service, so they do not appear to be complete rebels. But it is only lip service, because he will not carry that statement with him through every thing. As he has mocked me for doing.
There are hidden things in his statement, I could draw it out, as I have in the past, but one may read those arguments in the other #40 series emails.
If it is frightfully neglected than it is the will of God ,are these not your own beliefs?
Again, what he gives with one hand he takes back with another. If Christ is ultimately not formed in someone, then that was the will of God, this thought offends him, so he throws it at me like it is some sort of weapon. Like he has me or something. He has another idea, that salvation is not REALLY by the will of God, but by the will of man. In other words, the truth according to Bob is that Man must will his own salvation, and that God really wants everyone to be saved, but is leaving the decision up to us, this is a common error, but it is not according to Christian doctrine.
The doctrine of predestination.The question you must ask yourself is from which foundation ,the original foundation or from the foundation of the recreation, the present world ,the finite world.
This is important to him because he believes that predestination arises from the works done in the "original creation" and that at that point God "willed it" based on the behavior of the "soul" during the rebellion of Satan. But that would just be election according to works. That would be election based on the deeds of the angels.
He focuses on "from which foundation" but he ignores the character of the election. The question of "which foundation" is artificial. If it was so important then why does Paul not specify? The question is artificial, the answers given in the bible are very clear. We are not elected according works done before we were born. The apostle Paul SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED such a possibility in his DOCTRINE.
Rom9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
When the children were not yet born they had not any works. The students of Dr. Murray's doctrines will always deny this teaching. As this man has done so here.
the original foundation or from the foundation of the recreation
I don't believe in multiple creations of the world, but I can't rule out the possibility of such a thing, just as I cannot rule out the possibility of parallel universes and alien life-forms (carnal or otherwise) The problem with these people is that they mistake things that are only possible for things that are certain. I certainly do not place any trust in such ideas.
I base my doctrine on the words of the Apostle Paul. If Paul had meant that the works we did in another age predestinated us in this age to be the elect, then he should never have said all he said, because what he said is actually the OPPOSITE.
2Tim 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
Notice, it does not say, "before the overthrow (foundation) it just said "Began" He want to read all kinds of fanciful scenarios into the scripture, but ask yourself reader, is that at all necessary?
the present world ,the finite world.
If the former world were infinite, it should not have had an end.
I do understand your agony Paul in what you see in this world,for I am painfully aware that Christ is missing at times in certain aspects of my own life,and how I struggle to invite him into those areas to set them right.
Save your sympathy, you have no idea. My agony, is this continual grating from those who know nothing but speak much. God put in me the hatred of false doctrines. I hate false doctrine, I love to hate false doctrine, but it pains me to see people swallowed up in it. They are missing out on salvation. That is my agony.
I'm so glad this is almost finished.
The mind willing but the flesh rebelling.
1 Cor 9:24 Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain.
I run to win. If not, why run at all?
25 And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible.
I am going to live forever.
26 I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air:
I know I will win. I fight like I know I will win. Because God promised.
27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.
The flesh rebelling? I bring it into subjection, because God promised that I could do it. You do not make allowance for the flesh to fulfill the lust thereof, we use words of FAITH, not words of rebellion. It is one thing to aim for righteousness and suffer a setback, but it is another thing completely to say you will sin and that you will never become obedient, in defiance of God's PROMISES to the contrary. That is worse than foolish.
You tell me that you are past this stage, that you have hurdled it and no longer struggle with the flesh.
I've never said that. And I've said as much, but this guy is obviously just out to tick me off, he got his wish. He is banned. not for being "too good" i.e "too smart" (ha ha ha). No, I banned him for being awful. So cynical, so slanderous.
Perfection is where I am heading, that is what I work to. Just because I quote things like 1John 3 and affirm that the truth is true, (he that is born of God does not sin, for God's seed remains in him and he cannot sin) people want to say that I think I'm already perfect. No, but I acknowledge that God wants me to be perfect, I'm getting better all the time because I believe in his promises and actively seek that they should be fulfilled in me, I can see the results myself, it gives me more and more confidence, I will be like him, even in this present world.
II Corinthians 7
1 Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.
What? Was Paul laying something on us he knew was impossible for us to perform? For man perhaps. But I have POWER, the power to become a Son of God. And so I run.
I don't know if I will ever completely overcome the flesh but I will continue the struggle to that end.
I will win, I will be victorious in the struggle because God has promised it. That is faith. If you do not have faith in the promises of God then you cannot be saved. By his confession, I see he lacks the faith to be saved. This is not my judgment, but his own.
In the common realization of the world situation I feel love in my heart towards you . I empathize with you and sympathize with your agony.
He can keep his sympathy, he is as far from understanding me as one could possibly be.
This response is my original response and not a line by line demonstration of the flaws in his arguments, that follows under the next heading, "Additional Editorial Comments on Emailer's Second Reply:"
"...intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind."
That is the way I look at the way this gentleman handles the word of God. He takes something which is no more than a vague hint, and which in no way, of necessity, leads to the conclusion he attempts to draw, and does it over and over, building conjecture on surmisings, and the whole thing is deceitful.
I hate it. I hate this kind of reckless deduction. The supposed proof texts do not stretch that far. My problem with him is that I can't get that idea through his head and he keeps coming back with these wild ideas. He intrudes his mind into things which he knows nothing of, totally neglecting things of real importance.
Additional Editorial Comments On Emailers Second Reply:
The following are additional comments I have written. Point by point, covering what he was saying and showing why it is wrong.. he later asserted I was "unable" to answer his remarks. The truth was that I was fed up with him and his ways, do I stopped giving his questions the respect I usually try to afford every question an opponent raises. After a year off from this fellow's company, I feel that I do not want to leave these points unresponded to.
The problem is that you have one mind set and that is to debunk AM. (Dr. Arnold Murray)
That is the purpose of this discussion, that is why he wrote me, that is the only reason I have ever invited people to email me. I have other purposes on my web site, but OUR purpose, the only purpose HIM and I had a discussion for was never supposed to be anything else than stated. And he has a problem with that. Tough.
I don't think like Am (Dr. Arnold Murray)nor do I necessarily believe as AM (Dr. Arnold Murray).
I disagree, on many points this emailer is clearly in agreement with Dr. Murray. The thing is that because he is so "special" and "different" I'm not allowed (according to him) to point out that fact, or use my knowledge of Dr. Murray's opinions on certain matters as a tool to aid in this discussion, which is a discussion of the doctrines and teachings of Dr. Murray. He just want me to play a different game. he wants to discuss HIS "special" beliefs, if Big "B" want to talk about his doctrines then he ought to start his own web site and find people who are actually interested in his "unique" ideas.
For sure you and I don't think alike but I do know that we all believe in Jesus Christ as our savior.
I don't know that. A little leaven leavens the whole lump, the doctrines that this individual promotes and defends are similar enough to Dr. Arnold Murray's to warrant my opinion that they represent a significant deviation from the doctrines of Jesus Christ. If we do not agree on the doctrines of Jesus Christ, then we are not really believing in the same image of Christ because doctrine is very, very important. It is what we believe in, in order to be saved.
I never even hinted at using Job 38: 4-6 as proof of flesh being at the original creation,
Yeah, yeah, well you didn't understand me either, what else is new?
Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
All it says is that the angels sang and shouted for joy when God created the world, that is it. There are no references to "original creation" as opposed to the creation we are familiar with or of the "advent of Isa 45."
All the other ideas Dr. Murray and this gentleman pull from these verses are speculations based on a preconceived story. One such as Dr. Murray or this emailer reads this passage having the preconceived story in his mind, and further reads the preconceived story into the passage and "discovers" confirmation or "documentation" of his preconceived story. This is not how we ought to interpret the bible. These verses to not document anything beyond the fact of how the angels reacted to God's creation.
I was using those verses to prove that the sons of God where present at that creation.
Oh, was that all? There was much more going on than that. Without saying it, his assumption is that "the sons of God" mentioned in Job 38 were born into the world and became "the elect" this is absolutely impossible. This is what the Gospel of John says about it.
John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
Dr. Murray actually uses this verse to support his doctrine. This is a perfect example of how he handles the word of God deceitfully. "He that came down from heaven" is the Son of man, the word "even" here is in italics in the king James because the translators added it to make it good English. Even, here is used in the sense of "I specifically mean" like this
John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, I specifically mean the Son of man which is in heaven.
And if you do not like that, you may simply drop the word "even."
John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, the Son of man which is in heaven.
Dr. Murray deceitfully handles the word here because he knows that the word "even" was added for flow and style, but he uses is to make the meaning of the sentence RADICALLY change: This is Dr. Murray's reading:
John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven,
The angelic sons of God must be born into a flesh body and "be born of woman." "He that came down from heaven" is interpreted to mean every living person on the earth, we cannot return to God without having first come down from God
even the Son of man which is in heaven.
And the Lord himself also partook of the same, even he did it.
It is deceit. What makes it more deceitful is that he combines this with Hebrews 2:14 "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; "
Which certainly sounds as if it is in agreement, but only once you have the preconceived story in your mind. It sounds like the children and Christ have equivalent experiences. But something critical is missing, that is, the truth of what John 3 says.
John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, the Son of man which is in heaven.
He shares OUR experience, but we do NOT share HIS experience. Jesus does partake of the flesh and blood experience, as we do, but according to the Gospel of John, there is only one man who has ever ascended into heaven, and that would be Christ, he who came down from heaven, and who is now there. He is singular. I hope I have made this point very clear.
Also, logically speaking, (as if the scripture was not reason enough), It is not right to presume that they who, according to the new testament, are given "power to become the sons of God" (John 1) are the same "sons of God" from the beginning of Creation (from job 38). To put that more clearly. If I am given power to BECOME a son of God, then it is logical to presume that I was not a son of God in the past (i.e. in this writer's "original" creation).
You focus on some minute details and discard other so called minute details as insignificant .
Not at all, it is not the size of the information that counts, but the quality and character of the information. That is how I judge what must be discarded from what must be regarded. I will demonstrate.
For instance: Job 38: 7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?Who are the morning stars,and who are the sons of God. It states all the sons of God .. Do they not have living souls ,souls that existed before genesis of the flesh?
He focuses on the idea of "all" here. All can only refer to the sons of God that existed at that time. If other sons of God have yet to BECOME the sons of God, then they cannot be included in the whole number because they have not BECOME sons of God yet. That is what I mean by the quality of the information, the nature of the information. In John 1 we see that God gives the power to become sons of God to men, through Jesus Christ. It is absolutely wrong, it is terrible, terrible reasoning to say that a scripture which refers to "all sons of God at the beginning of creation" proves that the sons of God mentioned in the new testament were therefore the same as the sons of God mentioned in Job, as preexisting souls. This is absurd, in that they have not yet all become sons of God (except in the purposes of God).
I'm not sure if that was what this guy was getting at because he never make the full connection, that is what he does all the time. Then he chastens me for comparing him to Dr. Murray. He goes 90% of the way and then I finish the thought for him, after the fashion of Dr. Murray. He asks all these rhetorical questions and then gets offend when I argue against the answers according to Shepherd's Chapel doctrine.
Will you answer me and agree that God destroyed the universe that was before the overthrow of satan?
No, that is pure speculation. Plus I don't know what he means by "destroyed." If I would try to guess I would probably guess wrong and he would say, "I would never say that" and misinterpret what I actually did say, and never clarify exactly what he meant. I marvel that I stuck with this guy for so long.
We have only the account of Gods re-creation of a limited universe but a very clear message from him that he had not created it that way originally.
This mind, too often intrudes into things which he has NOT seen. I know the scriptures but I cannot reach that conclusion from it (Jer 4:20-27, and Isa 45:18, no doubt) What this person does not realize is that his mind has been conditioned to reach that conclusion based on those scriptures. But there are other interpretations, here is the text followed by my interpretation.
Jer 4:23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void (same phrase as Genesis 1, I know); and the heavens, and they had no light.
24 I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.
25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.
26 I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.
27 For thus hath the LORD said, (this is what the above vision means) The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.
28 For this shall the earth mourn, and the heavens above be black: because I have spoken it, I have purposed it, and will not repent, neither will I turn back from it.
29 The whole city shall flee for the noise of the horsemen and bowmen; they shall go into thickets, and climb up upon the rocks: every city shall be forsaken, and not a man dwell therein.
30 And when thou art spoiled, what wilt thou do? Though thou clothest thyself with crimson, though thou deckest thee with ornaments of gold, though thou rentest thy face with painting, in vain shalt thou make thyself fair; thy lovers will despise thee, they will seek thy life.
31 For I have heard a voice as of a woman in travail, and the anguish as of her that bringeth forth her first child, the voice of the daughter of Zion, that bewaileth herself, that spreadeth her hands, saying, Woe is me now! for my soul is wearied because of murderers.
This is not the description of the destruction of the "former Universe" it is a description of the FUTURE destruction of Zion, future to Jeremiah, certainly, and proably future to us. That is a much more reasonable interpretation based on the CONTEXT. It is so very plain, so very simple.
For sure there are plenty of those who where the sons of God "then" and who are not considered the sons of God "now" after Satan drew one third of them away.
I suppose this would answer the whole "become" argument I just made, but not really, because, become again? Once fallen, shall angels return? He confuses the angels with men. It is really very simple in the bible, until you begin to accept this kind of profitless speculation.
"And his tail drew a third part of the stars of heaven and did cast them to the earth." But the commonly held interpretation of this verse is not a necessary one. This verse could easily refer to the future. Because he will be coming to the earth and his angels are coming with him.
Also, the general direction of his thought is speculative, and based on many assumptions. We do not have to follow his line of thought when reading these scriptures. It is conditioning and suggestion, do not fall for it. It is no more than slight of hand. And it is such an insignificant thing, what is the benefit of this knowledge? If I were to accept these speculations I would gain nothing in Christ.
Can you at least agree that God had created the hosts of heaven before he created the universe, as it states in JOB 38.,which is definitely not the account of Genesis In the account of Genesis God re-creates the universe in a limited fashion first ,then creates men and women to procreate the races,regardless he created living souls in both cases. Then God created Adam and infused him with the breath of life and he became a living soul.
Think about the subject that is being argued over here, the reason I don't argue is that I do not have a time-line, to me, this answers to the same type of folly as "endless genealogies." I know for some people these kinds of things become all-consuming problems which must be solved. But I reject his solution, and I do not offer an alternative because the SPIRIT of Job 38 is that man is ignorant
Job 38
1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
People like this emailer, and Dr. Murray, are darkening counsel with words without knowledge. Their answers to God's questions are essentially DEFIANCE of the spirit in which the message God gave to Job was delivered. Job actually feared God, and did not answer. These rather answer from their ignorance and their arrogance. Do not miss that point.
I am interested in the things that accompany salvation, the doctrines of Jesus Christ, not in unprofitable speculation and ignorant surmisings. Some small amount of speculation is perfectly acceptable, but to take speculation and mistake it for "irrefutable truth" is a very grievous error.
I have to digress somewhat here and go back and reflect on some of our past discussions.
This is where it gets rich.
When ever I try to bring logic into our discussion regarding God you poo poo it away by saying God does not need to have a justifiable reason for what he does, he just does it because he is God.
First of all, he ought to provide an example of this so-called "logic." I do not recall him employing any logic to the subject of predestination. What he applied was emotional and irrational.
I say what I way because that is what the bible says. I do not Poo-poo this guy, no, not me! It is the Apostle Paul who poo-poo's him.
Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
I can recall in past discussion him saying, basically that it would not be fair for God to find fault with people who could not resist God's will. And I gave him this scripture over and over. The Apostle Paul provided this as the only justification for what God does, "Who are you to reply against God?"
a justifiable reason for what he does...To me that is an argument that denies the justifiability of God.
He wants to subject God to the judgment of man. Justify yourself, God! This man ought to acquaint himself with the parable of the workers. What seems fair to man is not what God bases his decisions on. They did not do equal work, but they all got the same pay. Some worked all day, some worked half a day and others only an hour, but the master paid them all the same. How does God justify that sort of unfair treatment (and it was definitely, not fair). The ones who worked all day were angry, they certainly did not judge it to be fait or justifiable! And the master said,
"Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is your eye evil because I am good?"
That is God's JUSTIFYABLE REASON. It is mine and I'll do what I want with it. I am good, and you are evil.
I'm not saying God is not fair, so much as I am saying he is MORE THAN FAIR. God is extremely generous. What would be fair, is if God just killed us all, that would be FAIR. You think for God to be fair God has to be fair in every way that seems fair to YOU. And God is fair, but you need to accept that it just might not be according to how you see it. You think it would be fair that everyone who never got a chance to hear the gospel would get a chance to repent at the judgment (or something like that), you think that would be fair. And you think it is fair for a simple reason. You are a human, and you know you don't deserve mercy, so you want everyone to get it so that you can feel better about it. You want to defend God against those who say God is not fair. You are too willing to accept doctrines that make God seem "more fair." You are doing this to the perversion of God's word and the corruption of his character. God is not like how you say. He is fair, he is more than fair, he is but he does not owe anyone anything. That was my point about those who God has not created. What would be fair, is if we all became like them, non-being. THAT IS FAIR. But I say God is more than fair, he is gracious and generous, that was the point of the parable of the workers, God is Good. He is not fair, as a man might judge fairness, But God is more than fair, man wants to live, but God does not owe it to man to live, God does not owe men ANYTHING.
I am not saying that God needs to justify himself to anybody ,because being God the only one in the universe who is good,he is justified in what he does because of his nature.
What a load of junk, he is basically trying to cover his rear because he is spewing such a load of horse manure. On one hand God needs to be justified, on the other , he doesn't need to be justified. Well, which is it?
You and I can be assured that any cause of God has a foundation of justifiable reasons even though he does not have to justify himself to you and I, but because of his nature he does have to justify himself to himself..
This is too sick to be a joke. I am assured, but this fellow is NOT. That is why he questions the word of God on this subject. He is not able of himself to justify God's actions. So he panics and denies the word of God in order to make God justifiable in this man's own sight. He says "he has to justify himself to himself." And here his sits judging the justification for things God's word says that God does. he is a total contradiction. He is talking out of both sides of his mouth.
This is a lie. His whole thing is that he cannot believe God's works because he cannot justify God's actions to himself (Bob). But he knows he is on shaky ground so he backtracks and says "Yay and Nay, Yay and NAy, yes and no, yes and no. This is horrible.
God created his children as an expression of the great love within him,and his desire to allow them to share an incredible never-ending existence of life in company with him .
Fine but he says it in the language and pet-terms of the Shepherd's Chapel, It is just more fair sounding words meant to deceive.
To redeem means to recover from a certain state or process and set free.
I'm not going to try to decode that for everyone, it is probably ok.
The question is why did God put souls into a flesh state to start with,into a process where he needed to personally redeem them,and don't cop out on me and tell me he did it because he could.
Oh, so God does not have to justify anything, but he does have to have a justification is that it?
I suppose if I said that God made man this way because it was the way he wanted to do it, Bob wouldn't like it?
It is not a cop- out it is the only answer I can give with authority. The answers you give are based on speculation, it is unsound doctrine. It is not that he "could" it is because it is what he wanted to do. And why did he want to do it? Well, when I see him that might be on my list of questions, but I see little relevance, or need to speculate on that subject now. If it was important, then we would have a sure word, wouldn't we?
He talks like "why" is an important question. Maybe to him it is. It is hard for man to accept ignorance. I resist such an arrogant attitude as this man has.
"Why hast thou made me thus?" The question has been asked (Isa 29), and God did not give an answer.
God does what he does because this is the way he chose to do it, this is probably the thing that seemed pleasing to him to do. Why is that so difficult to accept?
Even if one accepts Dr. Murray's fairy tale of the first age, it just begs more questions.
It was his will because he had justifiable cause.something you do not give God credit for..
Ha, ha , ha, no, that is what this fellow does. He denies that God is justified in the things the scriptures say he does. Then he tries to change the word of God to suit his own sense of what is just. God is justified, he ought to destroy us all, THAT WOULD BE JUSTIFIABLE. But God is better than justified. He is irrationally GOOD.
He is justified because of the rebellion of his children.
God does not need a justification for creating me. I'll just thank him for it. it was nice of him.
This guy has this screwy idea that we are incarnate angels that God owes an explanation to for having subjected to incarnation. I have already shown that this idea is just impossible according to scripture.
1Cor 15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
It is therefore impossible that human being once inhabited spiritual bodies before their incarnation. Only Jesus experienced that.
John 1:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he (Jesus Christ) that came down from heaven, the Son of man which is in heaven.
God did not make souls sojourn in the flesh because of a whim, he had a purpose and justifiable cause.
Lord, Lord, help me. Sojourn? There it is again. It is Dr. Murray's fable.
This is what makes this conversation difficult, I have to debate several things at once. And he just keeps rolling on. I have thoroughly exposed his folly, but he is un phased. That is kind of funny when you think about it.
Which living souls did God originally create the earth to be inhabited by.
That is not even a question that needs to be asked unless you are a defender of the doctrines of Dr. Arnold Murray. He is the one that teaches people to ask foolish questions like that. Which living souls? There is much presumed in that. I feel confident we have covered it all so I won't labor the point any more.
I personally think as the word indicates that it was the sons of God
And I don't even really have a problem with that statement, all naked and by itself
Its ok you don't have to answer if it bugs you.
Well, it is this fellow that was bugging me. I had had enough. "It's ok," he is teasing me, I'm not complaining, but I have no respect for this person.
Original Response
Editorial Comments On Emailers Third Reply:
I was finished with person, we had been around the block too many times, and I wanted the conversation to end. The overall questions, of course, are worthy of answering, but the conversation with this person had become a vendetta against me personally, he had been baiting me to answer him sharply so that he could make the attack more personal, as he did in the above remark. But sharp rebuke is sometimes completely appropriate, as I believe it was in this case.
Titus 1:13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply,
that they may be sound in the faith;
14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the
truth.
I Suppose it could be said that many of my remarks are personal in nature and offensive because I make some negative remarks about his ability to interpret scripture "someone who is so deficient" and such. But I feel these kinds of remarks are appropriate because he is not very circumspect in his interpretation of scripture. It is not that this person lack the intelligence to understand the bible, it is that he over-estimates his abilities, and over runs himself. This is a common problem. People begin to think they see things in the bible that are not reasonable. It is an irresponsible approach to scripture. And since he keeps battering me with such awful material, as he does,
I feel I eventually owe it to him to tell him like it is. If you look back to the beginning of our conversation, you will see that it takes time for this situation to develop. There comes a point at which people need to be told that they over-estimate their skills in biblical interpretation, and that they are doing a terrible job of it.
I critiqued his remarks, numerous times, accurately and provided numerous helps and proofs. I have been more than patient with him. He mishandles the word and I have carefully tried to show him his errors. That is a valid criticism especially since we have exchanged several hundred lines of dialogue. He, after so much dialogue, only rarely answers the points I put forward, and then, only with more bad logic and misinterpretation. He just stubbornly resists the truth, based on his philosophical constructions and opinions, not based on the doctrines taught by the Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ.
So perhaps you are wondering, "Why bother?" I have been
asked that numerous times, and I guess I do it for the sake of those who do not
agree with this fellow, but want to understand more clearly why.
Well well Paul
I have learned enough about you that when you do not have the answer or cannot refute something ,your true colors come out. You become that nasty person that you say you used to be,
All I did was rebuke him sharply. Believe me, I could do much worse, I am always holding back on these people. I critiqued his interpretation skills, and he says I'm a, "nasty person." I think there is a big difference between the two ideas.
I have seen the pictures of Paul Stringini who had that blank haunted demeaner on his face,and then that smug arrogant one that replaced it.
Ok, this is just silly. Obviously, I touched a chord, he is really going after me personally.
You claim to have all the answers, at least that is how you come across .
Really? I'm the one who says that some things are beyond knowing. This fellow is the one who knows that eternity is timeless. He is the know-it-all. He is the one whose ignorance is only surpassed by his arrogance.
There is one thing I know that this fellow does not, my own limits.
You are not as intellegent as you let on Paul,
I'll let the reader judge. I'm smart enough to know the limits of knowledge. I know I'm ignorant, but I also know enough to tell the difference between sound doctrine and fables.
for you have followed a fools path concentrating on one man to refute his teachings ,
Here it is. This is all he is really on about. He is defending his master. Dr. Arnold Murray. (Whom he also mysteriously likes to distance himself from) He wants me to stop picking on Dr. Murray, he wants to put me down and put me in doubt. He wants to prove that I am a mean and nasty person. If that was all true, would that make a bit of difference in determining whether or not Dr. Murray was a teacher of truth?
on a path of futility according to your own doctrine of pre-destination and ordination ,for a number of years.
Not according to my doctrine of predestination, but according to what he says my doctrine of predestination "ought to be," in order for him to be able to knock it down easily. He wants to set up my beliefs as "straw-men" i.e. inaccurate representations that are easily knocked-out. Knocked-out by his emotional and irrational revulsion to the truth and the un-biblical ideas which spring from those feelings.
Your doctrine of pre-destination and ordination and how you precieve it does not allow you any latitude in any self determination,
Wrong. He does not understand anything about perspective. Man does not, and can not see himself through the eyes of God, so everything I do, from my perspective, is according to my will, but God sees and knows before, and even intends, but I cannot see any of that. I recognize it by the revelation of the scriptures, but only in a very limited sense.
yet you contunually strive and have been striving against that very doctrine.
nonsense.
You have been lashing out verbally against anyone who challenges you .
Ha, no. All anyone has to do is read the emails.
You have this pent up frustration that you have at times let loose.
Well, sometimes I let loose. So what? I don't see anything wrong with letting this guy have a few choice words of sharp rebuke. "Rebuke them sharply." I do it on purpose.
I want to "burn down" Dr. Murray (as one of his disciples said). Just because I don't like his doctrines, and I'm not frustrated in it, I'm very successful.
Jesus is coming to set the world on fire, and when he comes, he will find that I have been already kindling it.
You have forced this condition upon yourself by adopting a philosophy developed in your own mind that totally limits you ,almost to an atonomous state.
He has no idea what he is talking about. He is creating a ridiculous caricature of the scriptural view in order to dismiss it.
You deny that you can and will still sin,
All I did was affirm that what the Apostle John said was true. He does not believe what the Apostle John said. To say that I affirm what the Apostle John said is true, is not to say that I am already perfect, or free from sin. What I confess is that what John said is true, and that I believe it and I expect to conform to that.
1 John 3:6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil:
The language is very clear. All kinds of people want to deceive us and turn us from the path of righteousness to doctrines that will not profit.
to do so is to deny your own humanity the way you were made.
He is on the absolute wrong side of this question. Yes, I deny my human nature. I'm supposed to do that. This fellow holds so many un-christian opinions, that I marvel at him.
Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;
2Pe1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
Eph 4:22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;
23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;
24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.
Do not get me wrong because we are to run the race.
Yes, run the race Bob, knowing you will lose. What a useless philosophy. This is not the special Olympics. Only the victor will get the crown.
He is just trying to talk out of both sides of his mouth. The gospel is like a foreign language to him.
The twelve sinned so many times even while in the presence of Jesus and in the presence of danger and after Jesus had died and risen.
That is not a relevant point. He is ignoring the changes in their lives. The doctrine that we receive in Christianity urges us forward to righteousness. We should have every expectation of success because God has promised us success in this, above all else. We have the Apostles of the Lord as examples.
Also, I do not agree with the attitude in which this statement is made. He is accusing the apostles of the Lord of hypocrisy. Because they taught us to put off the old man and the lusts of the flesh and to do righteously, if they were incapable of that, then they should not have expected us to live righteously.
They were the seasoned Christians the chosen ,even Paul lamented his humanity but they all accepted their humanity.
That is wrong, listen to my study on Romans 5-8.
Would you call this accepting his humanity?
1Cor 9:24 Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain.
Run to WIN. That means to overcome sin.
25 And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible. 26 I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air:
27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.
Sounds like Paul had things under control. I can quote literally tons of scriptures alluding and specifically stating the truth of the gospel. This guy bases his fables on a obscure psalm, Job 38 and one verse from Isaiah. Which doctrine do you think is more important?
This is were I think the awarness of pre-destination and ordination is important,the very fact that we are in the flesh and created so that when left alone without God we will self destruct
Scripture? Anyone? No, there is no scripture for that one.
and when we search for God it is predestinated and ordained that we can become the sons of God through Jesus Christ.
This is basically a rehash of the "God predetermined the path to salvation" argument.
After we search for God, he predestinates that we "can" become the sons of God. That is not how the scriptures say it.
Eph1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
Notice, it says that God predestinates "us" not the "way of salvation." That is a common misinterpretation. It is not, "if we search for him" we can find the predestinated highway to heaven. That is not how predestination works. Individuals are predestinated, as Paul taught in Romans 9. We've been through it all.
God has given us self will to sin but free will through Christ to become a son of God.
That is not how it works, that is not how the bible says things are. This is just what seems right to this fellow. And to many people. I really don't care what "most people" think, or like, I am only interested in what the Apostles taught.
Not so with the elect.So which kind of elect are you truely?
This is where it just gets confusing, because his idea of what the elect are is a total farce. He believes the elect "stood against Satan in the world that was." That is not how the bible describes them.
Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
Maybe niether ,but just someone in the middle who is struggling against his free will to overcome his self will because of his rendition of pre-destionation and ordination.
I can't even acknowledge that as being a legitimate opinion within Christianity.
It is Christ that guide your free will ,for without him you cannot leave that loop.You must follow Christ of your own free will.
Free will is only the perspective of man. That is how we see the world. But that is not how things really work from God's perspective.
I don't care what you say,how perfect you think you are,you let slip your true nature,.
It did not slip. I say what I say on purpose. I edit what I say, I consider it.
For example the following demonstrates your arrogance and your lack of faith in your own doctrines and philosophys:
It only demonstrates his evil eye.
(quoting me) "I'm teaching what I know is the truth, if you listened to my teaching then you would know "
I can't speak for others, I do what I do because it is what God has given ME to do.
(quoting me) "fighting against Dr. Murray forever without having teaching of my own puts him in a superior position I'm taking that ground for myself. "
I thought some of his criticisms of me had some merit.
It is funny that even when I grant him a point, he finds fault with me. I think he is just angry that I outmaneuvered him.
He thought he had me on the "I want to know what Paul Stringini thinks" thing he was battering me over.
He claimed that I played my hand too close to the vest, that I did not reveal what I thought, that I had no teachings of my own.
So I conceded that he had a point, and so, I started doing bible studies. That seems to have made him mad.
(quoting me) "If you want to learn something of me then you are going to have to sit down and listen to me"
"I was asking you for your opinion,I want to know what Paul Stringini thinks."
That is what he said in another exchange. Follow the link. Now he is angry that I decided to rise to the challenge and do my own line by line bible study. He asked, I answered.
He is the one writing to me asking me my opinions. I told him now to stop writing, that if he wanted to learn from me he would have to listen to my bible studies. What is so arrogant about that?
(quoting me) I'm going to index
Is Bob going to do it for me? Ouch that hurt! Is he kidding? "I was asking you for your opinion,I want to know what Paul Stringini thinks."
(quoting me) I am going to have several hundred
That is right. So? What? Is Bob going to stop ME. I'm the little red hen. I don't expect others to do what I can do for myself. "I was asking you for your opinion, I want to know what Paul Stringini thinks."
Go listen to me teach
I wonder if he ever did..."I was asking you for your opinion, I want to know what Paul Stringini thinks."
The great I AM----ME that is the real Paul Stringini.
"I was asking you for your opinion, I want to know what Paul Stringini thinks."
He set a trap for me, but it didn't work, he fell in instead, I'm not stupid. He asked me what I thought and now he blames me for daring to tell him.
All of a sudden the one who has no free will ,has found something akin to it, but it cannot be free will so it must be self will as to you rendition of pre-destination and ordination.
What an ignorant thing to say.
Hello Paul
Oh yes, it is the real me, the secret Paul. The mean and nasty Paul, the Paul with the great Empire of Bible studies,
Ha ha...
I think this message was addressed to all his friends he had been sharing our conversation with, as well as to me.
(I think this may have been from a lost response) Rather Than Bury it at the bottom of #40a or #40b I'm giving it it's little place here. But youneed to read #40a and #40b before you read this, you really do.
There is no saving grace in this work of yours Paul
(Oh, I don't know about that!)My Fifth (final) Response: edits in maroon and in ( ), as in: (this is an example of an edit)
I'm not here to debate to no good end with someone who cannot hear me. What is the point of continually going over the same unlearned questions over and over with you when I have made my point with you, if there was something more to be gained, I might continue, but you have served your purpose and your usefulness to me has come to an end. I do intend to answer the emails of yours that I did not get around to yet (and that pertain to subject I wish to discuss) but I will do so on my web site in my own good time. You are robbing others who have a sincere desire to know the truth by wasting my time with your nonsense, have you no fear? Consider that if I am a man of God, you are fighting against God Himself, and wasting His time by wasting the time of his servants. Right now I'm spending 6-7 hours a night recording bible studies, I'm not in "answering emails" mode, and If I was, there are more worthy people who deserve my attention.
You are not defending Dr. Murray, but seeking something else, unlike me, you are all about you, the accusations you vainly attempt to convict me of are actually your own sins.
I'm finished acknowledging you. I have asked you once to stop contacting me, now I ask you again, please, stop writing me.
If you want to learn something from me then you can download my bible studies and I will instruct you in the word. Otherwise I have nothing more to offer you.
Go away.
You may write me when you have repented and humbled yourself and submitted to the instruction of sound words and sound doctrine that I offer. If you do not take advantage of that, then you need to go away, permanently.
Don't write me anymore. I mean it. I'm asking nicely. Go away.
Return to "The Shepherd's Chapel and Dr. Arnold Murray" Main Page