Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
Wednesday, 11 July 2007
Yesterday's Reuters headline: "The Vatican on Tuesday said Christian denominations outside the Roman Catholic Church were not full churches of Jesus Christ." The actual proclamation, posted on the official Vatican Web site, says that Protestant Churches are really "ecclesial communities" rather than Churches, because they lack apostolic succession, and therefore they "have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery." Furthermore, not even the Eastern Orthodox Churches are real Churches, even though they were explicitly referred to as such in the Vatican document Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism). The new document explains that they were only called Churches because "the Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term." This new clarification, issued officially by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but in fact strongly supported by Pope Benedict XVI, manages to insult both Protestants and the Orthodox, and it may set ecumenism back a hundred years.
The new document, officially entitled "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church," claims that the positions it takes do not reverse the intent of various Vatican II documents, especially Unitatis Redintegratio, but merely clarify them. In support of this contention, it cites other documents, all issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), Communionis notio (1992), and Dominus Iesus (2000). The last two of these documents were issued while the current pope, as Cardinal Ratzinger, was prefect of the Congregation. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was born in 1542 with the name Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition, and for centuries it has operated as an extremely conservative force with the Roman Catholic Church, opposing innovation and modernizing tendencies, suppressing dissent, and sometimes, in its first few centuries, persecuting those who believed differently. More recently, the congregation has engaged in the suppression of some of Catholicism's most innovative and committed thinkers, such as Yves Congar, Hans Küng, Charles Curran, Matthew Fox, and Jon Sobrino and other liberation theologians. In light of the history of the Congregation of the Faith, such conservative statements as those released this week are hardly surprising, though they are quite unwelcome.
It is natural for members of various Christian Churches to believe that the institutions to which they belong are the best representatives of Christ's body on earth--otherwise, why wouldn't they join a different Church? It is disingenuous, however, for the leader of a Church that has committed itself "irrevocably" (to use Pope John Paul II's word in Ut Unum Sint [That They May Be One] 3, emphasis original) to ecumenism to claim to be interested in unity while at the same time declaring that all other Christians belong to Churches that are in some way deficient. How different was the attitude of Benedict's predecessors, who wrote, "In subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the [Roman] Catholic Church--for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame" (Unitatis Redintegratio 3). In Benedict's view, at various times in history groups of Christians wandered from the original, pure Roman Catholic Church, and any notion of Christian unity today is predicated on the idea of those groups abandoning their errors and returning to the Roman Catholic fold. The pope's problem seems to be that he is a theologian rather than a historian. Otherwise he could not possibly make such outrageous statements and think that they were compatible with the spirit of ecumenism that his immediate predecessors promoted.
One of the pope's most strident arguments against the validity of other Churches is that they can't trace their bishops' lineages back to the original apostles, as the bishops in the Roman Catholic Church can. There are three problems with this idea.
First, many Protestants deny the importance of apostolic succession as a guarantor of legitimacy. They would argue that faithfulness to the Bible and/or the teachings of Christ is a better measure of authentic Christian faith than the ability to trace one's spiritual ancestry through an ecclesiastical bureaucracy. A peripheral knowledge of the lives of some of the medieval and early modern popes (e.g., Stephen VI, Sergius III, Innocent VIII, Alexander VI) is enough to call the insistence on apostolic succession into serious question. Moreover, the Avignon Papacy and the divided lines of papal claimants in subsequent decades calls into serious question the legitimacy of the whole approach. Perhaps the strongest argument against the necessity of apostolic succession comes from the Apostle Paul, who was an acknowledged apostle despite not having been ordained by one of Jesus' original twelve disciples. In fact, Paul makes much of the fact that his authority came directly from Jesus Christ rather than from one of the apostles (Gal 1:11-12). Apostolic succession was a useful tool for combating incipient heresy and establishing the antiquity of the churches in particular locales, but merely stating that apostolic succession is a necessary prerequisite for being a true church does not make it so.
The second problem with the new document's insistence upon apostolic succession is the fact that at least three other Christian communions have apostolic succession claims that are as valid as that of the Roman Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Churches, which split from the Roman Catholic Church in 1054, can trace their lineages back to the same apostles that the Roman Catholic Church can, a fact acknowledged by Unitatis Redintegratio 14. The Oriental Orthodox Churches, such as the Coptic and Ethiopic Orthodox Churches, split from the Roman Catholic Church several centuries earlier, but they too can trace their episcopal lineages back to the same apostles claimed by the Roman Catholic Church as its founders. Finally, the Anglican Church, which broke away from the Roman Catholic Church during the reign of King Henry VIII, can likewise trace the lineage of every bishop back through the first archbishop of Canterbury, Augustine. In addition to these three collections of Christian Churches, the Old Catholics and some Methodists also see value in the idea of apostolic succession, and they can trace their episcopal lineages just as far back as Catholic bishops can.
The third problem with the idea of apostolic succession is that the earliest bishops in certain places are simply unknown, and the lists produced in the third and fourth centuries that purported to identify every bishop back to the founding of the church in a particular area were often historically unreliable. Who was the founding bishop of Byzantium? Who brought the gospel to Alexandria? To Edessa? To Antioch? There are lists that give names (e.g., http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm), such as the Apostles Mark (Alexandria), Andrew (Byzantium), and Thaddeus (Armenia), but the association of the apostles with the founding of these churches is legendary, not historical. The most obvious breakdown of historicity in the realm of apostolic succession involves none other than the see occupied by the pope, the bishop of Rome. It is certain that Peter did make his way to Rome before the time of Nero, where he perished, apparently in the Neronian persecution following the Great Fire of Rome, but it is equally certain that the church in Rome predates Peter, as it also predates Paul's arrival there (Paul also apparently died during the Neronian persecution). The Roman Catholic Church may legitimately claim a close association with both Peter and Paul, but it may not legitimately claim that either was the founder of the church there. The fact of the matter is that the gospel reached Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Edessa, and other early centers of Christianity in the hands of unknown, faithful Christians, not apostles, and the legitimacy of the churches established there did not suffer in the least because of it.
All the talk in the new document about apostolic succession is merely a smokescreen, however, for the main point that the Congregation of the Faith and the pope wanted to drive home: recognition of the absolute primacy of the pope. After playing with the words "subsists in" (Lumen Gentium [Dogmatic Constitution on the Church] 8) and "church" (Unitatis Redintegratio 14) in an effort to make them mean something other than what they originally meant, the document gets down to the nitty-gritty. "Since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches." From an ecumenical standpoint, this position is a non-starter. Communion with Rome and acknowledging the authority of the pope as bishop of Rome is a far different matter from recognizing the pope as the "visible head" of the entire church, without peer. The pope is an intelligent man, and he knows that discussions with other Churches will make no progress on the basis of this prerequisite, so the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the pope, despite his protestations, has no interest in pursuing ecumenism. Trying to persuade other Christians to become Roman Catholics, which is evidently the pope's approach to other Churches, is not ecumenism, it's proselytism.
Fortunately, this document does not represent the viewpoint of all Catholics, either laypeople or scholars. Many ordinary Catholics would scoff at the idea that other denominations were not legitimate Churches, which just happen to have different ideas about certain topics and different ways of expressing a common Christianity. Similarly, many Catholic scholars are doing impressive work in areas such as theology, history, biblical study, and ethics, work that interacts with ideas produced by non-Catholic scholars. In the classroom and in publications, Catholics and non-Catholics learn from each other, challenge one another, and, perhaps most importantly, respect one another.
How does one define the Church? Christians have many different understandings of the term, and Catholics are divided among themselves, as are non-Catholics. The ecumenical movement is engaged in addressing this issue in thoughtful, meaningful, and respectful ways. Will the narrow-minded view expressed in "Responses" be the death-knell of the ecumenical movement? Hardly. Unity among Christians is too important an idea to be set aside. Will the document set back ecumenical efforts? Perhaps, but Christians committed to Christian unity--Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike--will get beyond it. The ecumenical movement is alive and well, and no intemperate pronouncement from the Congregation of the Faith, or the current pope, can restrain it for long. Even if ecumenism, at least as it involves the Roman Catholic Church's connection with other Churches, is temporarily set back a hundred years, that distance can be closed either by changes of heart or changes of leadership.
Could you elaborate? I'm not sure I know what you mean.
Biblical phrases, like all reading, must be understood in context and not as isolated sentences, and in the spirit and conceptional mindset of the language and culture in which it was written.
You may wish to watch Pastor Scott (either one of them).
Why would He choose some if He is no respector of persons?
I think you are mixing things up. God is impartial when it comes to judgment. He chose some to be His instruments in His gradual revelation to mankind.
We did exist, our souls have been with Him since He created us
Again, pre-existence of the souls was never taught by the Apostles or the Church. It is a pagan, ancient Jewish and Gnostic belief. Apparently the Mormon cult shares in it.
As for your other question, "when Satan fell", I don't know if it tells us
The only evidence of this in the Bible is in Luke (10:18). The only reference to a fallen angel is in Rev 9:1.
We know he was loved by God before his fall, we know that he has fallen by the time he is in the Garden of Eden (in the role of the serpent), with Adam and Eve
That is a conjecture, especially in view of the fact that the proverbial serpent is being punished together with Adam and Eve. If the serpent is Satan and he fell before humans were around, he would already have been punished.
I know that scientist say that but I also know that God said
It's more than saying: they actually observe start in different stages of death.
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
No sea? To pass away means to die; to be gone. The Sun will eventually swallow up the earth and inner planets and vaporize or blow out of orbit the rest.
And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.
because the dead need no sun or the moon. But their souls can be spiritually nourished without them?
Not really. If you believe the creation story in Genesis is a metaphor we are on opposite sides. I believe it to be literally true.
(1) Help LORD, for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men.
(2) They speak vanity every one with his neighbor: with flattering lips and a double heart do they speak.
(3) The LORD shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things:
(4) Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own; who is lord over us?
(5) For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, sayeth the LORD: I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.
(6) The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
(7) Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever.
(8) The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.
Wisdom for our own parlous times! (I especially resonate to verse (8).)
Thank you so much, dearest sister in Christ, for your kind words of encouragement!
I agree it is a new theory. In looking at Genesis 1:1-3 I am trying to see how Ping sees two different periods and am not finding it. My reading of it leads me to believe it was all part of one process as explained at the end of verse 5 "So the evening and the morning were the first day."
The best thing is not to mix science with the Bible. Science is not there to disprove God. It only provides working models, which—work but are not necessarily "true."
I don't see science as the enemy of TRUTH and the understanding of natural processes will reveal GOD.
Rom. 1:20 "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,"
I disagree. I believe the lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night are stars. We see stars at night but not during the day.
I’ve always believed it was photons.
My saying “always” is overstating my case.
The truth is that for a number of years now, I have thought that “photons” would be one way to deal with the issues.
Thanks for the chuckle. :-)
I'm in agreement with you, wmfights. The big bang/inflationary model of the universe appears to have very strong evidence in support of it, and I think it is hardly at odds with Genesis 1 and the Gospel of St. John 1:1-5. What it essentially says is the universe had a beginning -- the most theological statement that science has ever made -- and from that beginning, the cosmic microwave background radiation (the harmonic echo of the creation event that pervades the entire universe to this day) can be used to date the universe as having an age of about 15 billion years.
Indeed, the 2006 Nobel Prize in physics was awarded to John Mather and George Smoot -- who are associated with the cosmic background explorer (COBE) satellite program launched by NASA in 1989 -- for their work on cosmic radiation, which helped to pinpoint the age of the universe and lent additional support to the big bang/inflationary model of the universe.
To me, the big bang can be understood as God's speaking of the Word -- the Logos, the Son of God -- of the Beginning, "Let there be Light!" From this primordial light was everything in the universe made, from the periodic table of the elements, to living creatures.
And your citation of Romans 1:20 on this question is definitely appropriate! IMHO FWIW. Science cannot be the enemy of Truth, for it is the child of Truth.... The divine revelation given through the created world itself is what science can explore, and does.
Me, too, xzins! :^) Please see my post #2,171.
In that case what kind of a "reward" is it? We do not reward our cars for driving us.
But we do reward our children for mimicking the lesson we just taught them. In any case, assuming I am never so called, we already know that the reward of a martyr is going to be greater than mine. It wouldn't matter how many good deeds I did, but I'll never reach that level in Judgment. God simply didn't call me to do that. And, that is perfectly fair. :) I really don't worry so much about the reward Judgment because I don't serve God for reward, and I have no idea how it is going to work. I figure I just need to worry about the "obey" commandment and everything else will come out in the wash. :)
I think it means more than that Kosta. There is a reason He selected the ones He did. What is it?
Again, pre-existence of the souls was never taught by the Apostles or the Church. It is a pagan, ancient Jewish and Gnostic belief. Apparently the Mormon cult shares in it.
From what P-Marlowe said, yes they do. If it is an ancient Jewish belief and our Bible is from ancient Jewish heritage maybe we need to listen to them. There are several scriptures that point to an age before our present age. How do you and others deal with those? What do they mean? You can't just say it isn't true because people you don't agree with say it is - you must prove it with scripture. I've shown where the Bible tells us there was a first age. Can you show me where it says this is the only age of our earth. What do the scriptures I gave you mean?
That is a conjecture, especially in view of the fact that the proverbial serpent is being punished together with Adam and Eve. If the serpent is Satan and he fell before humans were around, he would already have been punished.
If God thought Satan was so wonderful, loved him so much and considered him a "covering cherub" (Ez.28:16) then he has been punished. He no longer holds those positions but he has a job to do and it won't be complete until he is released again:
Rev.20:7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
8.And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth.....
.....Ping
ARNOLD MURRAY AND THE SHEPHERD'S CHAPEL
A teacher who has recently become popular over television is a man named Arnold Murray of the Shepherd's Chapel in Gravette, Arkansas. We at the Christian Research Institute do not endorse the teachings of Arnold Murray. This paper will demonstrate why we consider Mr. Murray's teachings to be heretical.
THE CULTIC TEACHINGS OF ARNOLD MURRAY
Modalism
Mr. Murray does not believe in the Christian doctrine of the Trinity (one God existing eternally in three Persons). There are three real and personal relationships between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Murray denies the three persons of God, claiming they are merely three offices. Concerning the Trinity, he said:
You have these yo-yo's that will say, 'Well I want you to think like of water (sic) and ice' and so on, various gases or so forth, or then they'll say, 'I want you to think of a 200 watt bulb, and a 150 watt bulb, and a 50 watt bulb.' Well, they're all the same wattage, friend. So why not just simplify it instead of playing stupid games, and understand there are three offices of the Godhead. Like this little lady said. She said, 'To my husband I am a wife, to my children I am a mother, that's my office. To hundreds of third graders I am their teacher and have been down through the years. That's a different office; none of them the same, but I'm still the same person.' I like that. It's simple and to the point (The Shepherd's Chapel Question and Answers period, aired 64-91).
Referring to Christ, Murray says, "His spirit is holy and he is the Holy Spirit." (Shepherd's Chapel Question and Answers period, aired 54-91) Hence, Murray is guilty of teaching the heresy of modalism, which states that Jesus is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (one Person in three roles, or modes). One of the accusations made against CRI by the followers of Arnold Murray is that Mr. Murray does hold to the eternal deity of Christ. However, since Murray does not believe in the three Persons of the Trinity, he cannot logically hold to the deity of Jesus Christ being the eternal Son of God, Second Person of the Trinity. Having made these statements, he inconsistently says, A wise man never discusses the Trinity. (Ibid., 5-15-91)
Little Gods
Not only does Arnold Murray teach a false concert of God, he also believes that men were once gods who existed prior to living on the earth. In Genesis 1:26 when referring to the "Our" and "Us" (which has normally been understood to mean the Persons of the Trinity: Mal.2:10 cf. Job 9:8; Isa.44:24) Murray says, "he spoke to the Elohim, meaning God and his children, let us make that man in our image, which is to say make it look in the likeness that we are. Do you appear as your soul appeared in the world that was?"-I told you, that God said "in Our image, Our likeness', the Elohim were standing there, they were from before." (Tape #146) We always were with Him [God] until you were born into this earth.. (Kenites, Tape #436) Similar to the cultic teaching of the Mormons, Murray declares that God is "one man,...our Father," and like the Oneness Pentecostals, God "(sic) gots three offices he serves". (Shepherd's Chapel Questions and Answers period, aired 5-14-91)
The Biblical View of God
The biblical teaching concerning the nature of God is completely incompatible with Murray's modalism (a heresy taught by groups such as the Oneness Pentecostals). There is a distinction of Persons in the Godhead (Matt. 3:16,17; 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14) who have personal relationships with one another which cannot be accounted for if they are all the exact same person as Murray teaches (Matt. 12:31,32; John 1:1-14; 8:16-18; 14:16,17,23; 15:26; 16:28; 17:1-5). The Trinity is one of the major tenets of the Christians faith. All the cults deviate from Christianity on this point, and Mr. Murray is no exception.
Additionally, God is not a man (Num.23:19; Hos. 11:9; John 4:24), and angels and humans are not gods (Isa. 43:10; 44:6-8; 1 Cor. 8:4-6; Gal. 4:8). Neither did man preexist with God. The Bible says that God created man on the earth, not in heaven (Gen.2:7; Zech. 12:1; 1 Cor. 14:47,48). Christ, on the other hand, being the eternal Son of God who always existed with the Father (John 1:1; 17:5), is the only man who ever preexisted with the Father (John 3:13,31; 8:23; 1 Cor. 15:45-48). John the Baptist, who was born before Christ (Luke 1,2),said that Christ existed before he did (John 1:15,30). His statement can only be explained by affirming that Christ existed with God before his incarnation, and John the Baptist (or any other human) did not.
THE IMPLICIT RACISM OF ARNOLD MURRAY
Anglo-Israel Origin
Mr. Murray teaches Anglo-Israelism which believes that Anglo-Saxons are the chosen race, and America and Great Britain are the lost tribes of the children of Israel. Murray claims that the northern ten tribes of Israel are "the same tribes that later went north and populated Europe and North America". (The Shepherd's Chapel newsletter #148, 2-91) According to the theology of Anglo-Israelism, other races are inferior to whites, and usually the blacks and Jewish race are particularly stigmatized. Murray, on the other hand, says that he respects blacks and other races.
However, he believes these races were the 'Adam' created on the sixth day of creation in Genesis 1, while the Anglo-Saxons were 'another Adam' created on the eighth day of creation based on his interpretation of Genesis 2. Hence, there is a definite distinction between whites and non-whites. Arnold Murray also promotes the literature of other Anglo-Israelism teachers. The Shepherd's Chapel Book List, for instance, offers materials by E. Raymond Capt and J. H. Allen.
The Serpent Seed Doctrine and the Kenites
Another central teaching of Arnold Murray is the serpent seed doctrine. According to Murray, Eve had sex with the Serpent in the Garden of Eden. In 2 Corinthians 11:3, Murray uses the word "beguiled" to mean "wholly seduced". Hence, Murray claims the Serpent sexually seduced Eve who then became pregnant with Cain; the devil's literal offspring. Murray asserts that the offspring of Cain are called the "Kenites". He also states that the Kenites are not a race, "but a hybrid". (Genesis 1:1-6:22, tape #146) He thus seems to implicitly consider them to be less than human. Mr. Murray claims that many of the Kenites are Jewish! Based upon the "creed" of the Shepherd's Chapel, Murray states, "We believe in an existing Satan... who has a people who will not hear God (John 8:44-47)". (Our Statement of Faith, p.2) In John 8:44-47, the context clearly states that these people who are the "children of the devil" are Jews (8:31-58).
Hence, Murray believes that Jesus is referring to these particular Jews as the literal offspring of Satan. Regarding the Jews he writes, "Now, who stands in Jerusalem today?.. the sons of Cain or those who will not accept Jesus Christ.. the Kenites, that founded a new nation starting in 1948."
(The Shepherd's Bible, Commentary by Arnold Murray, 1979) He calls them "scum", and obviously makes the racial Jewish businessman remark when he states, "If you want to get a Kenite upset, bother his money table". (Parable of the Fig Tree, Tape #445)
Murray connects these Jews with Cain by Christ's comment in John 8:44 that their father was a "murderer from the beginning.. To affirm these Jews as the offspring of Cain (i.e., the Kenites), Murray refers to Cain's murder of Abel in Genesis 4.0ne can only conclude that Mr. Murray has made statements that label him as a white supremacist. He might tell colored people to be proud of who they are, but then again, so do some white supremacists.
The real questions the followers of Arnold Murray need to ask are: Does Arnold Murray think that non-whites are equal to whites in every respect? Does he approve of interracial Christian marriages like the Bible does? (Gen. 16; Num. 12 cL, Gen. 10:6 ~ Amos 9:7; Song of Sol. 1:5-7 cf., 3:7-11; 1 Cor. 7:39; Gal. 3:28 [note: The only type of marriage the Bible forbids is one between believer and nonbeliever: Ex. 34:14-16; 1 Cor. 7:39; 2 Cor. 6:14]) Would Mr. Murray let a black or a Christian of Jewish ancestry preach at his church-perhaps even take it over if he were to pass away? What does Murray think about the Jewish holocaust in World War II? What does he think about the Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan? These types of questions need to be addressed to Arnold Murray.
The Biblical View of the Races
The creation of man in Genesis 1 and 2 should not be interpreted as two separate Adams. Just like the Esau of Genesis 36:1-37:1 should not be considered a different Esau from the one mentioned in Genesis 25:1235:29 (cf. 1 Chron. 1:38-42), so the Adam mentioned in Genesis 1:1-2:3 should not be considered a different Adam than the one mentioned in Genesis 2:4-4:26. Genesis 1:1-2:3 simply focuses on the development of heaven and earth, while Genesis 2:4-4:26 focuses on the development of man. If Murray were consistent, he would have to say there must be a *third* Adam mentioned in Genesis 5:1,2 that is different from the previous two Adams!
The Anglo-Israelism theory has been refuted, and virtually no reputable scholar or historian today would promote it. The Assyrian and Babylonian captivities in 722 B.C. and 586 B.C. forever ended the schism between Judah and Israel. From about that time on, the terms "Jew" and "Israelite" were used interchangeably. Further, there is no sufficient evidence that the Scythians (the supposed missing link between Israel and Great Britain) were ever connected with the ten tribes of Israel. By comparing the etymologies of English words from the most respected English dictionary (Oxford English Dictionary), there is simply no sufficient evidence to support any connection between the Anglo-Saxon and Hebrew tongues.
The Old Testament also uses the children of Judah and the ten tribes of Israel together after the Jews returned from the Babylonian captivity in 536 AD. (Ezra 2:70; 6:17; 7:6-15; Neh. 7:73; 12:44-47; Zech. 1:19: 8:13; 10:6; cf. 2 Chron. 11:3-17; 15 9). Many of these texts are the fulfillment of Ezekiel 37:15-25 (cf. Jer. 31:27; 50:40).
In the New Testament the Jews and the ten tribes of Israel are mentioned many times without any distinction made between them (e.g., Matt. 10:5,6; 15:24; Luke 2:36; 22:30; Acts 2:14,22,23,36; James 1:1; Rev. 7:4-8). Both Jesus and Paul were Jews (Matt. 27:11 cf. Rom. 9:1-4; Acts 21:39 cL, Rom. 11:1-2). Since all New Testament Christians are God's chosen people, racial distinctions no longer matter (John 1:12-13, Acts 10:34; 17:26 cf. Gen. 3:20 Rom. 8:14; 1 Pet.2:9; Col. 3:11; Gal.3:28; Rev. 5 9,10). All humanity has sinned (Rom. 3:23; 5:12-20), thus, as William H. Baker states, The so-called races must be equal, because sin is what produces undesirable traits, not race. (Moody Monthly, Equal Before God,. p.19, 1-87).
The Myth of the Kenites
The Jews of John 8:44 are not Kenites. Jesus was simply denouncing these particular Jews for their unbelief-as he and his apostles would denounce anyone as a child of the devil, Jew or Gentile, who refused to believe (Matt. 16:23; Eph. 2:1-3,11; 3:1; 1 John 3:9,10). Christ was calling them children of the devil because of what they believed, not because of who they were. Additionally, Jesus was not making a blanket judgment on all or even most Jews, but only this small group of Jews because they intended to kill him (John 8:40,44,58,59).
Furthermore, it is not Cain who is the murderer in John 8:44, for Jesus says it is literally the devil who is the murderer. The murder mentioned in John 8:44 is not Cain's murder of Abel, but the devil causing death to occur upon all the human race when he instigated Adam and Eve to sin (Gen.2:17; 3:14,19; Rom.6:12). Anyone, whether Jew or Gentile (including Anglo-Saxons), are considered Satan's children if they refuse to believe in Christ (Gen. 3:15; Matt. 13:3643). This Seed of the Serpents is not Cain and his literal offspring, but only a figurative offspring. In other words, only those people (regardless of what race they belong to) who do not believe the gospel are the children of Satan because they follow their own sinful tendencies instead of accepting Christ (Matt. i6:23; John 6:70,71; Acts 5:3; 13:4-10; Rom. 5:12-19; 8:5-6; Eph. 2:1,2; 1 John 3:4-10).
If there were any descendants of Cain (which there isn't), they could receive salvation too, because a number of people from all nationalities, tongues, tribes, and races will serve Christ (Rev. 5:9,10) just like a number of people from all races will serve Satan (Rev. 13:5-8).
Furthermore, the Kenites mentioned in Jeremiah 35 and 1 Chronicles 2:55 are not the children of the Cain of Genesis 4. First of all, Scripture does not say that the Kenites are the children of the same Cain who slew Abel. Second, simply because both terms come from the same Hebrew word does not mean that all, some, or any Kenites are the descendants of the Cain who slew Abel. Apparently, "Cain" was a common name just like "Zechariah". The Bible records at least 33 men by the name of Zechariah, and not all of them were related (e.g., there is no relationship between these men who were all named Zachariah: 1 Chron. 5:7; 24:25; 2 Chron. 21:2; 2 Kings 14:29).
Therefore, individuals can be called the descendants of Cain, but the Cain they are related to was not the same Cain who slew Abel in Genesis 4 (see for instance, the different Kenites mentioned in Gen. 5:12; Num. 24:21,22; Judges 1:16, and 1 Sam. 15:6).
Third, some Kenites do acts of righteousness, and Jonadab the Rechabite could be considered a righteous man of God (1 Sam.15:6; 2 Kings 10:15,16,23,24; Jer. 35:12-16). It would be impossible for them to be commended for their righteousness by both God and the Israelites if they were "children of the devil".
Furthermore, the whole doctrine of the serpent seed is flawed because nowhere in Scripture does it ever say word for word that Eve actually had sex with the Serpent in the Garden of Eden. In 2 Corinthians 11:3 the word for "beguiled" (exanatao), should be rendered "wholly deceived" Just because Eve was fully deceived does not mean that she literally had sex with the Serpent. In other passages where this same Greek word is used, it is never connected with sex. In fact, if it were connected with sex, we would run into ridiculous conclusions like people literally having sex with their own minds (Rom. 16:18; cf., 1 Cor.3:18)1
Also if Eve had to hide her nakedness because of her sex with the Serpent, we would have to conclude that Adam also had sex with the serpent (Gen. 3:6,7). It was out of a sexual relationship with Adam, not the Serpent, that Eve became impregnated with Cain. The New International Version correctly renders Genesis 4:1,2: Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain."
There is also no evidence that Abel was the fraternal twin of Cain. The "again" of Genesis 4:2 does not indicate that Eve gave birth to Abel right after (whether a few minutes, hours, or days) she gave birth to Cain. Several years may have passed before Eve "bore again" by giving birth to
Cain's brother Abel. Not to mention, Josephus writes that Cam was begotten by both Adam and Eve (Antiquities 1.2:1). Finally, even if Cain were the literal offspring of Satan, no descendent of Cain survived the flood of Noah.
The Kenites and the Flood of Noah
In order to support his view that the Kenites survived the flood, Murray misinterprets Genesis 6:7. Instead of adhering to the plain meaning of the text in which God says that he will wipe out all mankind, Murray claims that this phrase is a figure of speech which means that he'll wipe out "more or less" everything. (Tape #146) According to Murray, it cannot mean that God would wipe out absolutely everyone, because Noah and his family survived the flood.
In the same context, however, the Bible states that the only exception to this flood would be Noah and his family because Noah was a righteous man (Gen. 6:8-9). All the rest of humanity would be completely wiped out (cL 7:19-23).
God told Noah the reason why He would destroy all humans was because mankind had become wicked (6:10-13). If the purpose of the flood was to wipe out sin, then why would God allow some of the "wicked Kenites" to survive? The only logical explanation is to believe that God wiped out all mankind, including all the Kenites.
Additionally, in Genesis 9:11 God promises Noah that He would never again destroy all flesh by means of a flood. But if this flood were merely a local community flood which did not even reach the people of the land of Nod, as Murray claims, then God must have lied because we still have had hundreds of local floods over the years. The only way to affirm that God kept His promise is to believe that this flood universally destroyed all human life. Regardless of whether one believes that the flood of Noah covered the entire earth, or only a portion of it, the evidence is clear that this flood destroyed all mankind except for one family. Other cultures testify to this as well.
*In order to escape this evidence, Murray makes the assertion that some Kenites actually managed to get on board of Noah's ark. Since Noah took Two of every flesh,. Murray concludes that he also took two Kenites on board! (Kenites, Tape #436).
The Bible, however, clearly affirms that Noah, his wife, and his three sons and their wives were the only humans who survived the flood (Gen.6:18; 9:18,19; 2 Pet.2:5). In order to be true to Scripture Murray must either conclude that absolutely no Kenites survived the flood, or admit that he is a racist for believing the Kenites cannot really be considered human. He appears to hold the latter by saying the Kenites are not a race, "but a hybrid". (Tape #146)
Nevertheless, even if the Kenites were less than human, they still committed sin according to Murray. And as mentioned earlier, the purpose of the flood was to wipe out sin and wickedness. If any Kenite survived the flood, then God failed to achieve His purpose. Thus, either God made a mistake, or Arnold Murray made a mistake. Since God is perfect, and Murray isn't, we must conclude that Murray is wrong, God is right, and there are no Kenites alive today.
ARNOLD MURRAY'S FAULTY INTERPRETATIONS
Most of Arnold Murray's heretical teaching comes from a subtle misinterpreting of Scripture. He commonly manipulates the original Greek and Hebrew languages, abuses the use of symbols and numerics, interprets Scripture out of context, and makes use of selective citations. BY emphasizing to his audience that he has the correct, almost "secret" meaning of the text that most scholars have ignored or overlooked, Murray can get a passage of Scripture to mean almost anything he desires it to. He claims that the majority of Christians have been wrong from the beginning regarding their understanding of Scripture. (Parable of the Fig Tree, tape #445)
Mr. Murray commonly uses King James English instead of examining the original languages whenever the English translation supports his view-but when it contradicts his view, he will attempt to support his view by means of the original languages. For instance, he uses the Old English word "replenish" to mean "repopulate" in Genesis 1:28 in order to support the widely disreputed "gap theory". (e.g., tape #146) This theory alleges that there was an earth age of millions of years between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Murray states that Adam repopulated the earth. (e.g., tape #146) However, the Hebrew word for "replenish" is "malah" which, in all 306 times it occurs in Scripture, simply means "to fill", not "refill". The Oxford English Dictionary demonstrates that replenish simply meant "fill" from the 13th to the 17th century when the King James Version was translated. This is why Murray does not refer to the Hebrew of this passage. This is just one of many examples of how Murray deliberately deceives his followers by withholding the truth from them.
It should be noted that the original languages are not necessarily the most important aspect of interpreting Scripture, and numerics and symbols are of little value. The simple reading of a text within its proper context, and comparing this in light of all biblical passages that relate to that text remains the most important principle of interpreting Scripture.
Murray does very little of this. His usual method is to let either the root meaning of a particular word, or figurative language and symbols dictate what the text means while ignoring the context and passages that contradict his claims. We encourage the followers of Arnold Murray to do their own study of the Scriptures without Murray's aid. By applying sound principles of interpretation, we are confident they will come up with a completely different view than that of Mr. Murray.
A good book to help the student begin this pursuit is Knowing Scripture by R.C. Sproul (IVP). Some other excellent books on this subject are Scripture Twisting by James Sire (IVP), and Exegetical Fallacies by DN Carson (Baker).
MURRAY'S FAULTY VIEW OF HELL
Mr. Murray also teaches the doctrine of annihilationism. This view teaches that all unbelievers will not be tormented eternally in hell, but will completely disappear. "We know man can kill our earthly bodies, but only our Father in heaven has the power to wipe out the existence of the soul...
God's emotions are so much greater than you can even imagine, and to roast one of his own children day and night would be something only Satan would conceive of". (Newsletter #151)
Christ, on the other hand, asserts that just like the righteous will have never ending life, so shall the unrighteous have never ending punishment (Matt. 25:41,46). Furthermore, this punishment is a conscious punishment according to Revelation 14:9-11 (cL Rev.20:10).
IS THE RAPTURE CULTIC?
Mr. Murray also emphasizes, and takes dogmatic stands on issues over which Christians can legitimately disagree. One such case pertains to the rapture of the church.
According to Murray, Christians who believe in the rapture are cultic, and do not have God's seal upon them. They will be deceived by Satan during the end times. "Most go along with this cult that teaches the rapture that didn't start till 1830, but it's growing into the largest cult in the worlds". (The Shepherd's Chapel Questions and Answers period, aired ~16-91)
"When this false christ stands in the holy place performing in the sight of Christians, the pretribulation rapture Christian shall think it is Christ come to rapture them away". (Our Statement of Faith, p.2)
Murray's statement, however, is fallacious. Christianity has always believed in a literal rapture by which the saints would be transformed and removed from this earth to meet Christ in the air, not on the earth. Since the Antichrist (who will live on the earth, not in the air) will not be able to literally transform their bodies nor cause them to disappear from the earth, there is simply no way Christians will follow such a man, nor believe he is the Christ who has come to rapture them away. It is true that followers of the Antichrist will be strongly deluded, but this delusion is caused by the miracles he and the false prophet perform (2 Thes. 2:9; Rev. 13:1115; 16:13,14; 19:20).
But Christians already know that the Antichrist will attempt to delude people by using spectacular miracles. It is virtually inconceivable, then, to think that any believers would follow a man they know fits the criteria of the Antichrist.
Mr. Murray bases much of his anti-rapture claim on Dave MacPherson's research. He claimed that the pretribulation rapture came from a personal revelation of a young girl named Margaret Macdonald in 1830.
Actually, there is no hard evidence that J.N. Darby, the pretribulatlon advocate of the 19th century, was influenced by Margaret Macdonald. Second, even if Darby was influenced by Macdonald, this does not necessarily mean that his view was false. As long as he can adequately support his position by Scripture, it does not matter who influenced him.
We should avoid committing the "genetic fallacy" of Arnold Murray. Just because some beliefs and teachings are connected with controversial or pagan origins, does not necessarily mean that such teachings should be discarded.
For instance, chemistry came from boiling toads in urine. But it would be absurd to discard all medicine because chemistry had its origin in what seems to be a witch's brew!
Murray also commits this same fallacy by denouncing those who celebrate holidays such as Easter. The Hebrews celebrated their Feast of Tabernacles after the pagan holidays of Palestinian culture at that time. If Murray were consistent, he would have to condemn all musicians, cattlemen, and smiths because these occupations found their roots with the lineage of Cain (Gen. 4:19-22).
Regardless of when the rapture will occur, the fact remains there will be a rapture or "catching away" of the saints to meet the Lord in the air (1 Thee. 4:16,17; 1 Cor.15:52; possibly Rev.11:12; 12:5). If Murray believes there will be no rapture (catching away) of the saints, he is being both unbiblical and setting himself against the historic understanding of the Christian church.
ARNOLD MURRAY:
GOD'S EXCLUSIVE END TIME MESSENGER?
What really sets Arnold Murray apart is his claim to be God's exclusive messenger for this era. Although he says that not all Christians are deceived, he nevertheless ostracizes all orthodox denominations as being deceived by his comments. First, all teachers who do not hold to a literal offspring of God and Satan (i.e., the serpent seed doctrine), are considered by Murray as "nothing but a bunch of self-righteous hypocrites blinded by what sounds good to men's ears". (Tape #436)
Second, Christians who believe in a literal six day creation are deceived and many are going to hell (i.e., all or most fundamentalists). "Only an idiot will stand and argue...such a thing [young earth creationism], for the manuscripts declare that this earth, not this earth age, but this earth is millions of years old ... A lot are going to hell unless they realize 'the destruction that was'(i.e., the gap theory between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2)...Take the blinders...off of your eyes where you jut have tunnel vision, one earth age. You can't understand God's Word if that's all you see"(Ibid).
Third, Christians who believe in the rapture, speak in tongues, or celebrate Easter are deceived (that includes all major branches of Christianity: Protestant, Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox!) "Do we know anyone deceived by any of Satan's lies? Do we believe in rapture, or babbling, or Easter, etc.? .. To flirt with doctrines, beliefs, and traditions that are contrary to what Christ taught endangers the pureness of your soul...Recognize the false from the true so you may come to the wedding, worthy and accountable to be accepted." (The Shepherd's Chapel Newsletter #126, 4-89)
Fourth, he claims that the majority of Christians have been "wrong since the beginning" (i.e., historic orthodox Christianity). (Parable of the Fig Tree, Ta,pe #445)
Ultimately, Mr. Murray subtly pressures his listeners to choose between his "prophetic word", or "the doctrine of the Pharisees" of orthodox Christianity. "But, deep down in your souls when you must make the decision to stand for your Father or the traditions of man, it can separate you from friends and loved ones." (Newsletter #129, 6-89)
In defiance of Acts 1:7, Mr. Murray set an end time date by claiming that the Antichrist would appear by 1981. This prediction, of course turned out to be false. "Lucifer was taken to the pit...Know from the 2nd chapter of 2 Thessalonians that he shall soon return. The Book of Daniel very clearly states that it shall happen before the year 1981, if you have any understanding at all of the wisdom of the elect in the last days" (Seed of the Serpent, version taped in 1979)
Yet, in spite of his prejudices, false doctrine, and false prophecies, he states, "I am a servant of the living God that carries the end time message, and it's either time to wake up now, or go down with your boat, friend". (The Shepherd's Chapel Questions and Answers period, aired 5-16-91)
CONCLUSION
Based on the above evidence, by redefining the nature of God, Arnold Murray denies the Trinity and the eternal sonship of Christ. As this statement has demonstrated, his views imply a subtle racism. He also teaches the distorted gospel of Anglo-Israelism, the serpent seed doctrine, and other heretical doctrines.
He uses the original languages, numerics, symbols, and figures of speech whenever they can be manipulated to support his view, but ignores, or redefines them if they happen to contradict him. His antagonistic attitude towards orthodox Christianity is blatantly evident. Christians should stay far away from his ministry and teachings.
I don't agree that it is in error - it could be but the bible I use, Companion Bible, KJV, E.W. Bullinger, believes it is correct. So....we have dueling scholars. For the sake of argument, disgard "heaven/heavens" and concentrate on the other scripture about the earth ages.
Beyond that your idea that people earned their elect status is anathema to the gospel of Christ. No man has earned the grace of God either in this world or any other. It is a gift and not a reward. If you think you are elect because of something you did in a prior lifetime, then you are your own savior and Christ's sacrifice on the cross was for naught.
You read a great deal into what I said. Please remember when they earned this, the first age, those may have been the rules. Christ died for us in this age and in this age we can't earn salvation. I don't know about the other.
This strange doctrine is a road to damnable heresy. Go down it if you wish, but remember you are going DOWN that road and the road to heaven is UP.
I'm sorry you feel this is a strange doctrine as it is written in His word.
The Mormons believe in a pre-existent life and that being born a Mormon is a reward for being valiant in the prior lifetime and supporting Jesus over his evil twin brother Satan. Those who sat by the wayside are born into other faiths and those who failed in their test were born black. It is a damnable doctrine and yours is likewise.
Good heavens, I didn't know that. I don't believe most of those things P-Marlowe.
Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein. (Hebrews 13:9 KJV)
Thank you for the scripture. I'll take it to heart but at the same time other verses tell us to search the scriptures, to be fed meat, not milk.....I truly don't believe it is a strange doctrine as many scriptures tell us about it but I do realize it isn't taught in main stream churches. Why?
That would make more sense but it doesn't fit with 1:16:
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: He made the stars also.
Wouldn't that, on the fourth day, be the sun and moon, as well as stars?
Because it is damnable heresy.
It is taught only in oddball cults that are replete with other damnable heresies.
What did I say to make you so angry? Please just tell me which of the scriptures I gave to you about the 3 ages of the earth you believe are not true and why.
Give me reasons for those scriptures being there and what they mean and perhaps you can convince me that I am wrong.
Show me the website from whence you derived your theology. Let me know which "non-denominational Christian" church teaches this nonsense and then I will take the time to refute it. I know you didn't come up with this stuff on your own. Somebody had to walk you through it.
So fess up. What church do you go to, and where on the internet can we find the teachings that you are espousing here.
To be fair I will direct you to My Church.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.