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

"I Recently Started Watching Shepherd's Chapel"

Question/Comment: 

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

From: Name Withheld

To: Paul Stringini

Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2013 11:00 PM

Subject: Just Found Your Site

Paul,

I recently started watching SC (3 months).  One thing they say that hits home is "you always knew there was more to the Bible than what you have been taught".  I've always felt that way.  As I read more of your work I will want to dialogue with you in a genuine desire to learn.  

I am realistic about SC and I understand they are just men like you and me but I do admire their sincerity.  Quite frankly, our pre-existence in spiritual bodies never landed with me.  It's a clever little explanation but one with no biblical support.  However, the Roman Catholic church has gotten lots of mileage out of doctrines with no  biblical support (I was raised RC).

I believe there was a "world that was" and there is a gap between Gen 1:1 and 1:2. This would explain the carbon dating of fossils in the millions of years in a world only 6,000 years old. It would also explain what happened to the dinosaurs.  I never believed the apple story in Eden. The serpent seed doctrine is the only thing that has ever made sense to me that would explain why God got so mad and why Adam and Eve covered their genitals not their mouths. Our Father did say "between thy seed and her Seed." And why did God have no respect for Cain's offering? After all he was a tiller of the ground.  And why does Cain rate his own genealogy? Also there was something hinky going on with those "sons of God" in Gen 6 that was never explained to my satisfaction. I never felt that Noah's flood was worldwide - the olive tree grew back too fast. Ham certainly did something wrong that caused Noah to curse Canaan.  Canaan may or may not be the ancestor of the Africans but something has to explain the perpetual problems experienced by the Negroid race. I never got the Trinity either.  I've always used a Godfather analogy:  The Father is Vito Corleone; the Son is Michael and the Holy Spirit is Fredo.  I never really understood Matthew 7:21-23 and in Revelation, I believe the church in Pergamos represents the Roman Catholic church.  

Are the Murrays false teachers?  I don't know.  What I do know is that in matters of God, the majority is often wrong.

That's a lot of food for thought that I hope can kick off an earnest dialogue between us.  Look forward to hearing from you.

Blessings,

Name Withheld

Number Withheld

My First Response:

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

From: Paul Stringini

To: Name Withheld

Sent: Friday, December 20, 2013 7:33 PM

Subject: Re: Just Found Your Site

Hi Name Withheld, It is nice to hear from you.    When I first found the Shepherd's Chapel, Arnold Murray spoke directly to my deep desire to understand more about this book which was the basis for my religious beliefs.  It seemed strange that we should have such a large book at the center of what we believe, yet know so little about what is in there.  I wanted to understand the bible.  I had tried to read it on my own and did not really get anywhere because its too much to take in all at once.  I needed someone who knew the book to guide me through it and help me figure out what I was reading.  Studying with Pastor Murray definitely helped me get a better handle on what was in the different books of the bible and what the writers were talking about.  I think he also got me to "see what he saw" sometimes in a way which I now believe is not a sound form of doctrine. 

 

One thing they say that hits home is "you always knew there was more to the Bible than what you have been taught".  I've always felt that way.  As I read more of your work I will want to dialogue with you in a genuine desire to learn.  

 

It does hit home.  I think there is more to the bible than people realize but I have come to see that idea from a different perspective.  Arnold Murray talks about that in reference to some fairly incredible ideas he teaches, many of which you are probably well aware. To me, the more that there was in the bible turned out to be very obvious, yet very neglected.  Something easy to understand, but seemingly impossible to master. The knowledge that Arnold Murray gives to people really does nothing for them.  It makes us feel intellectually satisfied, and for some people, even superior, I can tell you are not like that.  But that kind of knowledge does not help us become more like Christ.  The greatest secrets of the bible are the powers and gifts which God gives us in order to fulfill his word and truly become the sons of God.  This is a verse I often quote:

 

2Peter 1:3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
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.

 

How might I partake of this divine nature?  That is the secret I want to know.  How might I escape the corruption that is in the world through lust?  God has made the exceeding great and precious promises to us.  I want obtain them.  What you are not being taught is this:

 

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;

 

We know that it ought to be so, but we do not know how to do it.  If I could know, if I could possess in myself the knowledge which would enable me to walk uprightly in every situation...THAT is what I pursue.  And the pursuit has not been in vain, nor has it been fully realized, but I push onwards.

 

I believe there was a "world that was" and there is a gap between Gen 1:1 and 1:2. This would explain the carbon dating of fossils in the millions of years in a world only 6,000 years old. It would also explain what happened to the dinosaurs.  

 

I think that the "Gap Theory" is plausible and I certainly think it would help explain some things, I've never criticized Murray over the gap theory.  But, on the other hand, I am fully prepared to accept the idea that the earth is only 6000 years old and that God created it in such a way so that man would be misled if he looked for the truth in the stars or in the rocks.  I don't have a problem with either view and I cannot say I "believe" in either one.  I do not believe the bible was written to answer those questions.  I do not think that is the sort of knowledge that profits us.  I was part of a church for a while that believed the earth was 6000 years old.  I put up with it for a while, but eventually I had enough and complained.  What if someone who believed the earth was billions of years old walks into our church and they hear the pastor talking about how it is 6000 years old, and they are offended and walk out?  Does the gospel have anything to do with how old the earth is?  On judgment day, will God hand out "bonus stickers" to people who figured this out?  I think not.  And the same goes for the opposite view.  If I stand up and start declaring the earth is 6 billion years old and someone walks in who has been taught all their  life that it is 6000 years old,  do I want to offend them for that?  No, I don't.  I want them to be offended at this, "Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness"  Repent of your sins wicked and perverse generation.  That is where I want them to walk out.  Look at Christ, the reason the Pharisees rejected his teaching is because he was basically saying they were sinful and that their ways were corrupt, but they thought that they were justified.  So it is today that modern Christians are corrupt, but they still say they love Jesus.  Young couples tell me they love Jesus and they admit they fornicate with each other, they are saved and they their corrupt ways are acceptable to God.  Its not that I expect people to be perfect, I expect them to acknowledge that God demands perfection and to pursue it.

 

2 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.

 

I consider doctrines such as this to be classic examples of "leaven."  Leaven is doctrine that adds nothing of substance to our faith, but tends to puff us up and make us feel more "knowledgeable."  Just like leaven in bread.

 

I never believed the apple story in Eden.

 

Well, the bible does not mention an apple.  It's a red herring. So what is it about the account in Genesis that you do not believe.  I'll tell you.

 

Genesis2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

 

The tree grew out of the ground, that is what the bible says.  If we have trouble accepting the facts as given , that is no cause to begin to ignore the direct communication of the scripture in favor of a story that we must read INTO the text.  What else does the bible say about that tree and its fruit.

 

Genesis 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

If this was not a real tree, that actually grew out of the ground and that bore actual fruit that appeared to be edible, then the bible is so misleading as to make it an entirely unreliable source of knowledge.  It was not an apple tree, it was a one of a kind tree that imparted knowledge.

 

The serpent seed doctrine is the only thing that has ever made sense to me that would explain why God got so mad and why Adam and Eve covered their genitals not their mouths.

 

God was mad because he said this:

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: 

And they did this

she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

God did not give Adam and Eve any commandment about having sex with the devil.  He said don't eat that fruit.  What would be strange is if he got mad at them for having sex with the devil, because he told them not to eat that fruit.

 

Remember, the bible says that the man and woman were totally innocent and without shame.  Why would they think sex was a sin?  And why would God get angry about sex since they did not know any better? 

 

The only reason the idea makes sense to you is because you are reading into the text ideas about right and wrong that Adam and Eve were not aware of.  They had but one command, do not eat that.  That is what the bible teaches me.  I have said many times, you can either learn from the bible or force the bible to learn from you.

 

As far as understanding why God was "so angry"  you might consider all the other times God got angry.  Such as when people went out looking for manna on the day when there was none. Since God allowed the Serpent to be in the garden I don't understand why having sex with the serpent would make him any angrier than disobedience.  When Saul disobeyed God by sparing the king of the Amorites, God forsook him.  But when David committed adultery with bath Sheba, God forgave him.

 

Our Father did say "between thy seed and her Seed."

 

I should say that I have written extensively on all these questions, but I like to give everyone the personal touch.  http://oraclesofgod.org/emails/_kenites.htm  There is a serpent seed but it is not a carnal seed, it is a spiritual seed.  The two can be observed in John 8 when Christ in one verse declares his enemies the seed of Abraham and then later declares them the children of the devil.

 

John 8:37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed;

John 8:39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.

John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil,

 

They are both Abraham's Children and not Abraham's Children.  So how does one reconcile those ideas.  It does not make sense to say they are spiritually the children of Abraham, and carnally that of the devil.  It makes the most sense to understand them as the spiritual children of the devil, and the carnal children of Abraham. 

 

We are the seed of God.  How does that happen?  And.... pardon me, but we need to ask, does God insert his penis into us as the devil did into eve?

 

1John 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed (God's 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: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

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.

 

The Children of the Devil are manifested by their unrighteous deeds.  That is why the Angels have trouble distinguishing the tares from the wheat in the parable of the tares.  If being a child of the devil was a simple matter of genetics.  Then it would be very easy to tell the children of God from the children of the devil.  But because we are all sinners, it is difficult to tell a child of God from a child of the devil until they come to maturity.

 

I HIGHLY recommend my line by line study in the book of Matthew.  I guarantee you will learn things you were never taught. http://oraclesofgod.org/studies/40_Matthew/Matthew.html

 

And why did God have no respect for Cain's offering? After all he was a tiller of the ground.  

 

Well, it was not because Cain was from a "tainted bloodline"  that would not make sense.  God explains himself, as he often does.

 

Genesis 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.

 

If he was not accepted because of who his father was, then why would God tell him that if he did well he would be accepted?  God declares that the rejection of Cain's offering was because of sin.  The produce of the ground is unacceptable as a sin offering.  Blood is required for a sin offering.  Cain had sin, but he did not offer blood.  Abel offered blood, which implies that he acknowledged his sin before God.  He was accepted, Cain was rejected.  His offering implies a gift or tithe of respect, but not an offering for sin.   "The whole need not a physician"  and Cain did not want to offer a sin offering, even though he needed one.

 

And why does Cain rate his own geneaology?

 

I'm not sure if that is a typo, I don't understand.  But I will say a few words about Cain's Genealogy.  Adam is in Cain's Genealogy.

 

Genesis 4:1   And Adam  knew    Eve his wife;   and she conceived,   and bare  Cain,
Genesis 4:17 And  Cain   knew     his wife;        and she conceived,   and bare Enoch:  

 

Notice that the formula is identical.  This is very standard language for indicating how someone came into the world.  Verses 2-16 are a parenthesis in Cain's genealogy.

 

Cain is not included in the later Genealogy that ends with Noah, because  Noah did not descend from Cain but from Seth. And it would not be the only time in the bible that a firstborn was snubbed in a Genealogy for some good reason.  But Adam definitely appears in Cain's Genealogy (Genesis 4).  The bible explicitly labels Adam as Cain's father.

 

Also there was something hinky going on with those "sons of God" in Gen 6 that was never explained to my satisfaction.

 

Well, I have no argument against that.  But I do question the importance of that knowledge.  What shall I be profited by knowing about that?  It won't help me improve my behavior.

 

 I never felt that Noah's flood was worldwide - the olive tree grew back too fast.

 

Well, again, I don't see why this is such an important issue to people.  If God wanted us to know that the flood was not world wide then it would seem the bible is highly misleading.  I certainly would like to believe in a less-than-worldwide flood, but this verse makes that difficult, does it not?

 

17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

 

The under heaven part is the part that gives me pause.  I know Earth can mean a local area, but everything under heaven seems to indicate, well, everything.  Even so, It is not something I consider important.

 

Ham certainly did something wrong that caused Noah to curse Canaan.  

 

Well, the term "look on your father's nakedness"  can mean to sleep with your father's wife according to Leviticus. 

 

Leviticus 18:8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.

 

That is called a euphemism.  But euphemisms depend on context.  You have to look at the rest of the context.

 

Genesis 9:21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.

22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. 

 

Notice that Ham "SAW" the nakedness of his father.  The bible does not say that he "uncovered" his father's nakedness, so that is a major discrepancy.  Also, If the "nakedness" here refers to having sex with either  Noah or his wife, it seems odd that they would have to walk backwards to avoid "seeing" it if "seeing" refers to copulation.  The bible certainly gives us the impression that 1. Noah was naked, 2 Shem and Japheth avoided "seeing" him by averting their eyes.  Culturally, it may be hard to fathom, but what Ham did was extremely disrespectful.  He looked on his father's nakedness.  But the bible does not say that he "uncovered it" neither does the context support the idea that this was anything more than a drunk man laying naked in his tent.

 

You can't read euphemistic overtones into every use of these terms, otherwise you end up looking at passages like this with suggestive meaning:

 

Genesis 32:25 And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him.

 

Murray makes a big deal out of the use of the word "Touch" in Genesis 3, but the same Hebrew word is used all over the place in the bible without sexual meaning and it is wrong to read into every use of that word some sort of sexual meaning.  We still use the same euphemism, "Don't touch my daughter

 

Canaan may or may not be the ancestor of the Africans but something has to explain the perpetual problems experienced by the Negroid race.

 

Does it?  Does everything really require an explanation?  God owes us no explanations. 

Matthew 20:15 Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own?

 

I never got the Trinity either.  I've always used a Godfather analogy:  The Father is Vito Corleone; the Son is Michael and the Holy Spirit is Fredo.  

 

Well, I think that is very different from Murray's view.  I dislike analogies for the same reason I dislike the Trinity doctrine, they are over-simplifications, but here is what I learned from the scriptures.

 

http://oraclesofgod.org/doctrine/01_On_Jesus_Christ.htm there is a companion article on the trinity on my doctrine page.

 

I never really understood Matthew 7:21-23

 

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

 

Notice, they that DO iniquity are rejected.  Sin is what separates the children of God from the Children of the devil.

 

and in Revelation, I believe the church in Pergamos represents the Roman Catholic church.

 

Plausible. I'm in the midst of a line-by-line study of Revelation. http://oraclesofgod.org/studies/66_Revelation/66_revelation.html

  

Are the Murrays false teachers?  I don't know.  What I do know is that in matters of God, the majority is often wrong.

 

Well, if Murray is a false teacher, then he is part of the majority. I certainly do not consider my teachings to be majority teachings. The thing is that it only takes a little leaven to corrupt the whole doctrine.  Most of what you hear in Catholic Church is true, and maybe they have more leaven than other churches, but still, there is certainly a lot of truth supporting the lies.  That is what makes deception successful.  You hide a little lie in a lot of truth.

 

  I have many line by line bible studies, I really try to get the leaven out. It would not hurt you to check them out. I definitely recommend my Matthew study for starters.  I have already given you a few links.  I also have a lot of music I've done which you may find edifying.

 

That's a lot of food for thought that I hope can kick off an earnest dialogue between us.  Look forward to hearing from you.

 

Feel free to write back, I always enjoy hearing a response. I have barely scratched the surface.  I am at your service. 

 

Sincerely,

Paul Stringini

 

Emailer's First Reply:

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

From: Name Withheld

To: Paul Stringini

Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2013 1:30 PM

Subject: Our Dialogue

Paul,

 

Thank you for such a quick response in the midst of a very busy time of year for most folks.  I am impressed by the time you invested and the thoroughness of your response to my email.  I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that most of my pastors over the years have not invested as much time with me as you - a virtual stranger - invested with me.  Your passion for the Word is contagious and your knowledge of the Word inspires me to learn more.

 

I'd like to borrow your technique and intersperse my follow-up questions and comments alongside your answers and comments. My words will be in boldface type and the words of Scripture in red italics. 

 

Here we go!

 

I consider doctrines such as this (gap theory) to be classic examples of "leaven."  Leaven is doctrine that adds nothing of substance to our faith, but tends to puff us up and make us feel more "knowledgeable."  Just like leaven in bread.

 

What we often call secondary issues.  As we say: In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.  While I agree with you, my nagging problem is the definition of secondary issues is very elastic in Christendom.  For example, in a sermon last year, our lead pastor asked the congregation for examples of secondary issues.  The first guy to shout out said: Homosexuality.  Our pastor accepted that response and asked for more examples.  I’m sorry, but I don’t consider homosexuality to be a secondary issue.  Fast forward:  Two months ago, that same lead pastor, who is married with five kids, resigned in disgrace when it was discovered that he was engaging in adultery with men, from within our congregation and without, who had gone to him to counsel them and help them overcome their addictions to internet porn.  Apparently, this behavior had been going on for years at our church and others.  This matter has split our church and shaken my faith.  I have no doubt that our pastor’s hidden life influenced his teaching when he accepted the suggestion that homosexuality was a secondary issue.

 

Remember, the bible says that the man and woman were totally innocent and without shame.  Why would they think sex was a sin?  And why would God get angry about sex since they did not know any better? 

 

Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.  He has visited this iniquity on hundreds of generations, even those after Noah’s flood, and continues to do so.  That’s a lot of anger. 

 

We are the seed of God.  How does that happen?  And.... pardon me, but we need to ask, does God insert his penis into us as the devil did into eve?

 

Why is it, that in Genesis 3:15, her seed is literal – Jesus Christ – while the serpent’s seed is metaphorical?

 

If he was not accepted because of who his father was, then why would God tell him that if he did well he would be accepted?  God declares that the rejection of Cain’s offering was because of sin.  The produce of the ground is unacceptable as a sin offering.  Blood is required for a sin offering.  Cain had sin, but he did not offer blood.  Abel offered blood, which implies that he acknowledged his sin before God. 

 

All true.  Except, where is it recorded that Cain and Abel were told this?  Could it simply be that Abel’s offering had blood because he was a keeper of sheep? 

 

Well, again, I don't see why this is such an important issue to people.  If God wanted us to know that the flood was not world-wide then it would seem the bible is highly misleading.  I certainly would like to believe in a less-than-worldwide flood, but this verse makes that difficult, does it not?

 

17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and everything that is in the earth shall die.

 

The under heaven part is the part that gives me pause.  I know Earth can mean a local area, but everything under heaven seems to indicate, well, everything.  Even so, it is not something I consider important.

 

Everything didn’t die.  There were the animals and at least eight human beings aboard the ark. If the flood was world-wide, why did original sin continue to exist post-flood? It’s said that Noah being “perfect in his generations” was not a reference to his moral purity but rather to the purity of his bloodline.  If Noah and his family carried original sin to the other side of the flood, then what was the purpose of the flood?  Why would God have chosen to save these eight sinners instead of just creating man all over again?

 

Does everything really require an explanation?  God owes us no explanations.  Matthew 20:15 is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own?

 

Of course God owes us no explanations.  But if the Bible is our final authority on all manners of faith and practice – or as I call it, my owner’s manual – then what is wrong with my looking to it for explanations of the things I do not understand?

 

Well, if Murray is a false teacher, then he is part of the majority. I certainly do not consider my teachings to be majority teachings. The thing is that it only takes a little leaven to corrupt the whole doctrine.  Most of what you hear in Catholic Church is true, and maybe they have more leaven than other churches, but still, there is certainly a lot of truth supporting the lies.  That is what makes deception successful.  You hide a little lie in a lot of truth.

 

So true. What amazes me though is that one man will call another a false teacher.  And the other man calls the first man a false teacher.  Doesn’t one of them have to be wrong?  And how shall I determine which one.  The answer should be found in Scripture.  Whichever teacher is true to God’s Word should be the real one.  However, there is so much in the Bible that is not fully explained that it lends itself to private interpretation.  Who’s to say that my interpretation of a particular passage is right and yours is wrong?  The law of first mention is a valuable tool but even it doesn’t clear up all the confusion.  Aha!  God is not the author of confusion.  So is all of this confusion the work of Satan?

 

We are all members of the same body yet everyone has a different translation of the Bible with enough changes in it to justify a lucrative copyright.  Imagine a football team where each player’s playbook is slightly different.  It doesn’t make for a cohesive unit, does it?

 

There are hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of Christian denominations.  Did Jesus say upon this rock I will build my denomination?  Some Christians believe in a seventh day Sabbath; others in full-immersion baptism while others just sprinkle; some believe infant baptism is hunky dory while others feel you must be old enough to make a public profession of faith; some believe in a triune God while others do not; Mormons think they’re Christians; Jehovah’s Witnesses think they’re Christians; some denominations condemn homosexuality while others ordain openly gay clergy.  I could go on and on but the real joke is that each of the preceding examples can find Bible verses that seemingly support their beliefs and practices! 

 

Multiple times in your reply you used phrases like:  But I do question the importance of that knowledge; what shall I be profited by knowing about that;  it won't help me improve my behavior; well, again, I don't see why this is such an important issue to people. If the Gospel is completely unrelated to the importance of all these other matters, then why are they even in the Bible?

Since the Bible is a progressive revelation, I believe that understanding Genesis is key to understanding the rest of the Bible. The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.  The writer of Genesis revealed to us that there were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown – then walked away!  Is this some kind of cruel joke?  It’s like my saying to you, “Hey Paul, yesterday I saw your wife crying hysterically and I talked with her and asked her what was wrong and she . . . oh, never mind” then I walk away!  REALLY?????  And how much confusion could have been avoided and how many books did not need to be published if the apostle John simply dated the Revelation when he put pen to paper?

With all this confusion, all these denominations, all these translations of the Bible, all these differing doctrines, all this in-fighting, and with this veritable tower of Babel we’ve re-created, how are we supposed to seriously, and with a straight face, reach out to the unbelieving world and convince them this is where they need to be?  If I wasn’t already a believer and someone tried to introduce me to all of this, I’d run – not walk – but run away.

I’ve heard it said that Satan is in control of the church and has been for some time. I am beginning to believe this and question my need to belong to a church or to even attend church.  I’ve heard it said that Satan, who prowls around like a hungry lion and - like a lion - will attempt to isolate his prey then attack.  This is why we need fellowship.  There’s safety in numbers.  Well, I don’t know about all that because the church, as a whole, seems to be pretty screwed up.

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.  Don’t look now, but I think we locked Christ out of His own church!

With sincere wishes that you and your family enjoy a truly blessed Christmas, I eagerly await your reply.

Name Withheld

My Second Response:

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

From: Paul Stringini

To: Name Withheld

Sent: Friday, December 27, 2013 2:33 PM

Subject: Re: Our Dialogue

Hi Name Withheld, I like your questions and I've been thinking about them over Christmas.

What we often call secondary issues.  As we say: In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity. 

 

I had forgotten about that little saying.  And I do not agree with it entirely.  My position is that leaven (or non essential doctrine) should be purged.  Not that we are free to believe whatever we want about "non-essential" doctrines.  When people ask me how old I "believe" the earth is, I usually answer that I don't "believe" anything about the age of the earth.  I basically plead agnosticism over the issue.  Science says this, and that is very interesting, and the bible could be interpreted based on several theories.  But I do not consider my position one of liberty.  I am constrained in what I may do and say about the subject.  I try not to bring the leaven into my beliefs and teachings.  I do not have the liberty to mingle my gospel with other doctrines.  Of course, sometimes my position manages to offend everyone, but I can accept that because I believe it is the correct stand.

 

1 Tim 1:3...that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,
4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

 

It's not that I'm against having discussions about these subjects.  But, again and again, I find myself just trying to lead people away from these quagmires,  because people want to make it an issue of faith.  They figure every question must have an answer, a right answer, and then 3-4 opinions spring up and all claim to be the truth.  I don't feel that I am so much like Christ that I have the luxury to begin to speculate on things which will not profit me unto eternal life.  There is far more to the gospel than "believe and be saved" even though that may be the essence of it.  Many will fail to obtain the promised salvation because they thought they already had it and so they started looking for other things to tickle their ears.  Sound doctrine is what I'm looking for.

 

2 Tim 4:3 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.

 

For some people the idea of obtaining Christ-like righteousness through faithful persistence and patient endurance is not very exciting.  But the central issue of Christianity is that we should be turned from our sins and iniquities.  Everyone believes there will be no sin in heaven, yet they do not want to believe that God has given us the power to turn from sin in this world. 

 

Acts 3:26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

 

I think people either want to be instantly transformed the moment they believe, or instantly transformed at the moment of resurrection.  When they do not immediately receive the things promised in the scriptures at the moment they demand them; then they begin to depart from the faith and stop believing in the things promised in the scriptures.   This started centuries ago, and institutionally trained "men of God" have learned to deny the faith with ease, and the people have learned to accept it with ease, after all, we all know that we are just going to keep sinning until the day we die.

 

John 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

 

Matthew 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

 

Seeking righteousness ought to be one of the primary activities of a Christian,  but many think that is a non-issue.

 

You go on to mention another problem, biblical ambiguity.

 

While I agree with you, my nagging problem is the definition of secondary issues is very elastic in Christendom. 

 

 I don't even like the term "secondary" because it implies that these issues to occupy some sort of place of importance, even if only "secondary."  The problem is that people don't know what salvation is and what issues pertain to it.  Once we understand what salvation really means it becomes easy to identify what is essential, because we know what we are becoming and we are focused on obtaining the prize.  

 

The Apostle Paul went through this issue in 1 Corinthians 8  And I highly recommend my study of 1 Corinthians 8. I just relistened to it, to make sure of that recommendation. http://oraclesofgod.org/studies/46_I_Corinthians/I_Corinthians.html  And I do HIGHLY  recommend that study.  Defining primary issues is essential.

 

For example, in a sermon last year, our lead pastor asked the congregation for examples of secondary issues.  The first guy to shout out said: Homosexuality.  Our pastor accepted that response and asked for more examples.  I’m sorry, but I don’t consider homosexuality to be a secondary issue.  Fast forward:  Two months ago, that same lead pastor, who is married with five kids, resigned in disgrace when it was discovered that he was engaging in adultery with men, from within our congregation and without, who had gone to him to counsel them and help them overcome their addictions to internet porn.  Apparently, this behavior had been going on for years at our church and others.  This matter has split our church and shaken my faith.  I have no doubt that our pastor’s hidden life influenced his teaching when he accepted the suggestion that homosexuality was a secondary issue.

 

Sin is never a secondary issue.  Sin is what keeps men from inheriting the Kingdom of God. 

 

Galatians 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

 

But I totally understand why people want to make homosexuality a secondary issue.  In the modern church, sin itself is a secondary issue.  I was in a church once and the pastor asked the congregation "Ok, who has sinned in the last week."  His hand was already in the air, and amid smiles and chuckles every hand in the congregation went up in the air.  Har-dee, Har, Har! ...Isn't it great how we all sin so much? 

 

And this was a conservative church.  The problem is that all manner of sin and ungodliness is winked at among Christians, so it is no wonder that Homosexuals want people to accept their sins.  When the church already tolerates and accepts so much sin among themselves, I can't blame Homosexuals for wanting to be accepted.  What exactly is so much more sinful about their behavior that cannot be accepted, when all kinds of other sins are rampant?  Is not their faith in Jesus the only essential thing?  Are they not forgiven?  Is not the righteousness of Christ imputed to them as they go about sodomizing eachother, just as it is imputed to everyone else who sins?  So what if they go and sin some more, that's what everyone else is doing.

Of course, what they are doing is a little unique.  They want to have their sins taken off the books, not by repentance and forgiveness, but by declaring their deeds righteous and acceptable before God.  Or is that really so different?  When people want to feel righteous they are always taking their sins off the books.  They justify themselves and excuse themselves for their unrighteousness.  I've seen it, I've done it.  We excuse ourselves for so many sinful things, so is it any wonder they also want to be excused from obeying righteousness. 

 

Right before I received the Holy Spirit I came to a similar Revelation.  I had been a student of Arnold Murray and I was looking at other believers and faulting them for their doctrine.  They believed in the rapture, I saw that as a sin.  But then I looked at myself and questioned, "How can I fault them for their false doctrine when I myself am a drug abuser?  How can I excuse myself and hold them guilty?"  So I just decided to be more accepting of their faults lest I condemn myself.   That is where many churches are to a great degree.  They themselves have failed to obtain the righteousness of God, and have excused themselves from seeking it, so they see it as hypocritical to require it of others.

 

But you cannot change the judgment of God.  Judge not that ye be not judged, sure, in matters of conscience that is a very important principle, but God has not called me to judge homosexuality, God has already judged it, and  I cannot save a homosexual by telling him he is free to commit abominations.  People accuse me of "judging" all the time, but for the wrong reasons.  God has already judged most things.  I listen to the judgment of God.  I do not judge things I ought not judge. 

 

The problem is that they reject the judgment of God, they do not know Christ, and they do not love the Gospel.  "Christendom"  is so far out of step with the teachings of the bible that homosexual corruption is no wonder at all.  They tolerate so many other types of corruption, why not tolerate that?

 

John 8 :4 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
35 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.
36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

 

That last line. "ye shall be free indeed." People generally don't believe in that anymore.  This is how it should read for modern Christians.

 

John 8:36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free theoretically.

 

Because they never teach you to stop sinning.  They will tell you to positively expect to sin.  Well, I guess that is not totally true in every case.  In some more conservative churches they expect homosexuals to stop sinning, and drug abusers to stop sinning, but THEY do not expect THEMSELVES to stop sinning, the hypocrites.

 

It has to do with the way they teach the gospel.  The whole issue goes back to the corruption of the gospel.  God has given us a great and precious promise, that we might be freed from the bondage of sin.  Not merely theoretically, but INDEED.  And they have cast aside this great promise in favor of pretending that they are righteous when their deeds are every bit as abominable and corrupt as any homosexual.  No wonder so many of them become homosexual, their corruption in the flesh perfectly compliments their corruption in doctrine.

 

My focus is to help people obtain the things which the church has left neglected.  There are deep things in God far more powerful than fables and genealogies.  The power of the spirit to change us and transform us.  I believe in it, and I have experienced it, in part.  If God is real, then I want the things he said we would have,  and I was a fool to ever let anyone distract me from the real reasons I became a Christian in the first place.  

 

He said he gave us the power to become the sons of God,  that is what I want, to be God's son, and I will have that, and all that represents, in this world, and in the world to come, because God has promised it and I will not settle for anything less than what He has said.  No man will rob me of the true treasure which is in Christ.  I do not seek to persuade God by works that I may do, but I want Him to persuade me by the works HE does in me, to show me that I am becoming his son.  When I see Him, I want Him to know me.  And who does he say "I never knew you" to?  They that work iniquity.

 

 

Remember, the bible says that the man and woman were totally innocent and without shame.  Why would they think sex was a sin?  And why would God get angry about sex since they did not know any better? 

 

Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.  He has visited this iniquity on hundreds of generations, even those after Noah’s flood, and continues to do so.  That’s a lot of anger. 

 

Ok, but you have not addressed my primary assertion.  Why does sex explain the wrath of God better than what is plainly stated in the scriptures.  Disobedience.  God gave Adam and Eve no commandment concerning having sex,  why would sex offend him at all at that point?  I say it would not have been a sin if they had merely laid with the serpent because God did not tell them there was anything wrong with that.  They had but one commandment and they disobeyed THAT commandment.  I see it as a very simple progression from commandment to disobedience. 

 

David and Saul.  David's worst sin was arranging the Murder of a friend in order to cover up his adultery with that man's wife.  Saul's Worst sin was in disobeying God's command to utterly destroy a particular people and all their goods, which he did not completely do, he saved the best of the stuff. 

 

1 Samuel 15:23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.

 

I'm not going to get more  into the specifics of those stories. My main point is that disobedience and sin  IN GENERAL is all the explanation we need for the wrath of God.  God demands obedience, if we are going to become his sons we need to know how to be obedient.  I do not see the actions of God in terms of him being angry over something out of his control, God is angry to teach us what he wants of his sons.  What is fornication to God?   Really, Does it offend him on a deep, personal, level?  I see it all in terms of God's overall plan for the redemption of his elect.  God is raising sons, and this world is how it he decided to do it.

 

1 Cor 9;9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.

 

Slightly out of context but nevertheless, pertinent.  The commandments of God are given to make us fit for his kingdom.  What is fornication to God?  It only matters to God because of us, because he wants us to become his sons.  We need to be like him, and God is no fornicator.  Romans 8 also comes to mind.

 

 

We are the seed of God.  How does that happen?  And.... pardon me, but we need to ask, does God insert his penis into us as the devil did into eve?

 

Why is it, that in Genesis 3:15, her seed is literal – Jesus Christ – while the serpent’s seed is metaphorical?

 

Is her seed literal?  And I never said the seed was Metaphorical either.  I said Spiritual.  Very different, but understandably confusing.  The seed of the woman is spiritual. Christ is a spiritual seed, and not only Christ, but all who follow him are a spiritual seed also. 

 

1 Cor 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

 

Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit. 

 

Luke1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

 

But back to Genesis... The woman is METAPHORICAL, the seed is spiritual, that is very different from metaphor. But the woman is a metaphor. She is not spiritually Eve.  (nor Yet Mary)  What God says to the serpent applies to a picture which is not completed until revelation 12.  Eve is the first woman, and the mother of all living,  and so she represents something metaphorical that you see throughout the prophets.  The woman who labors to bring forth the son of God, the promised seed of redemption (and of the redeemed)

 

Revelation 12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: 2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

And, of course the Serpent appears to destroy it.  I am going to be recording my study in Revelation 12 this very night and it will be coming out in a few days.  You may want to watch for it, because I expect the Holy Spirit will teach me much.

 

Rev 12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

 

Christ is the seed of the woman, but he is not the only seed. 

 

Rev 12: 17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

 

The Holy Ghost has also conceived in us a new creation in Christ which must be born and grow up into Him.

 

Galatians 4:19 My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,

 

Same metaphor. The woman is a metaphor for the bringing forth of the redeemed.  In Genesis 3,  as in many prophecies, there is a direct application.  It is applied to Eve, yes.  But there can also be a distant application which is often the truest interpretation.  You can observe this in the passage in Isaiah, "a virgin shall conceive."  That was a sign in the days it was given, because the word there "virgin" in Hebrew does not specify a "technical" virgin but a "young maid"  There was a near fulfillment and a distant fulfillment.  One Child was Emmanuel, because God was on their side.  The Lord was Emmanuel because he was God and he was among us literally.

 

So, the woman is a metaphor, the seed are spiritual, and spiritual means real, because the children she brings forth are the sons of God.

 

If he was not accepted because of who his father was, then why would God tell him that if he did well he would be accepted?  God declares that the rejection of Cain’s offering was because of sin.  The produce of the ground is unacceptable as a sin offering.  Blood is required for a sin offering.  Cain had sin, but he did not offer blood.  Abel offered blood, which implies that he acknowledged his sin before God. 

 

All true.  Except, where is it recorded that Cain and Abel were told this?  Could it simply be that Abel’s offering had blood because he was a keeper of sheep? 

 

Well, enough of it is told us that we can ascertain the one most pertinent fact. God declares that the rejection of Cain’s offering was because of sin. That is the most pertinent fact.  Regardless of whether or not Cain understood what kind of offering was required of him,  God clearly tells him that his rejection was due to sin. 

 

Genesis 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.

 

Cain was rejected because he "doest" not well.  His DEEDS were the only reason given for his rejection. 

 

It is interesting to me the way you picked apart the secondary issue of the offerings.  I know it involves some minor supposition, but it requires far more supposition to say that Cain was rejected because he was some sort of hybrid.  It also requires far more supposition to say that Cain was not the product of "Adam knew Eve his wife and she conceived and bare Cain."

 

Everything didn’t die.  There were the animals and at least eight human beings aboard the ark.

 

Come on now...   That is not the point.  By saying the flood was not worldwide you were suggesting that things NOT on the Ark survived.   We all know that the things on the Ark survived.  What does that say about whether or not the flood was worldwide?

 

This is what I feel you are saying in response to me, and I can't make sense of it:

 

1). (I say) The Bible says The flood destroyed every living creature "under heaven"  which leads one to believe the flood was global.

Genesis 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

 

2). (we agree) Noah and his family and the creatures aboard the Ark Survived. 

Genesis 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark. 

 

3). Disregard #1 Because of #2 - Therefore, the flood was not worldwide?

 

I know that the worldwide flood is problematic from a scientific perspective,  but a local flood is definitely problematic from a biblical perspective.  If we read the scriptures as they are plainly written, they are certainly suggestive of a worldwide flood.  In any case, I do not consider that an essential issue. I don't really believe either way, but I do believe what the bible says and err toward what is written.  The technical aspects of the flood are not what the flood is all about.  The flood is about this.

 

Genesis 6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

THAT is the direct cause of the flood.  Though the issue with "the sons of God"  appears in proximity to the flood, and in proximity to the specific reasons given for the flood, it is not even once indicated nor suggested that the issue with "the sons of God" was the reason for the flood; or that the flood was intended as a remedy for the giants.  The bible never says that those were the reasons for the flood.  That is an idea that is implanted into the narrative.   Why all this talk about "violence" and  "evil thoughts" when the only real issue was that God was letting angels run amok and breed with human women?

 

When I read Genesis, I take the words that are written to be INTENTIONAL communication.  Meaning that what is written was written to communicate specific Ideas.  I do not believe that Genesis  is some sort of code or that we should treat it like ink blots and look for hidden messages.  Because at that point we have stopped studying the bible and made the bible learn from us. 

 

If the flood was world-wide, why did original sin continue to exist post-flood?

 

I don't know anything about "original sin" it is not a term I am familiar with.  Remember, my only bible teacher was Arnold Murray and  then I studied on my own, and then the spirit of God entered me and changed me.  I've heard about "original sin"  but I'm not familiar with what they all say about that.  It strikes me as a really weird question.  We all die.  We deal with the consequences of the "original sin" but I do not feel that it needs to be historically tracked or anything.  I know the Catholic Church is really big on the whole "original sin" issue, but the Apostles don't talk about it much and never gave it a special name like that.

 

 It’s said that Noah being “perfect in his generations” was not a reference to his moral purity but rather to the purity of his bloodline. 

 

So I heard.

Genesis 6:9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

 

Well, it says three things there:

 

Noah was a just man.  - That is fairly straightforward

 

Noah walked with God.  - Sounds simpler than it is, but that is also straightforward.

 

Noah was perfect in his generations.  -  Ok, so what does this mean?  Murray say it means his "pedigree" was perfect.  Let's take out our Green's interlinear and see what the text is.  There are three words, 8549, 1961, and 8435, so let's check them out for ourselves.

 

"Perfect" -

Strong's #8549: tamiym (pronounced taw-meem') from 8552; entire (literally, figuratively or morally); also (as noun) integrity, truth:--without blemish, complete, full, perfect, sincerely (-ity), sound, without spot, undefiled, upright(-ly), whole.

 

Arnold Murray does not do a good job teaching people how to use the Strong's concordance.  Everything that comes after the colon and the dash ( :--  )is a list of all the ways the King James translators translated the word, so they are not part of the definition.  Also, the Strong's does not really tell us anything about grammar.

 

"Was" -

1961 is the verb "was" or "came to be"  I'm not going to reprint the definition.

 

"in his generations" -

8435 Strong's #8435: towldah (pronounced to-led-aw')

or toldah {to-led-aw'}; from 3205; (plural only) descent, i.e. family; (figuratively) history:--birth, generations.

 

Ok so there it is, he was "perfect" (literally, figuratively or morally) in his "generations" (descent, family, history)  But really, what does that mean? I suppose it could mean "of a pure pedigree" but it could mean other things.  ...of the 39 times the Old Testament uses the word "generations" it never uses the term like this again, "perfect in generations" is a term which is only used of Noah and only used in Genesis 6.  According to the Brown Driver Briggs lexicon, the term can mean "upright among his contemporaries"  You can look it up with Google yourself.  But, aside from that,  how do we justify whatever reading we choose?  That is an important question.  The most important question.  I do not doubt the possibility of many readings, but we have to have reasons to justify the reading we go with.

 

Look at the context.  The context is that Noah was just and walked with God, so it would not be odd to add that he was morally upright among his corrupt  contemporaries.  Ok but what about the issue of "pedigree"  Murray suggests that Noah's family was the only family with a pure pedigree.  But what about his son's wives?  They would have had to be perfect too, and so would their parents and any siblings.  Also Noah's wife of course, and what about her siblings?  Were Noah and His wife, and his sons wives all the sole children of their parents?  If the issue was merely of pedigree then some "pure" people doubtless got left off the ark.   

 

 However, it does not merely say that it was Noah's pedigree that was perfect, it also says he was just, and walked with God.  So, obviously Noah was being judged on issues that went beyond pedigree, and if he was judged on issues beyond pedigree, to any degree, then that calls into question the whole issue of pedigree, of whether pedigree was really any issue at all, and maybe we should read "perfect in his generations" as another moral statement in context with the two other moral statements.  You add to the fact that Noah is being described in direct context with the immoral behavior of the rest of the world and it becomes a very strong argument for the moral uprightness of Noah being what distinguished him from his contemporaries.

 

 If Noah and his family carried original sin to the other side of the flood, then what was the purpose of the flood?  

 

Well, obviously not to extinguish "original sin."  The purpose of the flood was to set an example of what happens when men continually do evil.  God will judge it and destroy us. I'm still a little lost with the "original sin" question.  Murray did not teach me anything about original sin, and I did not learn anything about original sin by studying the bible on my own.  So I don't have much to say about that doctrine.

 

Why would God have chosen to save these eight sinners instead of just creating man all over again?

 

Well, that is a picture of salvation.  God saves his elect amid the destruction of the ungodly.   That is the way God saw fit to do things.  He didn't want to start over.  So many times Man asks, "God why did you do it that way?" and the answer from God is, "Who are you to reply against God?"   Why did God plant a tree in Eden that would kill man?  Why did God let the serpent in the Garden?  Why didn't God make man perfect from the beginning? 

 

I have some ideas which satisfy me, but we know God does not do what he does to justify himself before men.  Religious people are always trying to explain God to people so that people will find God more likable.  It honestly makes me sick.  God is interested in bringing forth his sons and he does what seems best to him to obtain the ends he desires.  Not everyone is going to like that.  Not all people are going to love God, it is not in them.   

 

Does everything really require an explanation?  God owes us no explanations.  Matthew 20:15 is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own?

 

Of course God owes us no explanations.  But if the Bible is our final authority on all manners of faith and practice – or as I call it, my owner’s manual – then what is wrong with my looking to it for explanations of the things I do not understand?

 

Ok we agree. And there is nothing at all wrong with looking to the bible for explanations.  What is wrong is forcing explanations into the bible. I have found explanations for everything I ever needed or even wanted to know. 

 

"Because that is they way God wanted to do it."  or "Because it seemed best to Him"  are not always satisfactory answers, but I have learned to accept the bible, to learn from its text, rather than using the bible text to create a new story which is not contained in the text, but is forced on it based on my need for answers.  Arnold Murray is a bible teacher, he teaches the bible what it is supposed to say.  That is not the kind of teacher I want to be.

 

Well, if Murray is a false teacher, then he is part of the majority. I certainly do not consider my teachings to be majority teachings. The thing is that it only takes a little leaven to corrupt the whole doctrine.  Most of what you hear in Catholic Church is true, and maybe they have more leaven than other churches, but still, there is certainly a lot of truth supporting the lies.  That is what makes deception successful.  You hide a little lie in a lot of truth.

 

So true. What amazes me though is that one man will call another a false teacher.  And the other man calls the first man a false teacher.  Doesn’t one of them have to be wrong? 

 

They might both be right. (about the other guy being a false teacher)  But they might both be wrong (they may both be incorrect in doctrine)

 

And how shall I determine which one. 

 

That is the pertinent question.  How to tell the difference.

 

The answer should be found in Scripture.  Whichever teacher is true to God’s Word should be the real one.  However, there is so much in the Bible that is not fully explained that it lends itself to private interpretation.  Who’s to say that my interpretation of a particular passage is right and yours is wrong? 

 

Well, you have to take one more factor into account.  God does not allow man to "figure it out for himself."  Our faith does not stand on the wisdom of man but on the power of God.  God may blind us to the truth.  And that is essentially why there is so much confusion.  People do not love the truth when they hear it, so God blinds them to it so they cannot receive it.  Man may not love the truth, but he will obey it if he knows it will save his skin. 

 

1 Cor 2:5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

 

If they had known what they were doing they would not have crucified Christ.  God blinds people.  It is obvious that saving everyone is not one of God's priorities.  Otherwise he would not blind people to the truth.  The princes of this world want to save themselves, but they do not believe, and God blinds them so that they will not believe. 

 

I know this is true, because I studied the bible for over a decade and could not grasp it, though I believed I did.  Then in a single moment God opened my eyes.  His power came on me.  I know how to tell the difference.  I can't give that to you, even though I might want to.

 

In your first paragraph you mentioned how impressed you were at the time I spent on your email.  I consider that every person who writes me was sent by God.  That does not mean they all get the same treatment.  But it does mean that they are all worthy of my attention.   So I give them my attention according to the Spirit, what is the question? what do I answer?  I cannot make you hear me, but maybe God is going to make you hear.  You will know what I say is true, not because of my wisdom, but because the spirit of God moves on you.  And you may reject me by the same dynamic.

 

There is something in the bible that you are missing because you have not been taught.  The spirit of God is what leads us and teaches us all things.  But we look to men and to ourselves.  Why?  Because we cannot MAKE God do what we desire.  We want to know, and when he does not step forward with the answers, we do it our own way, we seek wisdom from men.  Ourselves included.   We do not wait on him, so he does not answer us.  There is a place for teachers, but if we cannot judge for ourselves what the truth is, how shall we profit from teachers?  We cannot tell if they are from God or not!  God does not give us the wisdom.

 

The law of first mention is a valuable tool but even it doesn’t clear up all the confusion.  Aha!  God is not the author of confusion.  So is all of this confusion the work of Satan?

 

Satan is also God's creation.  What was in Satan that allowed him to rebel that was not in other angels that were faithful? 

 

1 Cor 7:For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?

 

Blaming Satan for things we do not understand is not the way the bible explains these things.  "God is not the Author of Confusion" has to be taken in context (that context being in the context of the actions of the Holy Spirit in the Church). 

 

There is really no such thing as confusion to God, confusion is something only perceived from our perspective.

 

Proverbs 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD.

There is nothing random to God.

In certain contexts, God creates evil and confusion. 

 

Isaiah 34:11 But the cormorant and the bittern shall possess it; the owl also and the raven shall dwell in it: and he shall stretch out upon it the line of confusion, and the stones of emptiness.

 

Also, in the garden it is said that God planted a tree that imparted to the eater knowledge of good and evil (evil there being the same word used to describe the men of Sodom as "very wicked")  God set before Adam and Eve the knowledge of Moral Good and Moral Evil, and he set before them the tempter.  God does not deceive, he blinds, he sends deceivers, but God is carrying out his own agenda for good, His Good.   God is bringing sons to Glory.  That is his purpose.  The rest are to be burned.  Why?  Because this is the way that seemed best to God.  And God is not judged good in the eyes of his enemies.

 

We are all members of the same body yet everyone has a different translation of the Bible with enough changes in it to justify a lucrative copyright.  Imagine a football team where each player’s playbook is slightly different.  It doesn’t make for a cohesive unit, does it?

 

Going to church is like playing fantasy football.  They are not really part of the team.  The true Church is absolutely unified in God. We are one body and of one mind, unified in the spirit.  People keep looking to men and to earthly institutions for unity.  But God never told us to look to those.   Everything I ever learned taught me to expect such institutions to be sources of corruption and sin.

 

Yet we expect to find the holiness of God's Church among corrupt institutions and wicked men.  Only expect corruption from corrupt men and institutions.  You either make the tree evil and its fruit evil  or the tree good and its fruit good.  Expect them to be blind leaders of the blind.  Expect that because that is what the bible leads us to expect of men.  When they go about like a bunch pf Pharisees, why should we expect them to obtain better results than the Pharisees of old did? 

 

There are hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of Christian denominations.  Did Jesus say upon this rock I will build my denomination?  Some Christians believe in a seventh day Sabbath; others in full-immersion baptism while others just sprinkle; some believe infant baptism is hunky dory while others feel you must be old enough to make a public profession of faith; some believe in a triune God while others do not; Mormons think they’re Christians; Jehovah’s Witnesses think they’re Christians; some denominations condemn homosexuality while others ordain openly gay clergy.  I could go on and on but the real joke is that each of the preceding examples can find Bible verses that seemingly support their beliefs and practices! 

 

I like your choice of words, "seemingly support " The letter kills, but the spirit makes alive.  Not by power, not by might, but by my spirit, saith the Lord.   Man cannot intrude into these things unless they are given to him.   I honestly think I answer these questions in my bible studies, and other questions which you have not asked yet, so I will recommend them again, especially Matthew, but I do not mind writing them to you again, because I love talking about these things..

 

Luke 8:18 Take heed therefore how ye hear: for whosoever hath, to him shall be given; and whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he seemeth to have.

 

The same bible that was sent to save you, was also sent to others to destroy them.

 

Isaiah 28:12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear. 13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

Christ spoke in parables to prevent people from understanding, it is no different today.  The word of God goes out. The sword has TWO edges.  To save and to kill.  To enlighten and to confuse and destroy,  And why are they confused?  Because they hate the truth and refuse it yet they want to be saved from the reward of such folly.

 

2 Corinthians 2:14 Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.
15 For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:
16 To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?
17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

 

Why are there so many interpretations?  Because God has hidden the truth from them.  When there be many blind leaders of the blind, what do we expect the results to be?  Will they all agree with each other?  No.  The truth is hidden in plain sight but none of the blind leaders are able to read it.  The only reason it is hidden is because they are blind.  But they say "we see" so their sins remain.  I think just before I received the holy spirit I was at the point where I realized that I did not see the truth as I ought to see it.

 

Multiple times in your reply you used phrases like:  But I do question the importance of that knowledge; what shall I be profited by knowing about that;  it won't help me improve my behavior; well, again, I don't see why this is such an important issue to people. If the Gospel is completely unrelated to the importance of all these other matters, then why are they even in the Bible?

 

I suppose they are there so that people might stumble over them and fall and be broken and snared and taken.  Why did Christ speak in parables?  The assumption here is that the bible was written to help us all see the truth and get saved.  But that is not what the bible is for.  The word of God has two edges, one to save and one to destroy.  Jesus spoke in parables to communicate the truth and to keep the truth hidden.  What is interesting to me is the degree to which parables are still misunderstood, even the ones that are explained.  Really, you should listen to my Matthew study.  I'm not saying that out of vanity, its because if you listen to me teach the Gospel you will probably be able to tell if you should even be listening to me or not.  You would clearly see the difference between what I teach and what you have heard from others. 

 

Since the Bible is a progressive revelation, I believe that understanding Genesis is key to understanding the rest of the Bible

 

Well,  I do not want to say that it is not important to understand Genesis.  But you can't understand Genesis properly without the New Testament.  The New testament is the key to the Old, not vice versa.  That's my opinion in nay case.  Are we Moses disciples? Or Christ's?  I say NT first.

 

Hebrews 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

 

The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.  The writer of Genesis revealed to us that there were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown – then walked away!  Is this some kind of cruel joke?  It’s like my saying to you, “Hey Paul, yesterday I saw your wife crying hysterically and I talked with her and asked her what was wrong and she . . . oh, never mind” then I walk away!  REALLY?????  A

 

I don't see your point, the presumption you are making is that the portion in Genesis 6 about the sons of God is as Murray says.  You have to establish that your interpretation is correct first.  You have not done that.  Your analogy is based on the assumption that the Giants had something to do with the flood.  But there were giants before and after the flood and it is not clear at all that the flood had anything to do with the giants.  The bible states that the flood was the result of moral wickedness, the matter of the sons of God appears to be noting more than an historical footnote.  The fact that the matter is inserted in there is no different than this:

 

"Hey Paul, yesterday I saw your wife crying hysterically and I talked with her and asked her what was wrong, and by the way, I also saw your brother buying something from a street vendor, but as I was saying, your wife  was crying and she told me exactly why, and now I will  tell you”

 

That is a much better analogy.  God tells us all about the flood and why it happened.  But to get hung up on what my brother was doing is missing the point.  What was he doing talking to a street vendor?  Was it sinister? Did it have something to do with my wife?  Why would I choose to focus on the cryptic aside about my brother when you obviously had something very clear to say about my wife, and that is how it is with the flood. 

 

Genesis 10:8 And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth.
9 He was a mighty hunter before the LORD: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the LORD.

 

Ok, so that is revealed to us, just what does it reveal?  There have been books written about Nimrod.  But is it really going to help me obtain the righteousness of God and His Kingdom? That is what I'm seeking.  I'm not seeking to confirm or deny legends and fables from cryptic passages in the bible.  Will knowing the deeds of Nimrod  or of the "Sons of God" enable me to obtain the spirit of God that I might understand the mysteries of God?  This is an historical aside.  It has no direct bearing on my salvation.  What I say about Nimrod only becomes important when it starts to interfere with the primary issues I need to attend to.  My behavior, what I do, is more important than what I might speculate about what Nimrod did.

 

And how much confusion could have been avoided and how many books did not need to be published if the apostle John simply dated the Revelation when he put pen to paper?

 

You assume that God wants what man wants.  And that God values what men value.  He does not.

 

With all this confusion, all these denominations, all these translations of the Bible, all these differing doctrines, all this in-fighting, and with this veritable tower of Babel we’ve re-created, how are we supposed to seriously, and with a straight face, reach out to the unbelieving world and convince them this is where they need to be?  If I wasn’t already a believer and someone tried to introduce me to all of this, I’d run – not walk – but run away.

 

That is why I do not bother with unbelievers much, though I do have somewhat to say to them.   I would certainly never encourage them to be part of the church world.  I want to see the church world burn.  It is a mockery of the body of Christ.

 

My ministry is for those that believe.  I want to increase their faith so that they may obtain the promises which they have laid claim to.  That, or I want to drive them from Christ so that they cease to pollute his name.  There will be a time when God will make a distinction between the true church and the whore, but for now it all appears to be the same thing.

 

I’ve heard it said that Satan is in control of the church and has been for some time. I am beginning to believe this and question my need to belong to a church or to even attend church.  I’ve heard it said that Satan, who prowls around like a hungry lion and - like a lion - will attempt to isolate his prey then attack.  This is why we need fellowship.  There’s safety in numbers.  Well, I don’t know about all that because the church, as a whole, seems to be pretty screwed up.

 

How much fellowship do you get in church?  Church is a lecture format.  After the service, how much bible-talk is there?  If someone starts getting fired up about the word of God they would probably look at each other uncomfortably and excuse themselves from that man's prescence.  You'd think the Pastor would be the kind of guy who would be always talking about the things of God, but they always seem to be bent on proving they are just "one of the guys."  The rest of the people are willing to sit through the lecture, but after that, they have mostly had enough of "church."  If you go to a pot luck lunch at some small church and listen to the conversation, you will hear little difference between so-called Christian fellowship and the fellowship of the world.  Their conversation is of the earth, earthly, that is where their hearts are, that is what they speak of. 

 

I do not sit around worrying about the enemy and what he can do. If Satan is only attacking those who isolate themselves from church services then why, pray tell, are so many churches rampant with sin and ungodliness?  Like that story you told, that pastor had all kinds of people around him, it did not stop the devil from getting to him, why should it? the devil owned him from start to finish.

 

We should not completely remove ourselves from the fellowship of other believers, of course not, the problem is finding other believers who want to do fellowship.  That does not mean that we have to be in church every week, or in church at all.  As I say, I am always in the church, every moment,  and I am constantly surrounded with believers, every day.  I have very little to do with anyone who is not a believer.   But I have not been to a so-called service in several years.  Not that I have no love for them, but my primary interest is in making sure they who have faith in Christ receive everything that is promised to them.  When I get invited to a church they usually want me to sing, not to speak.

 

Arnold Murray lectures from TV, but that is not fellowship, what we are doing here, this is closer to fellowship, the term implies a give and take.  I recommend my bible studies, and people benefit from them, and teaching is good, but it is not fellowship.  

 

I find that church is one of the loneliest places I have ever been.  I never feel more isolated and alone than when I am in the midst of people who proclaim faith in Christ but exhibit little enthusiasm for the subject in private conversation. 

 

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.  Don’t look now, but I think we locked Christ out of His own church!

 

I think that's pretty accurate.  Except perhaps that they only SEEM to be churches.  You might enjoy my current study on Revelation especially what I say about the churches.

With sincere wishes that you and your family enjoy a truly blessed Christmas, I eagerly await your reply.

I hope your holiday was full of peace.  I'm a bit wore out, I don't know if you noticed the musical side of my ministry, but over Christmas I did a lot of singing and I was a bit under the weather, but I'm feeling better today, I had wanted to write you sooner, but, aside from the holidays I had a very physically demanding weekend and there was a lot of snow here besides.

 

I am at your service,

Sincerely,

Paul Stringini

Emailer's Second Reply:

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

From: Name Withheld

To: Paul Stringini

Sent: Friday, December 27, 2013 7:26 PM

Subject: Re: Our Dialogue

Once again, thank you Paul for such a quick and detailed reply.  I've read it over once.  I'll read it once or twice more before replying.  But hey - guess what?  Tomorrow I have absolutely nothing to do and nowhere to be so I am going to spend much of the day listening to your study of Matthew.  Looking forward to it.  If time permits, I'll check out some of your music.  Glad you're feeling better. I pray that you and yours will enjoy a happy, healthy, peaceful 2014. Talk soon.  

Name Withheld

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