Sunday, March 11, 2007


Have any of you read Salvation.....When? by Conrad Murrell [G.A.T.E. Publications, Bentley, LA, 1993] Murrell is a preacher, writer, and conference speaker. He pastors Grace Church of Bentley, is about 77 years old, and has been preaching for over 50 years.

According to Grace and Truth Enterpises, Salvation....When is a "mind-jarring, searching recovery of the biblical doctrine of Salvation" that " Shockingly reveals the problems spawned by defining and limiting salvation in an experience."

He has a Calvinistic belief system. Just wondering what you all think, if you've read Murrell? Here's a few quotes:

"The basic error is in viewing salvation as an experience - that is, an in-time experience to which past, future, and eternity are all subjective...Soon, one who had been delighted in his experience is convinced he was deceived and needs another experience...Salvation includes the complete deliverance of the saint...There would be no difference of brethren over the doctrine of eternal security if Bible salvation were understood. The division exists solely because of the idea of salvation being in an experience...Salvation is not an experience: it is an act of God that has its origin and consummation in eternity, and includes all the experience in grace of the object of salvation in his entire lifetime." - from pages 17-22

I found his explanation of the harmonization of certain verses on perseverance and some that seem to teach apostasy unique and interesting.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

This is only tangential, but in my limited experience with Calvinistic theology...OK theology period, one of the major blocks to my understanding/acceptance was the phrase "in time" or "timely". I had a real hard time with this until I read an older treatise (1800s most likely) where the word temporal was played against the word eternal. Well, right there was the Aha experience I had been looking for. In retrospect I cannot understand why the link avoided me because I should have been at least that smart, but even more inportantly I don't understand why current thinkers ('splainers) have abandoned the perfectly good word temporal and the natural homonymic link with the eternal.

Thanks for continuing to throw things in my path.