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

I listen to pastor and love his teachings but I heard him say that someone on drugs couldn't go to heaven

Note: In retrospect, I did not handle this question as I would wish.  A young friend and website observer pointed out to me the unbiblical nature of some of my remarks.  I will not remove the message because I don't believe in trying to erase my tracks like that.  Below the message I have included my friend's email pointing out my error and my reply.  I'm certainly not above correction.  Correction is how we get to perfection.  If anything, as a teacher of God's word, I seek to model a kind of humility in receiving rebuke which I did not find in any of my elders.

Question/Comment:

----- Original Message -----
From: Name Withheld
To: Paul Stringini
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 3:02 PM
Subject: pastor murry
I listen to pastor and love his teachings but I heard him say that someone on drugs couldn't go to heaven I am deeply troubled over this for I had a son addicted to drugs that died of drugs he was a good kid loved me his mom very much and his youngest brother  plus the other 8 kids in our family I am heart broke to think that I wont see him again in heaven or here on the new earth!!! is there something i missed in pastors teaching? my email is address withheld

My Response:

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Stringini
To: Name Withheld
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 11:43 AM
Subject: Re: pastor murry
Name Withheld,
Well, I'm not sure about that aspect of Murray's teachings, he tends to say some things off the cuff without offering explanation, but it wouldn't surprise me coming from a hard-boiled guy like him. (Editorial comment: Actually, on reconsideration,  I believe Murray would say that all who are lost (in this age) will have an opportunity to repent in the millennium, so I think this person has missed something in Arnold Murray's teaching.  Not only is this an example of a mistake on my part regarding doctrine, it is an example of my not properly representing Murray, this is due to the fact that is has been years since I listened to Arnold Murray, something I am working to change, I have begun listening to his tapes to "sharpen up" my understanding of his teachings) Drug use is not an unpardonable sin.  And addiction, like all sin, it is a form of bondage.  Still it is true that "they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God."  (Gal 5:21)  So we do not want to find ourselves in the position that your son is in.  That is not a good spot to be in, but not one from which there is no possibility of redemption.  For those that believe mercy can be found in Christ.  God has pardoned the unworthy on numerous occasions.  Actually, that is what makes it possible for me and every other Christian to have any hope of salvation.
 
I wonder what sin Dr. Murray commits that he thinks is passable while he condemns others for lesser sins?  In what does he grant himself pardon and deny it to others? He reminds me of the parable of the debtor who was forgiven much, but then turned and started exacting small debts from his neighbors.  Murray is guilty of false teaching (some might argue), and false prophecy (this is indisputable), those are obvious and grievous sins. And those sins hurt other many other people whom he touches with his ministry.  Drug abuse can hurt other people too, especially broken-hearted mothers, but nowhere near as many as Murray's little "mistakes." 
 
Romans 2:4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?
5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
 
When we deny the possibility of forgiveness to others we are acting like we despise God's goodness and longsuffering.  The kindness he showed us in leading us to repentance. It is like people who think "We are in, we are safe, but those sinners outside are going to burn in hell."  They forget that they were once outside too.  And, yes, sinners will be judged according to God's judgment, as it is written), but if we write-off all possibility of pardon then we ourselves must also be condemned. 
 
 I was once a drug addict too, and it grieved me to be so (and scared me too).  But I was still a believer. Drug abuse is a form of intemperance like drunkenness, addiction is bondage and sickness like all sin, Jesus came to seek and to save the lost, to heal the sick, and to loose the bonds of sin. I can't tell you whether or not your son will inherit eternal life.  The Lord grants pardon to whom he wills.  Based on the judgment we have already heard from God, death from drug addiction does not look good, but the same is true for many things,  mercy is reserved to the Lord. 
 
The best I can suggest is that you make sure that you yourself enter into the kingdom of God so that you might be in a position to plead for your son if that is possible.  The Lord hears the pleas of the righteous.  Live for God, that God may hear your prayers for your dead son and perhaps forgive him.  Remember the persistent widow whom the unjust judge heard because she did not cease to plead with him.  If it means that much to you, then you must do everything you can to save your son, he probably needs the prayers of the righteous, he died badly, I won't lie to you. 
 
James 5:16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.
 
1Peter 3:12 For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.
 
 I hope that helps,
 
Sincerely, Paul Stringini

A Website Observer's Remarks:

----- Original Message -----
From: Website Observer
To: Paul Stringini
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 12:04 AM
Subject: SC emails #150-169
Hi, Paul. I hope you and yours are doing well, brother.

I read your newest SC emails.

Name Withheld's name is mentioned once in email #156
Name Withheld in #164
Name Withheld in #167
The link intended to direct to #168 is a duplicate of #167

And I just want to let you know I have really mixed feelings about this statement of exhortation you gave in #155, Being that there's really no biblical data substantiating the efficacy of prayers for the dead (unless you accept 2 Maccabees, as Catholics do).
You said, "The best I can suggest is that you make sure that you yourself enter into the kingdom of God so that you might be in a position to plead for your son if that is possible.  The Lord hears the pleas of the righteous.  Live for God, that God may hear your prayers for your dead son and perhaps forgive him.  Remember the persistent widow whom the unjust judge heard because she did not cease to plead with him.  If it means that much to you, then you must do everything you can to save your son, he probably needs the prayers of the righteous, he died badly, I won't lie to you."

I appreciate your heart and all...but it's probably not true. And though she could either be encouraged, and no harm might come of it (Martin Luther, for instance, didn't forbid his congregants to believe in purgatory, pray for the dead, etc., though he readily acknowledged the total absence of them in scripture), but I can't help but think, if I were that woman and took your advice, I'd probably needlessly pine away all my time and energy for the rest of my life in denial, fervently trying to save my son by my own supplication. Anyway, I can't say how I myself would have responded to this sensitive issue in your position...and I don't know how big an issue it may potentially be—I just felt my concern might warrant mention.

Sincerely,
Website Observer

My Reply:

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Stringini
To: Website Observer
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 1:04 PM
Subject: Re: SC emails #150-169
Hey Observer, I'm going to append your message and my comments to that email,  I thought about taking the email down, but I don't like erasing my tracks like that, if I made a mistake in public, it ought to be corrected publicly.
 
I have and had mixed feelings about it too, even when I wrote it, and I wondered if I should post it, but then I thought "will you do this thing in secret?"  So I posted it.  I tell you the truth, it is hard to tell a grieving mother, "nope, there is absolutely no hope for your child."  (That is why Murray teaches that everyone gets a chance in the Millennium.) And, whenever I say there is no hope, I get this feeling that I might be overstepping my bounds.  I really don't know whether they are damned or not. 
 
Hebrews 11:35 "Women received their dead raised to life again:"  Children are sinful from birth, I have observed this. I have seen in them mischief and deceit from an early age.  A mother's love is a powerful force, it is hard for me to just lay the facts on her.  What I wanted was for her to have hope, and I basically comforted her the same way I would comfort myself.  I might have said, "In the resurrection, you probably won't care anymore,  God will wipe away all tears." because that is what I think is true.  But It is the tears that she sheds now that are tormenting her.  The dead have no hope.  But the living need it badly.  I think without any hope, she just might pine away for her son, lamenting his damnation, neglecting her own salvation.  And what if by some chance the kid had done the good old "perfect act of contrition"  and the Lord had accepted it, just like the good old thief on the cross?  I can happen, though as I often say, I certainly don't count on it.  It would be like denying Christ when it is convenient base on the fact that he forgave Peter.
 
My intention was, of course, to get her to focus on her own salvation.  Because that is all she can really do.  Because if we are not saved, then we will never be reunited with anyone.  I certainly don't want her pining away over her son all the days of her life, or relying on false hope.  The idea was to get her to focus on herself.  I'll confess, when I lose a beloved pet, when the feelings are still raw.  I comfort myself with the idea that in the world to come I might have the power to raise the poor thing.  "See you later, pal."  I'm actually a very sentimental person, I find it hard to let go.  A few weeks (or days) later I'm better able to accept that the thing is probably gone forever and not really different from a million others like him and that in the resurrection I will obtain a greater wisdom which will enable me to let go of the things I loved in this world.  I knew that telling her what I told her was more of a psychological manipulation than sound counsel, it might have a good effect, but does not serve the truth.
 
Judgment is a funny thing, because a lot of discretion is imparted to the judge.  You think of what Christ said about "he that denies me before men will I deny before my father" and then you consider what Peter did.  Obviously things done while we are alive are one thing, because it is given unto men to die once and after that the judgment.  
 
Yes, what I said is not biblical.  It is based on my ignorance.   Where I knew nothing, I said something hopeful.  We cannot say it impossible, because the scriptures do not disallow it. I suppose that since I'm a teacher of God's word I should make it very clear if what I'm saying is not biblical, but rather the sentiments and speculations of a man, maybe I do not have the luxury to have sentiments and speculate.  In my teachings I would never say something like this, because it would be leaven in my doctrine
 
The idea that someone else might be able to intercede for a dead loved one is not an idea expressed in scripture, but it is not ruled out by the scripture either.  I picked the idea up from my former Pastor (Mark N. not Murray)  And it stuck with me, maybe it is too convenient.  But the problem is that, on one hand, yes the situation looks bad, but on the other, we may think we know the judgment and actually be wrong.   You think of that Guy on the cross next to Christ.  His family may not have heard what went on up there on the cross, they might not have even been present, all they might have known was that he died  a sinner.  So we really can't take a mother's word for it.  I suppose I should have taken that angle.  Because the ambiguity of our knowledge of another man's life is certainly biblical.
 
1 Cor 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? 
 
I Cor 4:5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.
 
 I think if I could do it over again, I would give her hope only based on the fact that her son's fate is ambiguous.  I would tell her to focus on her own salvation so that she would have the opportunity of seeing him again.  I would tell her to place her faith and trust in the mercy of God because he might have led her son to repentance without her knowing it, we know he can do that.  If God is going to let mothers plead for children at the judgment, she can find that out when she gets there.  That is not a good reason to pursue the kingdom.  The kingdom should be pursued for its own sake.  For the love of good things.  If a man hate not son, daughter, mother, father, he is unworthy of me.  I find it easier to apply that to myself than to ask it of others.
 
I answered her this way because the idea had been placed in my heart by a friend, and it appealed to me as a man.  Thanks for pointing that out, I was blind to it.  I'm not going to use that to comfort anyone again.  If it is possible, then God will reveal that to us at judgment.
 
Sincerely,
Paul

Website Observer's Additional Remarks:

----- Original Message -----
From: Website Observer
To: Paul Stringini
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 6:27 PM
Subject: Re: SC emails #150-169
"I'm going to append your message and my comments to that email"

Fine by me.

"I tell you the truth, it is hard to tell a grieving mother, 'nope, there is absolutely no hope for your child.'"

Ugh, I know...

 "And, whenever I say there is no hope, I get this feeling that I might be overstepping my bounds.  I really don't know whether they are damned or not. . . . And what if by some chance the kid had done the good old "perfect act of contrition"  and the Lord had accepted it, just like the good old thief on the cross?  I can happen, though as I often say, I certainly don't count on it.  It would be like denying Christ when it is convenient base on the fact that he forgave Peter. . . .
. . . But the problem is that, on one hand, yes the situation looks bad, but on the other, we may think we know the judgment and actually be wrong.   You think of that Guy on the cross next to Christ.  His family may not have heard what went on up there on the cross, they might not have even been present, all they might have known was that he died  a sinner.  So we really can't take a mother's word for it. I suppose I should have taken that angle.  Because the ambiguity of our knowldege of another man's life is certainly biblical.
 
1 Cor 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? 
 
I Cor 4:5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.
 
 I think if I could do it over again, I would give her hope only based on the fact that her son's fate is ambiguous.  I would tell her to focus on her own salvation so that she would have the opportunity of seeing him again.  I would tell her to place her faith and trust in the mercy of God because he might have led her son to repentance without her knowing it, we know he can do that."

Agreed; that's probably the best way to possibly give one true hope for their loved one (as well as incentive to carry on themselves) in a seemingly hopeless situation, and without putting the doubtful onus on them to bring that hope to fruition."

"I think without any hope, she just might pine away for her son, lamenting his damnation, neglecting her own salvation."

I've known that to happen, unfortunately.

"My intention was, of course, to get her to focus on her own salvation.  Because that is all she can really do.  Because if we are not saved, then we will never be reunited with anyone.  I certainly don't want her pining away over her son all the days of her life, or relying on false hope.  The idea was to get her to focus on herself. . . . I knew that telling her what I told her was more of a psychological manipulation than sound counsel, it might have a good effect, but does not serve the truth. . . . I picked the idea up from my former Pastor (Mark N. not Murray)  And it stuck with me, maybe it is too convenient."

I can sympathize. You were in an emotional pinch, which can cloud one's mind from really examining the potential outcomes of one's counsel. Hopefully what you said does encourage her, and no harm will come of it.

 "We cannot say it [interceding for the dead through prayer] impossible, because the scriptures do not disallow it. I suppose that since I'm a teacher of God's word I should make it very clear if what I'm saying is not biblical, but rather the sentiments and speculations of a man . . . The idea that someone else might be able to intercede for a dead loved one is not an idea expressed in scripture, but it is not ruled out by the scripture either."

True, but I just think we need to be very careful to define our dogmas (things "we think" may be true—and they may be—but can't prove) as clearly as possible, if and when we do espouse them. You seemed pretty adamant in your prescription for her to pray for her dead son to be saved, except that you did subtly preface the beginning of that paragraph with, "if it's possible," and before making it out to be her obligation, you said, "if it means that much to you." I'd personally have emphasized a bit more what a stretch it probably is...but idk, then it wouldn't even seem worth saying, so I see why you said it the way you did.

"If God is going to let mothers plead for children at the judgment, she can find that out when she gets there."

Good point. Amen. And if that's the case, I doubt she'll have Jesus protesting to her on judgment day, "Y'know, you made the cut and all—congratulations—but you really should've been pleading with me for your son's soul all those 40 years while you were still alive, if you really wanted to see him in eternity that bad; so I'm sorry, but there's just not enough time for me to hear you out now at the judgment—this ain't limbo. Lookit, I've got billions to judge ahead of you, and I'm on a tight schedule! People are always fond of saying how a thousand years is like a day for me, but they forget that a day can just as easily feel like a thousand years, and I wanna get to creating the new heavens and earth already... So c'mon, sister—let it go, stop holding up the line, and enter into the joy of your Lord. . . . NEXT!!!"

lol That's my crass impersonation of you, the way you always jovially impersonate God's diatribe in an unlikely scenario. I hope God has a sense of humor, don't you?

"I answered her this way because the idea had been placed in my heart by a friend, and it appealed to me as a man.  Thanks for pointing that out, I was blind to it.  I'm not going to use that to comfort anyone again.  If it is possible, then God will reveal that to us at judgment."

I can't fault you much, and I'm glad you'd approach it differently now. What's past is past; let's pray God makes the best of it.

God bless, brother.

Sincerely,
Observer

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