‘Born From Above’ – Murray’s False Doctrine of Rebirth

'Born from Above' means being born in the flesh...
According to the Chapel ‘born from above’ in part means being born in the flesh from previous earth age…

The Chapel teaches that we must be “born from above” and insists that usage of the term “born again” is a bastardization of the text, but what do they mean?

“Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.” – John 3:3-7

In this passage Jesus is teaching about the rebirth or regeneration but the Chapel makes this about their own fantasy about being born into this age. This passage in John can be seen from another angle in Titus…

“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;” – Titus 3:5

Salvation is by Grace alone through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone – but for the Chapel the individual must agree to be born into the flesh or be condemned for his part in the first earth age!

Being born in the flesh wipes the slate clean from the first earth age. The non-elect then get to exercise their free will in order to be saved. The 144,000 are justified due to their performance in the first earth age.

You see, to the Chapel we all have a rich pre-history on earth in the world that was. Because of the terrible repercussions of cataclysmic rebellion against God – all souls must be born of woman via the “waters” of the birth canal into this earth age to undergo testing. That was the deal. God is merciful and he will clean their slate if they are born into the flesh in this age.

If a soul refuses this process then they will be condemned immediately for their sins in the world that was – hence, Satan, or the ‘son of perdition’… the only one who refused incarnation into this age.

See how the Chapel uses imaginary events and to guilt people into buying the delusions? I mean who could endure the thought that they betrayed God in the first earth age? Obviously no one who listens to the Chapel. That’s why there are tens of millions of gullible people around the world who believe they are one of the 144,000.

Do you not perceive the wicked hellishness of man-made religion?

Incidentally: Satan is not the son of perdition. There are two “sons of perdition” in scripture, Judas is the one spoken of in John. The little horn is the other.

The Chapel teaches that the little horn is the devil himself de facto, this is false.

The angels of heaven are really just humans waiting to be born on this physical plane. The Chapel teaches that Satan is the son of perdition because he refused to be born in the flesh. Yeah right!

As we can see, The Chapel have invented their own religion and borrowed elements from every manner of diabolical cult — so much of what we see here about pre-existence seems to be lifted directly from Mormon theology.

In this crazed form of religion being born “from above” is some quasi-mystical religious experience that overtakes the minds of those given over to strong delusion, kind of like a gnostic experience. Or to quote the doctor himself…

“When you were begotten from above, you felt that touch. You knew it was true.” – Arnold Murray

What, you knew what was true? When a person is born again there is a conviction of sin, repentance and an acknowledgement of what Jesus Christ has done on our behalf. The Chapel’s doctrine of rebirth focuses on the individuals self-importance.

Advertisements

Author: Timothy Campbell

Independent researcher exposing Joel's Army / Latter-Rain Movement, Christian evangelist and helping to expose the plot of the ages - the church will be here during the great tribulation (or Golden Age of Gaia) and will have resist the beast and his mark...

32 thoughts on “‘Born From Above’ – Murray’s False Doctrine of Rebirth”

    1. All I see at the bottom of this page is be the first to like this and share in Facebook Twitter and so on

      Chapter by chapter verse by verse

      Like

    1. The son of perdition is definitely a man. I believe the son of perdition is the little horn of Daniel 7. I have several ideas that may or may not be true but I’m 100% certain that Murray is not correct. I’m not dogmatic and certain about these things as I once was. Preterists make a good argument that the son of perdition was Titus. Historicists make a good argument for it being the papacy. Futurist make a good argument for it being Putin, and so on. The man of sin is just that, a man.

      Like

    2. If futurism is correct, I could see Putin as being a good fulfillment of the little horn. It’s easy to see how he could lead an antichrist rebellion and destroy the western system and begin to persecute Christians. But it’s speculation at this point.

      Like

      1. How is putin the little horn. Putin is living in a world where America trumps. We slave the world and ourselves to the all mighty dollar. We have fought wars over the dollar for the past century! We ran into Vietnam for what? The dollar. We ran into desert storm not for peace but for the dollar. Operation Iraqis freedom the tyrant sadam was going to sell oil for gold and that would disrupt the dollar. 911 attack. weapons of mass destruction? The dollar. Libia Mumar kadaphie, another one trying to sell oil for gold dinars. Taken out. A federal reserve that is printing our children’s children’s future away to pay for the interest only now. This country will continue to create wars to protect the dollar , we must always be printing more and more debt everyday 7 days a week 365 days a year in order to pay just the intrest on the debt forever and ever. What is the best and fastest way to print money…. WAR ! we need to go to war to protect the people from all the tyrants all over the globe in order to print more money in order to pay the interest on a debt that will keep rising year after year generation after generation can after can until there are no more tin cans left.
        And to think your worried about Putin. You ever see the wizard of oz? The man behind the curtain who seemed to be bigger than life itself…the biggest boogie man… And to think it’s someone you would ever even guess.

        Like

    3. Also, keep in mind that the man of sin comes after the working of Satan – so he cannot be Satan, but operates as his agent. There are a lot of intelligent Christians throughout the course of history who believed this “man of sin” to be referring to the papal dynasty. This is the historicist view.

      Like

  1. One could translate the greek anothen as “above” and not do violence to the text unless they have a heretical reason for it, which Murray does. To translate as “above” simply doesn’t make sense.

    You are right, when Murray says “from above” he is not referring to the teaching of biblical regeneration in any way. I hope you’re beginning to see how he twists scripture and why he is so dangerous.

    Let me explain why the KJV translators got it right…

    From blb for the greek word anothen

    1. from above, from a higher place (the one that Murray and Bullinger select)
    — 1.of things which come from heaven or God

    2. from the first, from the beginning, from the very first

    3. anew, over again (the one the KJV and many other bible translators select)

    The reason for selecting the 3rd usage is simple. Jesus likens the rebirth to being “born again” as opposed to “born from above”…

    “Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?” – John 3:4

    The context is physical birth. To translate as “born from above” sounds nice, and preaches good – but it is absurd in this context. When we are born into this flesh it is not from “above”.

    Nicodemus question let’s us know what sense anothen is used in – I believe the KJV translators got this right.

    Notice how Nicodemus DID NOT respond to Christ:

    “Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born from above when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born from above?”

    He was not born from above the first time.

    To Murray the translation “from above” makes perfect sense to him because he starts from the rock hard delusion that we are all angelic beings in heaven waiting to be incarnated here on earth.

    Satan is the son of perdition because he refused incarnation, to be born from above. That is, according to the Chapel.

    Like

  2. Whether it’s again or above, Jesus is talking about regeneration, the new birth…

    “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;” – Titus 3:5-6

    Bullinger would agree that this passage is about the new life Christians receive when their sins are first remitted. Murray has other ideas.

    The Chapel teaches that in the former age we were all angelic beings. Because of the rebellion all souls must be born into the flesh or “of water” for testing. That is to say, they must incarnate. Murray refers to being born from above as a mystical experience…

    “When you were begotten from above, you felt that touch. You knew it was true.” – Dr. Murray

    Satan for his part, refused incarnation thereby earning himself the role of son of perdition. Angels are souls who are waiting for incarnation or who have already taken the test. I can only reference audio material, you will have to track down a message called, “Plan of God”. It is a standard teaching.

    So, Satan became the son of perdition because he refused to be born of woman. In Murray’s system you could possibly be Michael or Gabriel – he speculates that maybe Steven the martyr was Michael incarnate because his face “shown like an angel”.

    A lot of Murray’s more bizarre teachings cannot be found in the broadcast except by indirect allusion – you will have to get into the study tapes. Look up his message on election and you will never take him serious again. It was his utterly foolish teaching on the doctrine of election that eventually set me on the warpath.

    Are you suggesting that Jesus was born “from above”? I mean, he incarnated, but I take John 3:3 to be about the new creation that we humans experience.

    Jesus never at any time partook of the new birth because he was never spiritually dead in trespasses and sins. We never incarnated, “from above”. Jesus came down from heaven and that nothing to do John 3:3. He is very clear on several different occasions that none us of ever came down from heaven in the sense that he did.

    I don’t see how John 3:12-13 proves your point.

    But it is very immaterial if we both agree that John 3:3 is talking about regeneration.

    Having said that I tend to side with the KJV translators – even over issues like Easter. Recall that Peter was arrested during the feast of unleavened bread which is AFTER the Passover. In the Jewish observance Passover takes place then the feast of unleavened bread which lasts a week.

    Herod intended to keep him until AFTER the Passover. The Jewish Passover had already transpired at the time of Peter’s arrest because it was DURING the feast of unleavened bread.

    The Pagan Passover, or “Easter” would have taken place later in the month of April. I believe the pagan Passover is in view here and not the Jewish one. That would be a consistent interpretation whereas the one you’re suggesting would not.

    Like

  3. “Son of perdition” is a perfect rendering of the Greek huios apoleia. How do you want to interpret it? Son of ruin? Son of destruction? How? Are you going to translate apoleia as Apollyon as Murray does? Okay then, have at it.

    I didn’t say Titus was the man of sin but the argument is there. Luke 21 records that when the pagan armies had surrounded the city its desolation was near, i.e. the abomination of desolation. That did take place in 70 A.D. – I’m not implying that Jesus returned as he will at the resurrection but that he returned in judgment to vindicate the kingdom as Daniel 9 records that he did.

    You’ve read right past my explanation for why the translators used the words that they did. Our discussion is in regards to the KJV translators. You believe they were incompetent and uninspired or that some type of conspiracy to distort the text was at work. Murray of course blames the Kenites. Please give me an example of some of the errors in translation. I believe the KJV to be an inspired translation.

    Like

  4. I have updated the article on why Easter should be included – Easter doesn’t derive from the pagan Astarte, but from the German “Ostern”. It is where we get our word east, where the sun rises.

    https://shepherdschapel.wordpress.com/2015/02/05/the-word-easter-should-be-in-the-bible/

    In regards to your question, soul used first in Matthew 10:28 and last in Revelation 18:14. Both are 5590 in the Strong’s. Psyche.

    I will go with the second entry usage three for Matthew 10:28…

    3. the soul as an essence which differs from the body and is not dissolved by death (distinguished from other parts of the body)

    For Revelation 18:14 I will go with second entry usage one…

    1. the seat of the feelings, desires, affections, aversions (our heart, soul etc.)

    Did that answer you question?

    Like

  5. I misunderstood you, I thought you wanted new testament. I am baffled at what you’re suggesting as I read through but I’m beginning to understand the problem better…

    First, what do you suggest the words in the Hebrew that were translated as “living soul” means?

    Second, you said that Bullinger teaches the two adams, that’s not true. He taught the gap theory and that there was a prior race upon the earth but it’s nothing like Murray’s teaching.

    Something I never heard Murray suggest is that the 6th day creation is not a “living soul” but I guess it’s implied if you believe in two adams. What would that mean, a race of humans who are not a living soul? Are they zombies or something? I guess we all are before we come to Christ but come on.

    And people have issues with incest if Adam and Eve were the first humans – pray tell who did the original members of the 6th day creation marry into if you are right? I guess its okay for them since they are devoid of a living soul. I digress.

    See, this is the main issue I have and why I consider the chapel bigoted – you are wondering why I am so agitated with Murray… the presuppositions of his teaching are hateful and engender racism – such as the two adams.

    They suggest two classes of human being, one a “living soul” and the others not so much. This is just one of many proud, elitist teachings from the Chapel.

    But how did Paul the apostle understand this issue?

    And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;” – Acts 17:26

    Eve is the mother of ALL living meaning all humanity. I’m going with Paul on this one, I believe he had more insight.

    I know you have issues with the translation and that is fine – I have questions too. But when you interpret the text in such a way that contradicts other scripture and is not internally consistent then that is a bigger problem.

    It seems to me like you bend and contort the meaning of the Hebrew text to fit your own pet doctrines.

    Like

  6. I would think that “living soul” means a living human being. It seems pretty self-evident given the context – are you suggesting it means something else? And I have already answered what the last usage of soul in the bible means.

    Like

  7. Regarding Easter, pascha is Passover but this is when the early Christians celebrated the resurrection or “Easter” and it fell on different days of the week. Later the Catholic church changed it so the day would fall on Sunday near the time of passover, and not to coincide with the pagan celebration of spring.. The reason they changed it is because the apostles met once a week on the Lord’s day. They wanted the Easter celebration to coincide with the Lord’s Day. How is that a problem?

    Does Easter ever fall on March 21st the date of the pagan observance? NO.

    No paganism is implied in the word Easter at all – if the KJV translators were pagan or influenced by someone to insert a pagan mistranslation then I can understand why you don’t trust the bible. The reality is that Easter is a Christian word through and through, one that denoted the crucifixion and resurrection. The KJV translators knew 100% what Easter was and it’s origins. Has nothing to do with Babylonian religion and Ishtar. Has to do with the rising of the sun – see Malachi.

    They took liberty to use the word “Easter” and there was absolutely no sin involved in it as it was to glorify the risen Christ.

    Like

  8. The KJV translators translated “chey nephesh” in one place as living creature and “chey nephesh” as living soul in the other… I believe this is an appropriate translation – how is it in error?

    You think that individual Greek and Hebrew words only have one exact meaning and cannot used in any other sense… I DON’T ACCEPT YOUR RIGID RULE FOR HEBREW and Greek TRANSLATION. Yes they are more exact than English but that’s why when you read the strong’s and lexicon’s you will see a variety of different usages for any particular word.

    I have stated that more than once – if you want to ignore it, fine. All our conversations pretty much revolve around semantics, in the petty sense. Is this how you engage everyone in biblical discussion? It may be an effective way to convince others but it will get you nowhere with me because from the minute go you have been arguing in favor of a cult that God led me to reject years ago…

    The translation of “chey nephesh” as living creature is context dependent. Do animals have souls? No, not in the sense that man has an eternal soul. God breathed spirit into man and it uses the phrase “living soul”.

    THE OUTLINE OF BIBLICAL USAGE for Nephesh makes it perfectly clear why the KJV translators rendered the Hebrew as they did. Our discussion will never go anywhere because you have a belief that Hebrew words have only one exact mathematical meaning.

    Maybe we should be discussing that.

    Like

  9. You have answered very few of the things I have brought up and half the time I don’t know what information you’re trying to get from me.

    Here’s how I will answer you – 1.) No, it’s not okay to change the original meaning of the manuscripts to fit ones interpretation. 2.) You are accusing the KJV translators of doing that when they did not. They were simply charged with rendering into English to the best of their ability the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. They did an excellent job. Even by denoting paschal as “Easter” they did an excellent job because the early Christians actually celebrated Easter at Passover and “Easter” is a Christian word from the German “Ostern”. It has a long history in the Christian church.

    I can easily see how you’ve invented your own rules for Hebrew interpretation. Even though Hebrew is more exact, words and phrases in that language can have a wide variety of usages given the context. You don’t seem to want to acknowledge that fact.

    Like

  10. How do you know that “nephesh” cannot be rendered as “creature”? I see that “nephesh” is translated 6 times in the OT as creature and every one fits the context. If you said, “living being” or that which breathes it would all carry roughly the same meaning. From the Strong’s:

    1. soul, self, life, creature, person, appetite, mind, living being, desire, emotion, passion
    — 3. living being (with life in the blood)

    And who are these people who think that Hebrew and Greek words only have one specific meaning? See, you are picking a spoil over non-legitimate issues regarding the text while ignoring the weightier heretical issues I have brought up with Bullinger and Murray. I know more about languages than you realize.

    You say you are adept at Hebrew but your failure to acknowledge that an individual word can have a wide variety of applications in any given context causes me to reject your claim of authority on Hebrew matters.

    Also, you say I need a Hebrew teacher – you are very wrong. I need the Holy Spirit to illuminate the true meaning of the text, that is all.

    Like

    1. Okay – you don’t like the word, “Easter”. I happen to uncategorically accept it. To you that is a sin, from what I’m understanding it is a legitimate rendering of the word because Christ became our Passover and the early church celebrated the resurrection on Passover until the Catholic church changed it – which they did so as to have Easter fall on the Lords Day every year and not during the week.

      Easter denotes that day in which the church commemorated the crucifixion and resurrection. The word itself has a long history in the church which is not pagan. During the time of the KJV translation “Easter” had a strongly Christian connotation and it was the word that Christians at that time used for that day.

      We are simply not in agreement. You claim the KJV translators were altering the original intent of the Hebrew and Greek — I believe that they were inspired by the Holy Spirit in their work… I don’t usually do this, but I want you to watch this documentary and you will see that it is true – the KJV translation is the work of God…

      My beliefs about the KJV translation are voiced in the documentary.

      But you believe there was a conspiracy involved – or maybe they were just simpletons? Perhaps the pope paid off King James? Did the Kenites work their devilish plans in the making of the KJV? Surely you have a theory.

      Like

  11. I believe passover is correct and change, error or just plain deceit whatever it is called by the caller who has called it what he wishes.

    It is wrong – it’s in the spirit of babble that creates confusion and disruption to the point of wars and death. Even in its simplest from it is derived from the father of lies, the dragon of old. Of whom without it could not exist because it goes against the very nature of god. That being to shed light on darkness and shine truth one single truth the spoken written and living word of God the Father.

    Like

    1. Bryan, I didn’t translate the KJV. I believe the translators were inspired in their work by the Holy Spirit. I used to be of your opinion but after careful consideration of the details I have began to realize that their translation was an acceptable one. Fact is, the history of bible translations is the history of people struggling to render the original thought in its proper form. If you don’t agree with the translation, fine – chose another bible to read from. The KJV is the best translation we have.

      Like

  12. The bottom line really at any angle is if the words had been left untouched this conversation over the confusion it’s caused wouldn’t be possible. Pastor Murray’s main objective after listening to him for many years was for people to study what they claim to believe. I’ve heard him say many times, “don’t take my word for it look it up”.

    Atheist, he wasn’t some “revolving rev” or a “Johnny come lately” type that are so far away from truth that they might as well be illiterate. I think the atheists gave you the foundation to start your journey in Gods word. I got a feeling that so often leaves hapless people so confused. Maybe he wasted his pearls before swine or perhaps you sir have a spirit of stupor.

    Like

    1. Well, I made it very clear that I am no longer an atheist – the Lord Jesus Christ saved me from my unbelief. Then he saved me from the lies of the Shepherd’s Chapel… and guess what? I did check him out, like he suggested.


      I found out that he was teaching one flaming religious deception on top of another.

      Like

  13. In all my years as a student of the chapel I have never once heard him call anyone who he was in disagreement with by name or denomination. May the Father have mercy on you for messing with one of his elect.

    Like

    1. Are you referring to yourself as elect or Murray? I was under the impression that all the redeemed of Jesus Christ are elect – are you suggesting something else? You didn’t read your bible very well – it commands us to call false teachers out by name.

      Like

edify

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s