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

From: Name Withheld

To: Paul Stringini

Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 12:19 PM

Subject: not from Shepherd's Chapel.

Hello, I'm just writing to you to thank you for this site. My husband's aunt is a follower of Arnold Murray. We have both tried to talk to her, but she really knows more Scripture than we do, and she is very blinded on those Scriptures meanings. Right now, I'm just praying for her eyes to be opened. Any help you could give me would be appreciated. I don't agree with everything you believe, but I am very reformed in my Theology, so I do believe in Biblical election. We differ on the rapture, even though I don't think the rapture will come before the Tribulation, I do believe it will happen. I've studied under enough real Bible scholar's to know it's a truth. I also do believe in the Trinity, it's a clear thing in Scripture because obviously Jesus is talking to God as He is on earth and the Spirit descends on Him like a dove, so I see it in the Bible. I do see that you are very well studied and read on Scripture. I go to a church that teaches the Bible line by line, and verse by verse, but no taking it out of context. It does my heart good to see you refuting the things they are taught with the original languages. Personally, I also believe that if you will just take Scripture literally, unless otherwise stated, you won't have these problems. Thanks, Name Withheld

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

From: Paul Stringini

To: Name Withheld

Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2011 1:27 PM

Subject: Re: not from Shepherd's Chapel.

Hi Name Withheld,

 

We differ on the rapture, even though I don't think the rapture will come before the Tribulation, I do believe it will happen.

 

You are defining rapture differently than most people, and not just in the matter of timing.  That is where I have a problem, when everybody defines the word rapture differently it becomes difficult to even use the word because it has no firm definition.  The rapture has basically replaced the doctrine of the resurrection in the minds of many people.  But biblically speaking the term  "rapture" is a totally unnecessary and presumptuous distinction. 

 

It is not that I am against "being caught up together in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air"  I absolute believe in that.  It is just one part of the event properly called the  Resurrection.  I believe in the resurrection of the dead as taught by the Apostles and Christ.  I also believe that as much as possible we should try not to coin new terminology to describe events that already have names.

 

1Thess 4:14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent (precede) them which are asleep.
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:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

 

Paul is talking about the dead "RISING" and the living saints being gathered to him. In scripture the proper name for this event is the Resurrection, you can look that word up all over the new testament.  False prophets have come in and splintered off another doctrine based on the term "caught up"  it may seem like a small difference, but they have corrupted the scriptures by taking the incidental term "caught up" and have made it into a new doctrine.  Paul could have said "gathered together"  as Christ did in mark 13, it would not make a difference to the resurrection.  But to the false prophets and the "rapture" it makes all the difference in the world.  Without the word "caught up" there would be no "rapture"  because that is the ONLY place in the scripture that the event is described using that verb.

 

Mark 13:26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. 27 And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.

 

Is it just a matter of timing?  Most people believe the rapture will be a secret.  But the scriptures describe the gathering together of the Saint's in the resurrection as an event which the whole world will witness.

 

I don't know if you are aware but I did a music video for my song "Mark 13" and in it I did a (general) visual representation of the way the scriptures describe the event. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ka-nAx-lki8

 

The term "rapture" was coined by false prophets who wanted to have a term to use when describing an event separate and distinct from the resurrection.   Their idea was that Jesus would come down from heaven and secretly snatch away believers and take them to heaven. Most people who believe in the rapture, believe the rapture means they are going to be secreted away to heaven, to save them from suffering or death in the tribulation.  Perhaps you don't believe that is what it means, but you did not coin the term, the term was coined by the pretribulationists and their definition still dominates.

 

The word rapture is taken from Latin and is derived from the Greek word "Harpazo" in 1 Thessalonians 4 "Caught up."   The problem is that the Apostle Paul was talking about the resurrection, that is the context of 1 Thessalonians 4.  Jesus also spoke of this event as a "gathering together" (Mark 13) Why let a single verb dictate the nature of the event?  The Greek word "harpazo" means "to seize or to catch," but the false prophets like define the word as meaning "to snatch" which has a slightly different connotation in 21st century English.  The false prophets have read into that questionable definition a whole new bunch of ideas, such as the idea that we are being "taken away," "snatched," and from that idea they derive the notion that the event is a secret.

 

I studied this long  and I realized that changing the timing but keeping the terminology leaves me open to all kinds of problems.  When I say to someone "I believe in the rapture, but I believe it will come at the end of the tribulation"  they are going to pour into the word "rapture" everything they believe about it;  For example, most people believe the purpose of the rapture is to save soft Christians from having to suffer persecution, right there, in their mind, they are thinking "what is the point of a rapture that comes after we have suffered?"  Also, once their minds have been conditioned to accept the "thief in the night" as being an accurate description of the rapture, they add to this idea, more ideas, such as the idea that there is a feast and mansions waiting for us in heaven and that if we do not get snatched away in the rapture then what would be the point of Christ working so hard to cook and build all that stuff for us? Or the idea that the fact that they believe he is coming secretly makes it impossible for him to  do it after the tribulation, because the coming of Christ after the tribulation is not secret. It gets very complicated.

 

 I also do believe in the Trinity, it's a clear thing in Scripture because obviously Jesus is talking to God as He is on earth and the Spirit descends on Him like a dove, so I see it in the Bible.

 

The trinity is another issue of questionable terminology. I don't have a problem with the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, but "the Trinity" is more than that.  That passage you cited does not describe the doctrine of the trinity, that passage could be used to support a number of ideas.  The trinity has a specific historical definition.  When I say I do not believe in the trinity, people think that means I deny every aspect of the doctrine.  You brought up the baptism, but how do you know that that is the part I disagree with?  Some people who reject the trinity believe that Jesus was an angel, so that passage would not be meaningful against their beliefs.

 

 I wrote a short paper on the nature of God and of Jesus Christ. http://oraclesofgod.org/doctrine/01_On_Jesus_Christ.htm   And done videos on YouTube describing the nature of God (John 1).  I get lots of criticism from people who either say that Jesus and the Father are one and the same and also from people who say that Jesus is somehow less than God.  I am usually not bothered by classical Trinitarians except when they read the place where I say "Arnold Murray does not believe in the Trinity any more than I do."  But the truth is I get accused of being a Trinitarian more than anything.  But  I do not utilize the term "Trinity," the bible has sufficient terms by which I can understand God to the extent that he has revealed himself.  Coining the term Trinity was an attempt to "simplify" understanding the nature of God but has mostly led to lots of confusion.  I don't agree with trying to codify a bunch of complicated ideas about the nature of God into a single word,  it does not work.   That is my number one problem with the doctrine of the Trinity, it is an over simplification that leaves me unsatisfied.  It is sort of like getting the "bum's rush,"  the religious leaders don't have the patience to teach people the nature of God as described in the scriptures so they make everyone swear their allegiance to a word, "Trinity."  That is what they say God is, and if you don't agree, you are a heretic.  It arose from impatience.  It is not that I am against the doctrine of the Trinity on it's merits, but that I would not have put it they way they put it and I question their authority to say that I must use the same terms as they do.  So for me it is a matter of principle.

 

There is no biblical imperative for me to use that term. I do not automatically call those that use the term "Trinity" heretics, in part because it seems that it means something different to everyone I talk to, so I never know who has the proper view, and who has some other view, unless they do more than say "I believe in the Trinity." 

I have found that to most people, God is the Trinity, and so the term "Trinity" just means whatever they think God is. Historical or not.

 

Read my paper and you will probably find my view is not in opposition to what you believe about God, It is merely a recitation of what the Apostles taught without the label and demand for conformity. I don't oppose the Trinitarian view so much as I oppose the idea that God can be distilled down one mysterious term which we all must rally around. Terminology is a poor cloak for ignorance.

 

I hope that clarifies things for you.  I'm glad my site has been a help to you.

 

Sincerely,

 

Paul Stringini

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

From: Name Withheld

To: Paul Stringini

Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2011 1:54 PM

Subject: RE: not from Shepherd's Chapel.

Well, I guess my belief is in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. This is what I consider the Trinity, but my question is, is there anything I can do to help my husband's aunt, who is a very big believer in this Arnold Murray man?

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

From: Paul Stringini

To: Name Withheld

Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2011 10:06 PM

Subject: Re: not from Shepherd's Chapel.

I know you asked about helping your aunt, but without a specific question, I can only give you general advice. Sorry if I put a little too much into the areas you mentioned, but I wanted you to understand that I do not deny the deity of Christ or anything you have said about it.

 

As far as your aunt goes.  There is no magic bullet. But  I might suggest you check out my page on Murray's 1980 prediction,  that was a long time ago, and the very act of trying to tell her negative things about Murray will put her on guard.  From her perspective, you are deceived and need to have your eyes opened.  Arnold Murray teaches a "listen to me, and read between the lines" style of interpretation which can make trying to get people to simply receive the words of the bible as they appear on the page very difficult. He flatters his students, telling them that they are "studying for themselves" as he conditions them to see things that are not written on the page, and he uses reverse psychology "don't listen to this man or any other man without checking him out in our father's word."  "I never beg.. if we have helped you please help us keep bringing this broadcast to you." 

 

I would say the best thing you can do for her, beyond prayer, is to become an even better bible student than she is.  In reality, she is not a very good student, she has a collection of scriptures she uses to support the ideas that Murray has taught her, that is all.  If she acquired a more broad understanding of the scriptures especially of Christ and the Apostles, she might have cause to question the things Murray has taught her.  If you acquired a more broad understanding of the scriptures, and of what she believes, then you would at least be able to talk with her without feeling out of your depth.  And you would know that you had done everything you could.

 

One of the reasons I did go on about the trinity (and pardon me for mentioning it again, but unless you develop a passion for these things, and grow up in the doctrine of Christ, you will not be able to help your aunt)  is because about 15 years ago Murray took his  teaching (the three offices of the godhead) and started calling it "the trinity," instead of openly teaching against the trinity as he used to.  He believes in, "God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Ghost"  too! That can mean almost anything! To him, these three are three offices or roles that are filled by one person.  To him the Father and the son are one and the same person filling two offices.  This kind of loose use of terminology also makes it difficult to talk to people about Murray, because he redefines words that have historical meaning and this makes meaningful communication difficult.

 

Below is the historical definition of the trinity, I have only a few small problems with it.  If you have any problems with the wording of this then you are in the same position as I am, but more likely not.  My minor disagreement arises from years of study.  Whether or not you accept everything below, or agree with me or disagree, is not important, I know you do not wish to argue with me, but if you are a Trinitarian then THIS IS what you believe, whether you know it or not, whether you like it or not, either that or you would be a fraud.

 

Name Withheld, you need to be able to accurately describe what you believe if you hope to deliver anyone else from their mistakes.  It is like the beam and the speck that Jesus mentions in the sermon on the mount, your aunt studies, she studies wrong, but she is studying more than you.  You have a beam in your eye, and you can't help her till you get your own vision straightened out.

 

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity defines God as three divine persons (Greek: ὑποστάσεις):^[1] the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. The three persons are distinct yet coexist in unity, and are co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial (Greek: ὁμοούσιοι). Put another way, the three persons of the Trinity are of onebeing (Greek: οὐσία).^[2] The Trinity is considered to be a mystery of Christian faith.^[3]

According to this doctrine, God exists as three persons but is one God, meaning that God the Son and God the Holy Spirit have exactly the same nature or being as God the Father in every way.^[4] Whatever attributes and power God the Father has, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit have as well.^[4] "Thus, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are also eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, infinitely wise, infinitely holy, infinitely loving, omniscient."^[4]

 

In case you were interested:  The problem that I have is that in the incarnation the son of God, did not possess all the same qualities as the father, such as "omniscient"  Christ said "but of that day and of that hour knoweth no man, no not the angels which are in heaven neither the son but the father."  So he was not "all knowing" in the incarnation (by his own claim)  Also I would never describe God as "infinitely loving" infinite love would mean that it was impossible for God to hate, God hates evil, so his love has limits, maybe that is not what they mean by "infinite love" I don't know, but that is why I'm not a Trinitarian, I don't want to answer for this.  This doctrine was laid down 400 years after Christ. I do not agree with the trinity doctrine on principle and on the grounds that it is an over simplification.  That is all.

 

Sincerely,

Paul Stringini