The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum The Mediator of Men not devils

Well, before I collect:

1. Which Murray? John, Andrew, Bill, ??

2. And this Murray agrees with what? the following?

Inquiring minds wanna know.

This one; Arny,

http://www.shepherdschapel.com/index.cfm

Two additional distinguishing and erroneous doctrines of the Shepherd's Chapel are known as the Serpent Seed doctrine and the Kenite doctrine. These are intimately related. The Serpent Seed doctrine is the teaching that in the Garden of Eden, the serpent (the devil) had sexual relations with Eve. The result was that she bore Cain. The descendents of Cain are called Kenites. Abel, however, is the result of Adam and Eve having relations.

Arnold Murray, the pastor of the Shepherd's Chapel, is the primary advocate of these doctrines which he adamantly teaches and which his followers have adopted as biblical truth. Mr. Murray states,
In an attempt at biblical support, on his website at Answers to Critics, Mr. Murray states:

In Gen. 3:15 God is speaking to the serpent, "and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shall bruise his heel."

Mr. Murray infers that when God says "thy seed" to Satan, He is referring to the Kenites, the descendents of Cain which were literally produced through the literal "seed" of Satan.



Link to entire article;

http://www.carm.org/religious-movements/shepherds-chapel/serpent-seed-and-kenites

Thanks for the useful post.

Oy vey! Yes, Arnold Murray of the "Shepherd's Chapel". I've watched his/their program on several occasions, albeit quite some time ago and was flabbergasted at what was being taught on that program. Their outlandish doctrines were even more revealed at the end of the program when they answered alleged questions sent in by viewers.

Hitch,

Thanks for doing the dirty work for some of us here!

I have no stomach, or time, for poking around Murray's site, but I am popping with questions I'd like to hear him answer consistently with all of Scripture. Like:

1) if the Kenites "permeated" Judah through natural propagation, who knew Rebekah in such a way that she carried both elect and reprobate in her womb simultaneously?

2) for that matter, how do the elect appear in any families with reprobate fathers, or vice-versa; Abraham comes to mind? If the father is elect, the "seed" must be; if the father is a devil, the "seed" must be. And how does this reconcile with, let's say, John 1:13?

3) if it were "reprobate Kenite devils" alone who called out for Jesus to be crucified, why does Peter, seven weeks later, preach the gospel to many of those same people--"whom you crucified"--and many of them believe on the Lord Christ?

Maybe Anthony could take a stab at this.

Thats a stretch..it doesnt say that, James is making a statement about the man being in the image of God, its not specfic on the time, thats your interjection..fallen man isnt in the image of God, in fact Jesus told some that they were of their father the devil..

44Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

How can one that has satan as their father be in the image of God ?

The bible clearly teaches that the image of God is restored in the new creation..eph 4:

24And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

col 3:

10And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:

you obviously dont understand that being in the image of God denotes covenantal fellowship, relationship..This is now only through Jesus christ..

I believe you made a typo! It's not "interjection" but rather "context" that I am following. James is referring to ALL men in general; both elect and non-elect. A text out of context is nothing more than pretext!

I can say without reservation that you are 100% correct... re: "I don't understand that being in the image of God denotes covenantal fellowship, relationship.." That's because the statement is not biblical. You have already been shown from Scripture what the "image of God" means but you have ignored all those biblical passages and also failed to deal with them. Only part of the "imago dei" was lost at the Fall and the remainder of it was marred horribly, yet it was not totally eradicated. For without the "image of God", a human being could not be what it is, for the whole person is made in the image of God not just the attributes of "knowledge and righteousness and true holiness".

BTW, Ephesians 4:24 does NOT teach that the "image of God is restored in the new creation". That passage is referring to SANCTIFICATION which is not only a fruit of justification but made possible by regeneration which is where the image of God is "re-created". And, just for arguments sake, if we were to take that passage as teaching that the "image of God is restored in the new creation", then it is also teaching that fallen man is capable of bringing forth the new creation on his own. For Paul is issuing telling the Ephesians to "put on the new man"! But fortunately, this isn't the case at all. Paul is again speaking of sanctification whereby a true believer is to put into practice that which was re-created in regeneration; aka: the new man.

2 Timothy 2:15, 16 (KJV) Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

In His grace,

Its not to you..but i am not you..


I am sorry, a little leven spoils the whole lump, man needs to be a new creation.man in adam are useless, worthless, evil, not of God..

You dont really understand the full implication of Jesus saying a man must be born again..oher than that we are merely flesh, thats not the Image of God, sorry..

Where does it say its not talking about the image of God being renewed, why, you are flatout rejecting what the scripture says..BTW, The image of God would be sanctification, do you understand what sanctification implies ? Its christlikeness, the image of God is restored when in regeneration the elect partake of the being conformed into the image of christ, this begins at regeneration or newbirht..we become a new man..

eph 4:

And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

col 3:

And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:


A major portion of the Image of God is the Knowledge we have of the True God, constituted in fellowship..This no doubt adam had prefall, but lost at the Fall..

You place too high of a opinion on fallen man, and dont quite grasp the detriments of the Fall and its utter ruin of the image of God..thats a pity, in doing so, you minimize the work of the cross in restoring Gods image to man..

Where you have gotten this erroneous idea that the image of God is to be restricted ONLY to man's moral attributes only you know. But I can tell you that it is not biblical nor is a doctrine embraced by Christendom. I tried to explain to you that the "imago dei" is multi-faceted and that if you totally remove the "image of God" from man, he ceases to be man. Part of the "image" was that man was a rational being which distinguished him from all the other creatures that God created. So, again, remove the whole image and you are left with man being nothing more than a brute beast, e.g., a cow. Think about it. Have you really done ANY reading on this subject other than your spurious source which you have avoided revealing?

Re: me not understanding the full implications of ... being born again. Now you are being really silly. Your arrogance is only exceeded by your ignorance. I can assure you that I am more than knowledgeable about regeneration, aka: born anew, born again, born from above, spiritual resurrection, made alive, etc. Perhaps you need to do some more reading on this subject? Start here: Regeneration or the New Birth, by A.W. Pink.

It's back to hermeneutics 101 I guess. The letter to the Ephesians is written to BELIEVERS, chapter 1 reveals how their salvation was eternally foreordained by God in Christ, brought to pass in time by God's sovereign providence, etc., chapter 2 reveals the spiritual condition of all believers, i.e., they are all under judgment and dead in sin necessitating God's sovereign work of regeneration in them which brought them to Christ through faith, chapter 3 reveals the incredible blessings bestowed upon believers having been united to the Lord Christ, etc., and then in chapter 4 HAVING ESTABLISHED all these things, Paul deals with SANCTIFICATION... NOT regeneration when He counsels them to "put on the new man". This counsel is instructional on how they are to live as those who have been regenerated and justified in Christ, not how to be made alive and have the image of God created in them. Get it?

In His grace,

I see you are evading the scriptures i showed you and bringing in a rabbit trail.

So you believe men who are spiritually dead, are in the Image and Likeness of God ? Thats a Insult to God..

Yes, that is what I believe the Scriptures teach and all of Christendom has believed with very few exceptions. Your error comes from unwarrantably restricting the "image of God" in a very narrow way ignoring all the passages which show otherwise or taking them out of context with some silly hermeneutical gymnastics. For example:

Genesis 9:1, 6 (ASV) "And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth... Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: For in the image of God made he man."

1. This passage directs God's commandment concerning murder to Noah & family AFTER the flood.
2. Not all of Noah's family were elect; some were reprobate and were not destroyed in the flood.
3. Verse 6 clearly states that man (all men) were made in God's image.
4. The punishment for murder is death because all men were and thus ARE bearers of God's image, else the passage is inapplicable and even makes no sense as to why it was given to Noah.

Or, are you going to suggest that this command applies only to the murder of the elect who have been converted since you claim they only have the image of God? Otherwise, there was open season on all reprobate and unconverted elect persons, right? And pray tell, how could one determine who was reprobate and who was an elect; converted or unconverted?

In His grace,

Where did i say this sir ? point this post out to us where i said that the image of God is to be restricted only to the ideal of mans moral attributes..

This is merely your interpretation of things..

Man has no image of God while he is unregenerated..The image of God man had in the beginning was patterend after Jesus christ, The GodMan Mediator..heb 1:

3Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

Now, being born again from above, restores that image of God to man..

eph 4:

24And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

col 3:

And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:

you are sadly mistaken to believe that the image of God is merely a physical appearance as the reprobate have or the unregenerated..do you really believe that, physical appearance alone is what consitiuted man being made in the image and likeness of God ? Thats it ?