Return to "The Shepherd's Chapel and Dr. Arnold Murray" Main Page

"I like to Study God's Word and Mr. Murray's Show on TV Did Inspire Me to Do That More"

Question/Comment:

My First Response:

----- Original Message -----

From: Paul Stringini

To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 1:13 PM

Subject: Re:

Hi XXXXXXXX,

 

Praise God for your site here, and thank you, I like to study Gods
 word and Mr. Murray's show on TV did inspire me to do that more, I liked
a lot of what he taught, but there was a caution flag in my
spirit, basically from his haughtiness(I'm right and if you cant see
that then your ignorant)my def.??..That's the way he comes across
occasionally..

 

There is a line between confidence and haughtiness that each of us must discern.  And though I have not listened to Pastor Murray in a long time I do remember that when I was for him I called it confidence and when I found fault it became haughty.  It is a bit subjective.  One man's confidence can be another man's haughtiness and I think Pastor Murray does a fairly good job of walking the tightrope between the two.  On the other hand many of his followers do not.  Some of the people who write me are just downright haughty.  And I definitely think that they are inspired by his attitude and manners.

 

You would think that after his 1981 prediction fiasco he might have taken a good look at himself and considered that maybe his methods were worse than flawed.

 

So I never ordered the deeper ,stuff..I have a friend
 who is neck deep into it and refuting a lot of my beliefs, so I
appreciate an insiders view of the chapel.

 

You are welcome to it.

 

  I loved your explanation of tongues, It is great, I had a similar exp
with tongues,

 

That is the thing, until it happens to you, it is hard to explain to people, it is weird having people look at me the way I used to look at people who said they speak in tongues.  I have a longer scriptural explanation I'm working on because this Chapel student is really trying to challenge me on it.

  

There are certain things that I disagree with you on, but
I am not at war with you, unless you attack, some cultists(not including
 you)beliefs set them against the body of Christ, Shepherd's chapel, yes.

 

I'll take that.

 

   I appreciate your zeal and fire for God..!.I try to state my
opinion of things and I know I'm taught of God, to my life, My
 walk, Things may be different for others, or I may have been deceived
 am open to that possibility, therefore I am still able to grow and
 learn, I doubt you would ever hear Arnold say that..Humility not
 haughty, opens you for growth, cults are chains,, Arnolds is
 haughtiness..

 I think we all want to have accurate information, and we do not want to be "ever learning but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth"  Part of why people get taken in by cults (and also by the apathy dilution and stagnation of denominationalism) when that people are impatient and they try to take shortcuts.   Have you ever looked at the 7th day Adventist literature?  They have pictures and cunningly crafted tracts to snare people.  Arnold Murray is just more Christian junk-food salacious and sensational short cuts to knowledge.  "If you accept my doctrine, then you are one of God's elect." now that is food for itching ears!

 

One of the things I try to do is narrow the focus of what I'm trying to figure out, instead of cramming my teachings full of strange doctrines, I try to avoid subjects that have no real profit to salvation or are not taught as being important by the apostles  (how old is the earth,  which day is the Sabbath day, which day of the week was Jesus Crucified on) If you ever listen to my bible studies you will see that for better or worse I try to keep a close reign on my doctrine. 

 

I remember Pastor Murray joke how "I may have made a mistake, I think one."  and kind of laugh.  He was probably referring to his 1981 prediction.  I have made lots of mistakes, but I keep purging out the leaven, because our goal is purity.  If we accept anything less then we are not worthy of God's kingdom.

 

>   Your (sarcastic)definition of the trinity is as far out from
> Christianity as I've seen..I would never believe that either,,altho I
> do believe the traditional trinity view.

 

Well, you are probably referring to when I said that Dr. Murray teaches "one God three offices" and that the trinity is "three gods one office"  I was not trying to define the trinity so much as to contrast the trinity with Dr. Murray's teachings, because he says he teaches the trinity and "one God three offices" is not the trinity.  And while you may bristle at the idea of "three gods one office"  you must understand that I said it like that to create a continuity of words in the comparison.  If I said "three persons one office"  instead of "three gods one office"  you would probably not object, the "office" is God, so anyway I was not trying to mischaracterize the trinity but show how the trinity is basically the opposite idea from Pastor Murray's doctrine.  I do not subscribe to the doctrine of the trinity because I reject simplifications like that. but people call me Trinitarian when they read my article  On Jesus Christ and the Nature of God http://oraclesofgod.org/doctrine/01_On_Jesus_Christ.htm That is my doctrine and If you are a Trinitarian I doubt you will disagree with me.

 

And the reason I found you is
> my friend, just as Arnold, and now you, reject the rapture, out of
> hand, with no explanation at all of why,??

 

I think you just may have not been able to find my explanation, I certainly talk about it in my audio bible studies http://oraclesofgod.org/studies/studies.html but since it sounds like you have been focusing on my dispute with the shepherd's chapel you would probably miss my explanation because my Shepherd's Chapel page focuses on my disagreements with Pastor Murray.

 

ultimately, because there is
> no explanation of how to do away with 1st Thess, and many other
> scriptures teaching it,,

 

This is one are where you might pick up some insight on my views of the rapture, because I certainly disagree with Pastor Murray's interpretation of 1 Thessalonians 4 (he says that it means that the dead have already risen)  Repeating the error of Hymenaeus a Philetus:

 

2 Tim 2:17...of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; 18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

 

And that gets to the crux of the matter.

 

And I know the word rapture isn't in Bible, By
> Rapture, I mean, Caught up, snatched up, in the twinkling of an eye to be
> with the Lord in the air..Its an event written by Paul in that
> reference..folks can disagree Pre-positive studied for years and been
> on both sides of it, but to reject it altogether you better start
> trimming you bible, or tell me how you explain 1st Thess. and 2nd..

 

Honestly, it angers me that this non-doctrine has supplanted one of the foundational doctrines of Christianity, the RESURRECTION.  There is no rapture, only resurrection.   1 Thessalonians 4 is about the resurrection of the living and of the living, the "Mystery" Paul spoke of was how the resurrection would effect those were not yet dead.  But it is still the resurrection.  There is no need for a new word to be invented.  And that new word misdirects our attention from the fact that it is the resurrection of the dead that is the focus not the "catching up"  it is like making the focus of the resurrection of Christ the "rolling away" of the stone.  It totally makes people miss the whole point. 

 

Can you imagine Paul scratching his head "the catching away?"  As if that was his point.  I think the apostle would be amazed that people today have taken that passage and made those two words the focal point.  It speaks volumes of the last two centuries of biblical corruption.

 

The dead have not yet risen, and to say otherwise is basically heresy, 

 

2Tim2:18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

 

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.

 

Not till the first resurrection. This is the focus of 1 Thess4

 

16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

 

Being caught up together with them in the clouds is the afterthought.  The activity of being "caught up" is not worthy of a "special" word and a "special" doctrine.  It angers me that this non-doctrine has basically made the resurrection an afterthought.  Our hope is not in the rapture, but in the fact that we believe that our dead shall rise.  THAT IS THE POINT.  Dr. Murray tries to say that 1 Thess 4 means that the dead are already in heaven, but that is heresy, the dead have not yet risen.  The rapture sweeps the issue of the resurrection under the rug and instead focuses on what happens to the living, since they also believe that the dead have really ascended into heaven.

 

So yes, I reject the rapture and I don't need scissors to do it, it is the quintessential mountain made from a molehill.  I have the resurrection so I do not need any raptures, Paul felt no need to coin a new word for meeting the Lord at the resurrection.  Most modern Christians believe the dead have already risen, so if they believe in non-essential nonsense it is no surprise to me.  Rapture, trinity, hogwash, give me Christ and the resurrection of the dead.  I think that the word rapture was invented because the rapture in its pure form is pretribulational, that is what it really is.  They need a special word in order to separate the fake "rapture" from the resurrection in time.  Yielding to any idea of "pre, post, mid" is basically giving in to the rapture and agreeing to argue on the enemies terms.  There is no rapture.  There is a resurrection of the dead, I'd certainly like to discuss how they have abandoned the doctrine of Christ on that one. Today I have a stack of five emails, if you are interested in something other than debate can I suggest you check out my audio bible studies on 1 and 2 Thessalonians http://oraclesofgod.org/studies/52_I_Thessalonians/I_Thessalonians.html , that way we would have a better basis on which to talk and answer questions (and maybe it will answer your questions.

 

For more information on the Resurrection of the dead see my doctrinal paper I believe in Death and in the Resurrection of the Dead

and 2nd..To
> believe as Arnold teaches that, that is the antichrist that Paul is
> referencing is totally insane, Paul is talking to believers, about Jesus
> their Lord coming for them, there is no hint of antichrist there..God
> Bless you my friend, Jason Maloney

I'm not sure I understand you here.  Are you saying that it is insane to believe that "the man of sin the son of perdition" is antichrist?  I mean, maybe you disagree, but is it really right to call it "insane?"  Or is that just hyperbole?   I mean, I don't follow you, but a lot of people think that.  Antichrist is used in the bible in a very general way, it might be "insane " (or wrong technically) to even call the beast the antichrist, but he is certainly "an" antichrist.   I don't really think anything Arnold Murray does is insane, I prefer the word "reckless."  I've been called insane for believing that the tree and fruit in the garden of Eden were actually a real tree and an edible fruit.  And for believing that snakes could be made to speak.  Or whatever, I must have lost you here, clarify.

 

Sincerely,

Paul Stringini 

Emailer's Reply:

 ----- Original Message -----

From: "xxxxxxxxxxx" <xxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxx>

To: Paul Stringini

Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 8:14 PM

Subject: Re:

Ok, Thx for your response, I appreciate it!, To clarify the insane
comment, I was referring to Murrays teaching, that those who look to be
caught up with the Lord in the twinkling of an eye are being set up
for the antichrist who will deceive them by doing that.
   ,Paul taught that in 2nd Thess.4;17..Yes the dead in Christ will be
resurrected and those who are still alive will be caught up together
to meet the Lord in the air.
I apologize for the word insane, The teaching just seems that to me, I'm
sure some of my words or opinions make folks think that of me, LOL, in
fact I'm sure a lot of non Christians think that..,
Blessings to you,
xxxxxxxxx

My Second Response:

----- Original Message -----

From: Paul Stringini

To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 11:23 AM

Subject: Re: Re:

You don't have to apologize for that.  He is a little crazy, (but crazy like a fox).  I agree that it is not logical to say that just because someone believe in the rapture that they will automatically be deceived by antichrist.  For my money, false doctrine ought to be purged for its own sake because heresy is sin and will cause us to fail to inherit the kingdom without ever seeing antichrist.  Some might argue that it is not technically heresy, and I'm not going to argue about it.  If we are looking for the truth sincerely, and not just looking to prove what we believe to be true to be true.  Then the Lord has looked graciously on us and will bless us with the truth.  I trust that.

 

It is not belief in one or the other doctrine that will cause people to fall to antichrist.  Because any false doctrine could destroy us.  Any sin could destroy us.  It is by God's grace that we will either stand or fall.  I look at myself, and I'm thankful I finally quit smoking back in 2005.  Would I betray Christ for one more cigarette?  Would I betray Christ for the caress of a beautiful woman? So long as I was subject to these sins I could never know for sure because no test had come.  Sin makes us vulnerable to temptation, and if we betray Christ to follow our lust, we are already worshipping the enemy.

 

Here are a few rapture related items for your consideration, not to argue, but I have a somewhat unique perspective, and since you are obviously interested in finding out the answer I expect you will consider the following.  1) The two witnesses are the Church. Period.   "These are the two candlesticks"  "the seven candlesticks are the seven churches."  That is prophetic Symbolism 101.   2) Also, the dead in Christ MUST RISE FIRST.  Until the two witnesses rise (the last to die in Christ), no one remaining alive can be changed. It is glorious to suffer and die for Christ,   3) I believer that the rapture doctrine is the savor of the things which be of men and not the things which be of God.  My personal opinion is that if you believe this doctrine, that is no shame, but if you love the rapture (and I always mean the pretribulational) then you ought to be ashamed, every red-blooded Christian should instinctively hate any such Idea (as I did as a teenager when I believed the pretribrapture).  We live to die for Christ, as he died for us.  If you can't agree with that then you cannot be Christ's disciple.   Not now, Lord willing, but I want to die a martyrs death.  4) Around the world Christians are already suffering tribulation, it is only in the fat west that this doctrine even makes SENSE. 

 

Php 1:29 For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;

 

Love that, and you will not be far from the kingdom of heaven.

 

Sincerely,

Paul Stringini

Return to "The Shepherd's Chapel and Dr. Arnold Murray" Main Page