Return to "The Shepherd's Chapel and Dr. Arnold Murray" Main Page
Arnold’s Murray Interpretation of Baptism: Trinitarian or Not?
Please note that by the end of this exchange I do dig up a recording of Arnold Murray giving his exact formula for baptism. Having heard him say the formula, my memory of my baptism in Ft. Smith was clarified, and his declaration rang true with my forgotten memory of my experience at that time.
Question/Comment:
----- Original Message -----From: Name WithheldTo: "Paul Stringini"Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 7:51 PMSubject: Baptism of Arnold Murray
Hi Paul,
I was wondering how much you know about Arnold’s Murray interpretation of Baptism. Were you also baptized by him
My parents felt it was necessary to be rebaptized Arnold Murray’s way because all the churches are doing it wrong.
They can’t explain to me what is wrong but because Arnold Murray says so, then they believe him.
Just wondering, does he baptize “In the name of the Father, the Son, and The Holy Spirit” or is he baptizing only in the name of Jesus.
Arnold Murray does not refer to the Matthew 28 passage of Jesus’ words concerning baptism on his website so I was just wondering about this.
My parents think he is Trinitarian in his beliefs but they are not really sure.
Thanks,
Name Withheld
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Stringini"
To: Name Withheld
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: Baptism of Arnold Murray
Hi,
I really don't remember Pastor Murray asserting that his submersion baptism was right and other submersion baptisms were wrong. I know that he taught
immersion baptism, and he "dedicated" infants, but would not consider an infant baptism a proper baptism, because an infant can't repent and baptism is "unto repentance."
I was personally baptized by Arnold Murray in 1995 in Fort Smith. He had some olive oil and he anointed each person before he baptized them. I never remember him teaching this was "required," it was something he did, actually I think it was a nice touch.
Somehow, even at the time, it slipped by me what verbal formula he used. Later that week, I baptized my new wife in Beaver Lake near Gravette, and, as I was about to do it, realized I could not remember "the right words." So I said "in the name of Jesus Christ" and dunked her under the water. I was never sure what Murray had said, but in 2005 I got baptized again, because I was not sure whether he had used the name of Jesus or not. (I now think that second Baptism was probably unnecessary).
I don't think the baptizer has to use any formula when baptizing an individual. We do many things in the name of Jesus without invoking his name at every turn. If the man is a preacher of the Gospel, one who has the Father and the Son and the Spirit, and the person being baptized understands this, and is seeking to be Baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, then it is a proper baptism under the authority of Jesus Christ. So, in my opinion, the baptizer could stand in front of a crowd of people and announce "I'm here to baptize you all because I believe that is what Jesus Christ taught we ought to do." And he never has to say another word. That is what it truly means to do something "in the name of" someone else. It means to act on their behalf, according to their desires or wishes.
As far as baptizing based on Matthew 28. All the other times where we find examples of or commands to baptism we find it it either, the name of Jesus Christ or the name of "the Lord."
Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
Acts 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
Act 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
So, I think when we use Matthew 28 as some sort of formula for "proper" baptism we are basically second guessing the Apostles. The Apostles knew what it meant to obey Christ better than we do. The Gospel of Matthew was recorded by the Apostles. So whatever the Apostles did in Acts should be seen as being done in obedience to what was written in Matthew 28. Jesus Christ is the name by which we know the Father, and by which we receive the Spirit. Jesus Christ is the door through which we must enter in order to have a relationship with God, so it is entirely acceptable, and even preferable to baptize in the name of Jesus Christ. That is what the Apostles did.
Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
Jesus Christ is the most powerful name.
Sincerely,
Paul Stringini
----- Original Message -----From: Name WithheldTo: "Paul Stringini"Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 5:40 PMSubject: Re: Baptism of Arnold MurrayHi Paul,
I was asking to know Arnold Murray's true stand about the God’s Triune Nature.
Baptizing only in the name of Jesus Christ is non-trinitarian theology. Non-trinitarians claim that baptizing only in the name of Jesus Christ is the only valid formula for baptism and claim the trinitarian way is invalid because they do not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. I’m sure Arnold would not be so bold as to say he is non-trinitarian directly because he is deceptive and hides his true agenda. True believers believe in the triune nature of God, and when baptized they are baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
It makes sense that Arnold Murray would only call it, as you say, “just a formula”, making it sound as if it is of little importance to not raise any red flags.
Anyone who believes in the Triune nature of God would never refuse to use the words Jesus Christ gave us to use when baptizing but non-trinitarians absolutely refuse to use Jesus’ words.
Thanks,
Name Withheld
----- Original Message -----From: "Paul Stringini"To: Name WithheldSent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 8:04 PMSubject: Re: Baptism of Arnold Murray
Hi again,
I don't remember the formula Murray uses, I wish I did. I will see if I can dig anything up.Murray pays lip service to the Trinity, as you may know. He would have no problem with the formulation "The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." He has no problem with the word "Trinity," either (at least not in recent years). He uses the term "Trinity" as if it is interchangeable with the term "Godhead." (You can see that on his webpage, under "Answer to Critics" http://www.shepherdschapel.com/answer-to-critics.htm) Which it is not.
Murray's version of the Trinity is not the same as the Historical doctrine of the Trinity, that is clear. It is interesting that he does not mention the "three offices" on his "Answer to Critics" page. That is very telling, He does not really even go into any explanation at all.
"I teach YHVH ("I Am That I Am" and Hebrew for the Sacred Name of God), Yahshua (Hebrew for God's Saviour Jesus) and the Holy Spirit."
Notice that he does not mention the terms Father or Son. That is odd. He basically says that he teaches YHVH, Yahshua, and the Holy Spirit. That basically says NOTHING about the content of his teaching, so it is totally useless.
Next he goes on this digression:
"When you speak the Truth it is the Holy Spirit manifesting Himself through you. Matthew 10:20 explicitly says "For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you."The meaning, of course, refers to the Holy Spirit as in Mark 13:11, which notes, "but when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do you premeditate; but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye; for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost (Spirit).""
What? Actually this is somewhat telling. He could have chosen many verses to describe the action of the Holy Spirit speaking through you. Why did he choose Matthew 10:20 when Mark 13:11 says essentially the same thing? Because Matthew 10 is "explicit" as he says. He likes that passage, because he does not view the Holy Spirit as distinct from the Father. To Murray, the Holy Spirit IS the Father, and the Father IS the Son, each of these names is merely a role that God plays for our benefit.
"I make no apology for teaching the Godhead in this manner, and I certainly do not need an endorsement or approval or further interpretation of my words
from any man or group of research witch hunters."
He tried to dodge the issue and almost did, but he gave us a clue, and besides, anyone who studies with Murray for long and understands the Historic doctrine of the Trinity is going to figure out that whatever Murray teaches, he does not teach the historic doctrine of the Trinity!
In his broadcasts, he used to describe the "Godhead or Trinity" in terms of offices. The historical doctrine of the Trinity Describes the distinctions between the Father and Son as "Persons." Murray taught that God was a single person playing several roles. So he is not a Trinitarian by any means. The Trinity is basically the opposite of what he taught. He uses the label Trinity to obfuscate the issue and avoid losing viewers.
I will dig up my tape on Baptism and give it a listen and let you know what I find out. I was not suggesting that Murray would say any of this was, "just a formula," I don't know what he said, but the idea that the "formula" is just a formula is essentially my own opinion. Baptism is to be done in the name of the Lord. The formula is not the issue for me. The issue is who we serve.
The last thing I want to do is seem argumentative, but I have to take exception, however, when you say, "Baptizing only in the name of Jesus Christ is non-Trinitarian theology. " I disagree. That is reading current developments back into the New Testament. I quoted you many verses from Acts which demonstrated that the Apostles routinely Baptized people in the name of Jesus Christ, without mentioning any other persons of the Trinity by name. Does that mean that the Apostles were non-Trinitarians? Do you see what I mean? If you say that baptizing in the name of Jesus Christ makes you a Non-Trinitarian you are basically saying that none of the Apostles were Trinitarians and nearly playing into the hands of the Oneness heresy.
Correct me if I am wrong, but you are not saying it is unacceptable to baptize someone in the name of Jesus Christ, are you? You are not saying that we must repeat the exact phrase "in the name of the father and the son and the holy spirit" each and every time we baptize someone, are you? I understand that the "Oneness" Pentecostals are heretics. But that is not to say that baptizing in the name of Jesus Christ makes one a non-Trinitarian.
1 John 2:23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.
When we baptize in the name of Jesus Christ we affirm his divinity and authority over our lives, and we affirm God the Father and God the Spirit also. When we honor the son, we honor all three. I acknowledge that "oneness" has perverted the idea of simple baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, so that people start analyzing every baptism and reacting negatively to a very simple use of the name of our Lord. But invoking the name of Jesus Christ in baptism is not the same as denying the Trinity. The foundation of the Trinity is the deity of Jesus Christ. That is what we affirm when we baptize, heal, or pray in his name.
Despite being called "Jesus Only," the oneness crowd actually deny the Son. I had a friend who used to be from the Oneness Pentecostals, and he told me that they used to quote John 3:16 and rewrite it saying "for God so loved the world that he gave HIMSELF that whosoever should believe upon him should not perish etc..." In stead of saying, "only begotten son." That is a definite red flag, far from being "Jesus Only," they essentially deny the son. Murray's teaching is very similar to oneness. I forgot what he used to say about oneness theology, I remember he got questions about whether or not he was "Jesus Only," but I forget what he said because it did not make sense to me at the time.
We can certainly see in the new testament that it is perfectly acceptable to baptize in the name of Jesus Christ. The formula we use is not as important as the God we believe in. So long as it is not done in order to corrupt the role of Christ, or to deny the separate persons of the Father and Son, it is perfectly acceptable to baptize people in the name of Jesus Christ. If you see someone baptizing in the name of Jesus Christ, it should not automatically raise flags unless they are also denying the true nature of God.
I don't think it is an issue of refusing to obey the words that Jesus gave his Apostles. I would never willingly do that. I look at how the Apostles carried out his instructions, and find that they used his name, Jesus Christ, to baptize. So I assume they were doing this in obedience to Christ, and I learn from that that the Apostles thought that to do something in the name of Jesus Christ is the same as to do it in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Spirit. So that is how they baptized. I don't have anything against people being baptized calling on all three, that is fine, I just believe that to call on Jesus Christ is the same thing, because that is what the Apostles did and they knew better than me.
Sincerely
Paul Stringini
----- Original Message -----From: Name WithheldTo: Paul StringiniSent: Thursday, April 03, 2014 3:00 PMSubject: Re: Baptism of Arnold MurrayHi Paul,
On Apr 2, 2014, at 9:04 PM, Paul Stringini wrote:Correct me if I am wrong, but you are not saying it is unacceptable to baptize someone in the name of Jesus Christ, are you? You are not saying that we must repeat the exact phrase "in the name of the father and the son and the holy spirit" each and every time we baptize someone, are you? I understand that the "Oneness" Pentecostals are heretics. But that is not to say that baptizing in the name of Jesus Christ makes one a non-Trinitarian.I just believe that to call on Jesus Christ is the same thing, because that is what the Apostles did and they knew better than me.When we baptize in the name of Jesus Christ we affirm his divinity, and we affirm God the Father and God the Spirit.
When Peter and the other apostles baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, each apostle was stating that he was under Jesus Christ’s authority.The apostles were eye-witnesses and they heard the actual words Jesus spoke commanding them to make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
Apostles were absolutely Trinitarian.I believe the apostles used Jesus’ words just he commanded them to do so when they were performing the act of baptism. I do not believe they felt it preferable to change Jesus command and baptize only in the name of Jesus. When Peter spoke the words, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”, he spoke those words so that the people would know who gave him the authority to baptize. Jesus gave the apostles the authority to baptize, and he told them the words to say when baptizing believer’s in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.The problem with dismissing Jesus command about how to baptize, and baptize only in the name of Jesus causes confusion as to what one truly believes about God’s Triune nature. A Trinitarian baptism sets Christians apart from all other religions, for we boldly confess we believe in one Triune God - Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Jesus asks for our devoted obedience to Him. Every word Jesus spoke is full of meaning and importance. The other examples in the Bible are not commands in how to baptize. I see how Satan uses these other passages to set up false narratives in our mind, “Did God really say?". It is important for us to ask “What did Jesus say concerning this matter?” In Matthew 28: 18-20 Jesus has given us His narrative concerning baptism. It is not confusing, and brings glory and honor to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.
Thanks,Name Withheld
----- Original Message -----From: Paul StringiniTo: Name WithheldSent: Thursday, April 03, 2014 8:51 PMSubject: Re: Baptism of Arnold MurrayOk, you assume that Jesus was actually commanding us to use those precise words when baptizing. I strongly disagree. Using that kind of thinking would make it wrong to pray in any other manner than the Lord's prayer. After all, Jesus specifically said, "after this manner pray ye." By what authority do we pray in any other manner? Remember, the letter kills...I think you are being a little legalistic about the words used in baptism. But have it your way... it is something to think about.I found Murray's tape on baptism. I listened to it. Wow. It is really quite a mess. He manages to talk about Kenites and worshipping the Devil, and a bunch of other of his pet doctrines, but it is kind of hard to figure what he is trying to say about baptism. I suppose I might not have been giving him my full attention. I can send you a link to the file if you would like to have it. If you listen to it, it will become obvious that anyone who would make a teaching on baptism stray so far from the actual subject, is not a very competent teacher.I can't really imagine what anyone would think is so special about Murray's baptism, he does not seem to give it much thought.Sincerely,Paul Stringini
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Stringini"
To: Name Withheld
Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2014 5:18 PM
Subject: Re: Baptism of Arnold Murray
Thought you might want to know. I found another recording online of Arnold Murray talking about baptism. In regards to the words to say when baptizing, he specifically says that he baptizes them in the name of Yahveh, (The Father), Yeshua, Jesus (The Son) and the Holy Spirit. So there you have it. Murray uses a basically Trinitarian formula.Sincerely,
Paul Stringini
Emailer's Third Reply:
----- Original Message -----
From: Name Withheld
To: "Paul Stringini"
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2014 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: Baptism of Arnold Murray
Thanks for letting me know
Name Withheld
Return to "The Shepherd's Chapel and Dr. Arnold Murray" Main Page