Shepherd's Chapel from Gravette, AR

Kind of a play on words. Destructive is annihilation.:laugh:

 

So we must report SN to a moderator. Which mod heads the Department of Redundancy Department?

 

Teachers specialize in redundancy. But Bitsty and Scarlett aren't mods.

 

Benjamin I have read your post and how you say you don't buy into his teaching....but you are most certainly defending him. That may be the reason you are catching so much heat.

Arnold Murray is not sound. Serpent Seed Theory, Pre-existing souls (Like Mormons). The guy clearly is not sound.

 

He also teaches that all the races were created on the 6th day of creation and that Adam & Eve were a seperate creation on the 8th day which would mean that sin through Adam & Eve did not affect all mankind as the Bible teaches. From my understanding He also does not teach a worldwide flood which would tie into his basic reinterpretation of Scripture to suite is own bent of belief. And anyone who does not agree with him he calls them names.
He is a false teacher. But the one thing I have not been able to find out is what exactly he teaches about "How one is saved" does anyone know that?This is important to me because my mother listens to him and he has really messed up her thinking.

 

And:

I'm not afraid of a little heat, there ain't no making a point around here without it. :smilewinkgrin:

Steven2006 and whoever else is concerned about me. :saint:


There isn’t a theologian I have ever met or heard that I am in agreement with everything that he says. The Bible explains that the Bereans were commended, for after they heard the preaching of the Word they went right into it to look deeper and check these things out for themselves, I think that is a good model to go by…much better than worrying about that I might be persuaded to believe something that may be untrue. In the very same breath that I asked God to guide me in my life I asked Him to show me the truth about Him; I trust in Him to do so. Shortly after this time He wrote (Col 2:8) on my heart and His Word alone became my shield against false doctrines.

As per you defining Murray as a cult, along with others, like I said, I’ve seen more compelling evidence that would better fit my definition of a cultic teaching in other doctrinal areas, yet I refrain from using the term “cult” in labeling them.

When you get a group of people together who do not “care for” some particular doctrines and will use a certain measure against one (calling them a cult) but not the other then my “inquisitive radar” goes up as to who is “calling the shots here” on when and why it is allowable in one case and not the other. A second question arises; will I be outcast if I do not go along with such strong labeling without even having seen convincing evidence that one is more dangerous than the other? For not going along with what I see as twisted expositions of what I have heard with my own ears?

Remember, that I see truth and untruth in every doctrine I have heard and am weighing by “my” judgment on who I will spend my time listening to by what truth I might find in their teaching which might be of some benefit to my learning while I use the Berean method. (Also remember that I have said I very rarely listen to Murray any longer, the reason for this is that I have heard his teachings and took anything I found of value and left the rest, I have better, more kinsman like doctrines to evaluate.)

I suppose I could place a percentage of good and bad on each expositor I hear and make my “individual” assessments on which I care to listen to by what I value and find from within, and this I do. Murray does not rank high in this area for me so I have taken what good I have found, spit out the rest, and moved on; this was “my” choice.

But the question stands; if I were to face a mob like mentality for merely questioning the serious charges against another and not going along the “groupthink mentality” without more compelling evidence to accept this “nationalism fallacy mentality” of labeling Murray a cult; what does that reveal about the methods of those who would use this against me in an attempt to condemn me?...???

 

Ben you talk about seeing "truth and untruth in every doctrine." Sounds like you want to live in a gray area when some things are black and white.

Either Jesus is the only way or He is not. It is truth or untruth.

 

Ben, it really is a different matter than agreeing or not with everything a person teaches. I can't think of a single person whom I have agreed with every single thing absolutely. But the bible does warn us to have nothing to to with false teachers, those who are clearly teaching things that go against what the bible teaches. That is where I would place Murray. And once that is concluded then we are instructed to not listen to them. If the bible warns us against doing so then think it is dangerous to flirt with just "cherry picking" what we think is OK while trying to glean some biblical truths from them.

You seem like a pretty level headed guy. I think of myself as level headed, but rather than place trust in myself, I'll flow the guidance of the the Bible's teaching. Why flirt with, and what benefit is there in trying to see how close to the cliff I can walk?

 

Sounds like you’re attempting to be accusatory by using “some” semantics while making a play on my words “every doctrine” and while trying to relate a comparison to my fundamental believe in my Lord Jesus Christ as being the Way as something I am undecided in?

You say “some” things are black and white…

Heck… is it “black and white” on the question, “why” would “you” use what I could consider to be a debate tactic which is known to be deceptive (semantics) in attempt to support your argument? At a minimum would I be justified to conclude your argument disregards any other issues I brought up, thereby having no real value in the discussion other than an attempt at “poisoning the well” with the use of these semantics? An attempt at Ad Hominem?

So maybe it is black, and along with being deceptive with semantics you are trying to “poison the well” against me by using an insinuation involving a comparison that I am in grey areas pertaining to fundamental matters like being uncertain of the truth that Jesus is the Way? Or it could just simply be white, being that in ignorance you’re trying to argue with me and don’t even realize there is no “truth value” in your semantics which pertain to the argument I had just made and no insinuation was intentionally meant? Or maybe this is a grey area you would prefer to live…

Just sayin.

 

I consider the [sic] “Pretrib any moment flyaway rapture doctrine” a false teaching, I even consider it dangerous, and see those who systematically teach it and work it into every conversation that relies or falls back on eschatology as fitting the warning from Col 2:8. I see Calvinism working its way into every soteriological discussion much the same way. Yet, I have learned some important things from the same people who adamantly espouse these doctrines and agree with them in other areas. Would you tell me that I need to “stop cherry picking” out what is OK here and leave the Baptist Board? :tear:

Problem is, you would be trying to convince of your argument by using a “perfectionist fallacy” saying it is “all or nothing”, “to throw the baby out with the bath water” if you did. In a sense I agree with you in that I look at percentages; I suppose that is why I am still here and don’t listen to Murray any longer, but your discernment about Biblical warnings and guidance to stay away from certain teachers is more reliant on an individual bias and “groupthink mentality” based on your own personal preferences which involves where you would draw the line. Maybe I’m more liberal and tolerant than you in this area. :laugh:

If your going to put him into the category of “dangerous false teacher” then you are going to have to make that determination off of personal beliefs and percentages of how much falsity there is because of the fact of having some degree of false teaching is everywhere.

I do have my lines that can not be crossed, but the seriousness of Murray’s errs seem to fall short for me to label him as a cult, especially in light of the falsities that I have noticed in the “evidences” against him. Another consideration is the comparisons in “what are dangerous doctrines and methods” which would impel me to label him a “cult” and “what are errs that can simply be spit out”. Lastly, people shouldn’t jump to the conclusion I am defending all Murray’s doctrines because I don’t so easily jump on the bandwagon to use such a strong term against him, nor should they begin attacking me for questioning the reasoning here… unless they want to be put in the boat with those who would force “their” beliefs on others, which BTW is one of the main issues at stake for me “if” I were to consider “him” to be using “cultic” practicies.

Attack his doctrines all you want, I may join in (other than I should be doing homework for finals rather than messing with you guys).

Later

 

Wow...flexing the ole intellect aren't we. A simple answer would have sufficed. I think I understand your thesis now that I have read your post to steven. Sorry if you thought I was attacking your salvation or anything to that affect.

 

No problem and no offense taken.

 

Hmm, testy reponse. We are individuals here. Why do you use terms like mob-like mentality? Most of us seem to be of one accord on the issue of Arnold Murray -- you are the odd-man out. That alone does not mean you are wrong. However, just because the majority of us have serious objections to Murray and you have a more tolerant approach does not mean we are of a group-think mentality.

But you have toned-down your earlier posts somewhat, so I guess the mob got to you.:laugh:

 

If…now, I know you Calvinist don’t appreciate the word “if” anymore than “all”, …but if you want to disregard the word “if” in my statement…and also cut it in half thereby altering my point*…(*I wouldn't expect you to stick to the whole thought anyway, see the first line of post #20)…that is understandable considering your desperation here to get in a hit on me anyway you think you can while unwittingly presenting yourself as one trying to “incite” the very thing you mistakenly protest.

…But I think most the others here see that I made a reasonable case about why I wouldn’t go along with calling Arnold Murray’s ministry a “cult” and the “groupthink mentality” scenario was part of the issue of my reasoning why. So it seems to me, my friend, you are “the odd man out” here.

BTW, I do see some humor in your believing that you’ve made a valid point and then ending it with a self-gratifying horse-laugh…but for different reasons…if you know what I mean. Thanks

 

Just saying a multitude of words with little cohesion of thought.

 

Your sentences are a wilderness of words. So you say that someone is relying on their own individula basis and also employing a groupthink mentality? Make up your mind. Is it one or the other?

Let's back up here. Murray is indeed a dangerous false teacher. Your unwillingness to call a spade a spade is troubling.

You are an ardent anti-Calvinist. However, you wouldn't dare put the teachings of John MacArthur in the same dangerous league as Murray's doctrines -- would you?

Of course there is no perfect teacher aside frfom Jesus Himself. But for you to speak of your percentages and so-forth is a lot of tommyrot. Murray has stepped over the line on too many issues -- he is a false teacher -- period.

You put up with his false teachings quite well enough. Drop the word cult. Murray is a heretic.

Questioning your faint support of Murray has nothing to do with forcing beliefs on others. Do you think we are forcing certain beliefs on you?

A helpful hint -- shorten your overly long sentences -- they are confusing to read and make sense of.

 

That is a classic run-on sentence Ben. Could you please make shorter,more understandable thought units?

Why the whispering?

You're very welcome.