Christian Forums

1. Extrabiblical Authority: All cults deny what God says in His Word as true. Cults have shifted their theological point of authority away from God's full and final written Word, the Bible, to their own unique, self-promoting opinions about the Bible; they generally will use parts of the Bible but will have their own unique scripture which is considered to be superior to the Bible. While some cult groups give token respect for the Bible and go through the motions of accepting the authority of Scripture, in reality, they honor the group's or leader's novel interpretation of Scripture as normative.

2. Works Salvation/Legalism: Cults teach that eternal life depends upon something other than the Atonement; i.e., faith in the atoning, finished work of Christ on the cross is deemed not to be sufficient (usually replaced with human works and human responsibility). Rather than relying on the grace of God alone for salvation, the salvation message of the cults always boils down to required obedience to, or abstention from, certain obligations and practices (some even including obedience to the Old Testament law).

3. No Assurance of Salvation: The issue of a cult member's salvation is never settled, but is constantly affected by the changing circumstances of life; in this way, cult leaders are able to produce continued obligation and spiritual bondage, rather than spiritual freedom.

4. Guru-Type Leader/Modern Prophet: The cult leader is looked to as the infallible interpreter of Scripture, specially appointed by God to be a special saint, guru, or contemporary messiah, and thereby, has divine authority that must not be violated. Cultists almost always quote their leader rather than the Bible. The cult's adherents often expound the virtues of the founders and seek to cover the founder's sins and wickedness.

5. Vacillating, Ambiguous Doctrines/Spiritual Deception: In order to gain favor with the public, and thereby aid in the recruitment of new members, cult "doctrine" tends to be characterized by many false or deceptive claims concerning the cult's true spiritual beliefs (e.g., Mormons are not quick to reveal their belief that God was a man, who has now become the God of planet Earth).

6. Exclusivity from/Denunciation of Other Groups: Each cult group, regardless of what other doctrines are taught, will all have this one common idea -- "The Only True Church Syndrome." The members of each specific organization have been taught that their church, organization, or community, is the only true group and that all other groups are false. The group's leaders will explain that it is impossible to serve God without being a member of the specific group. Moreover, when the cult leader announces himself as the true "Messiah," all others are declared to be dishonest, deceitful, and deluded, and must be put down; alternative views are denounced as being satanic and corrupt. Persecution is welcomed, and even glorified in, as "evidence" that they are being persecuted for righteousness sake. Thus, if a member decides to leave the group, they have been told that they are not simply leaving an organization, but rather they are leaving God and His only true organization. Hence, for a member of a cult who has been in a group for any length of time, the action of leaving the group is much more difficult than what most Christians understand. To leave the group is, in the minds of the cult member, tantamount to leaving God.

7. Claims of Special Discoveries/Additional Revelation: Acceptance of new, contemporary, continual revelations that either deny the Bible or are allowed to explain it. The fundamental characteristic of Christianity is that it is historical, not dependent upon private knowledge and secret, unconfirmable relationships, while the almost universal basis of cult religion is the claimed exclusive revelation that one person has supposedly received. Rather than conforming to Biblical rules of evidence (2 Cor. 13:1), cult leader revelations almost always emanate from hallucinations, visions, dreams, private discoveries, etc. These new revelations often become codified as official written "scripture" of the cults (e.g., The Book of Mormon), and are considered as valid as that of the apostles (and even more relevant because they are given in these end times).

8. Defective Christology: Cults always have a false view of the nature of the Person of Jesus Christ; a cult will usually deny the true deity of Christ, His true humanity, His true origin, or the true union of the two natures in one Person.

9. Defective "Nature of Man": Most cults do not see man as an immortal being; instead they see him either as an animal without a soul or as a being which is being perfected to the point of becoming a god. They usually do not see man as a spirit clothed in a body of flesh awaiting the redemption of body and soul.

10. Out-Of-Context Scripture Use as Proof-Texts/Segmented Biblical Attention: Cults tend to focus on one verse or passage of the Bible to the exclusion of others, and without regard for the context in which Scripture is given (e.g., 1 Cor. 15:29 used by Mormons to justify baptism for the dead). In addition, cults have made an art form out of using Christian terminology, all the while pouring out their own meanings into the words.

11. Erroneous Doctrines Concerning Life After Death and Retribution: Covering the gamut from soul sleep to annihilationism to purgatory to universalism to the progression to godhood, cults invariably deny the existence of a final judgment of, and a final "resting" place for, the unrighteous.

12. Entangling Organization Structure: The less truth a movement represents, the more highly it seems to have to organize itself; the absence of truth seems to make necessary the application of the bonds of fear. Cults often demand total commitment by their converts to an organizational involvement that entangles them in a complicated set of human restrictions, giving the impression of passionate and often irrational devotion to a cause. 

13. Financial Exploitation: The cultic practitioner strongly implies that money contributed to the cause will earn the contributor numerous gifts, powers, and abilities, and in many cases, outright salvation.

14. Pseudomystical/Spiritistic/Occultic Influence: Occult influence is many times found in either the origin of the group and/or in its current practices.

So how many of the categories have to apply before you can determine if a church is really a cult or not?

It seems to me that someone created a list of all the qualities that do not describe Protestant churches and called it "qualities of all cults".

Are you sure you aren't simply describing nonProtestant Churches, rather than cults?

blessings

: ravenlorre  Wed Aug 29, 2007 - 18:39:59
So how many of the categories have to apply before you can determine of a church is really a cult or not?

It seems to me that someone created a list of all the qualities that do not describe Protestant churches and called it "qualities of a cult".

Are you sure you aren't simply describing nonProtestant Churches, rather than cults?

blessings

Some may fit in that category, but surely not something like #8.

In my opinion, it is much easier to determine whether or not a religion is heretical - simply study their view of the nature of God.  All false religions and Protestant cults have warped views of the Trinity; it was true with the heresies in the early church and is still true today.

blessings

: ravenlorre  Wed Aug 29, 2007 - 18:54:48
In my opinion, it is much easier to determine whether or not a religion is heretical - simply study their view of the nature of God.  All false religions and Protestant cults have warped views of the Trinity; it was true with the heresies in the early church and is still true today.

blessings

What about Catholic cults?  Aren't there any of those?

: Gary  Wed Aug 29, 2007 - 19:03:00

: ravenlorre  Wed Aug 29, 2007 - 18:54:48
In my opinion, it is much easier to determine whether or not a religion is heretical - simply study their view of the nature of God.  All false religions and Protestant cults have warped views of the Trinity; it was true with the heresies in the early church and is still true today.

blessings

What about Catholic cults?  Aren't there any of those?

Yes.  I like to call them pseudo-Catholic groups; in any case - Pius X is a perfect example of a pseudo-Catholic group.

blessings

: CSloan  Wed Aug 29, 2007 - 18:11:06

The Marks of a Cult* 

1. Extrabiblical Authority: All cults deny what God says in His Word as true. Cults have shifted their theological point of authority away from God's full and final written Word, the Bible, to their own unique, self-promoting opinions about the Bible; they generally will use parts of the Bible but will have their own unique scripture which is considered to be superior to the Bible. While some cult groups give token respect for the Bible and go through the motions of accepting the authority of Scripture, in reality, they honor the group's or leader's novel interpretation of Scripture as normative.

2. Works Salvation/Legalism: Cults teach that eternal life depends upon something other than the Atonement; i.e., faith in the atoning, finished work of Christ on the cross is deemed not to be sufficient (usually replaced with human works and human responsibility). Rather than relying on the grace of God alone for salvation, the salvation message of the cults always boils down to required obedience to, or abstention from, certain obligations and practices (some even including obedience to the Old Testament law).

3. No Assurance of Salvation: The issue of a cult member's salvation is never settled, but is constantly affected by the changing circumstances of life; in this way, cult leaders are able to produce continued obligation and spiritual bondage, rather than spiritual freedom.

4. Guru-Type Leader/Modern Prophet: The cult leader is looked to as the infallible interpreter of Scripture, specially appointed by God to be a special saint, guru, or contemporary messiah, and thereby, has divine authority that must not be violated. Cultists almost always quote their leader rather than the Bible. The cult's adherents often expound the virtues of the founders and seek to cover the founder's sins and wickedness.

5. Vacillating, Ambiguous Doctrines/Spiritual Deception: In order to gain favor with the public, and thereby aid in the recruitment of new members, cult "doctrine" tends to be characterized by many false or deceptive claims concerning the cult's true spiritual beliefs (e.g., Mormons are not quick to reveal their belief that God was a man, who has now become the God of planet Earth).

6. Exclusivity from/Denunciation of Other Groups: Each cult group, regardless of what other doctrines are taught, will all have this one common idea -- "The Only True Church Syndrome." The members of each specific organization have been taught that their church, organization, or community, is the only true group and that all other groups are false. The group's leaders will explain that it is impossible to serve God without being a member of the specific group. Moreover, when the cult leader announces himself as the true "Messiah," all others are declared to be dishonest, deceitful, and deluded, and must be put down; alternative views are denounced as being satanic and corrupt. Persecution is welcomed, and even glorified in, as "evidence" that they are being persecuted for righteousness sake. Thus, if a member decides to leave the group, they have been told that they are not simply leaving an organization, but rather they are leaving God and His only true organization. Hence, for a member of a cult who has been in a group for any length of time, the action of leaving the group is much more difficult than what most Christians understand. To leave the group is, in the minds of the cult member, tantamount to leaving God.

7. Claims of Special Discoveries/Additional Revelation: Acceptance of new, contemporary, continual revelations that either deny the Bible or are allowed to explain it. The fundamental characteristic of Christianity is that it is historical, not dependent upon private knowledge and secret, unconfirmable relationships, while the almost universal basis of cult religion is the claimed exclusive revelation that one person has supposedly received. Rather than conforming to Biblical rules of evidence (2 Cor. 13:1), cult leader revelations almost always emanate from hallucinations, visions, dreams, private discoveries, etc. These new revelations often become codified as official written "scripture" of the cults (e.g., The Book of Mormon), and are considered as valid as that of the apostles (and even more relevant because they are given in these end times).

8. Defective Christology: Cults always have a false view of the nature of the Person of Jesus Christ; a cult will usually deny the true deity of Christ, His true humanity, His true origin, or the true union of the two natures in one Person.

9. Defective "Nature of Man": Most cults do not see man as an immortal being; instead they see him either as an animal without a soul or as a being which is being perfected to the point of becoming a god. They usually do not see man as a spirit clothed in a body of flesh awaiting the redemption of body and soul.

10. Out-Of-Context Scripture Use as Proof-Texts/Segmented Biblical Attention: Cults tend to focus on one verse or passage of the Bible to the exclusion of others, and without regard for the context in which Scripture is given (e.g., 1 Cor. 15:29 used by Mormons to justify baptism for the dead). In addition, cults have made an art form out of using Christian terminology, all the while pouring out their own meanings into the words.

11. Erroneous Doctrines Concerning Life After Death and Retribution: Covering the gamut from soul sleep to annihilationism to purgatory to universalism to the progression to godhood, cults invariably deny the existence of a final judgment of, and a final "resting" place for, the unrighteous.

12. Entangling Organization Structure: The less truth a movement represents, the more highly it seems to have to organize itself; the absence of truth seems to make necessary the application of the bonds of fear. Cults often demand total commitment by their converts to an organizational involvement that entangles them in a complicated set of human restrictions, giving the impression of passionate and often irrational devotion to a cause. 

13. Financial Exploitation: The cultic practitioner strongly implies that money contributed to the cause will earn the contributor numerous gifts, powers, and abilities, and in many cases, outright salvation.

14. Pseudomystical/Spiritistic/Occultic Influence: Occult influence is many times found in either the origin of the group and/or in its current practices.

From: http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Cults/marksof.htm

Amen!  ::smile::

CSloan

Excellent post.  Are you old enough to remember Jim Jones?

Some of the things you listed can be found in your neighborhood church.

The gospel is the guiding light, everything should be tried in the light of the gospel. All of the cults have one thing in common, they are all man centered.  Beware of men.

'christian' cults often dabble in removing the importance of an aspect of the trinity, or redefining one of it's persons into something non-biblical.

Jesus = only a man, the Spirit is only a force, God was/is a man.

dj

In our time, most 'cults' have risen out of Protestantism. 

I won't name churches that strike me as cults because I'm sure that would get me permanently banned from this site.

I don't like this list. It's biased, and seems to make cults out to be some kind of bad thing.

: Robert Pate  Wed Aug 29, 2007 - 20:34:55
CSloan

Excellent post.  Are you old enough to remember Jim Jones?

Some of the things you listed can be found in your neighborhood church.

The gospel is the guiding light, everything should be tried in the light of the gospel. All of the cults have one thing in common, they are all man centered.  Beware of men.

Yes I know about Jim Jones, but I was only 3 when the horror of Jonestown occured. I do have a number of cults in my area, including a LDS right down the street from me.

: Just As I Am  Thu Aug 30, 2007 - 12:02:35Do you think perhaps Charlie has a point?

Nope.

Consider the 276 dead children from the afore mentioned Jonestown.

: CSloan  Thu Aug 30, 2007 - 12:03:50

: Just As I Am  Thu Aug 30, 2007 - 12:02:35Do you think perhaps Charlie has a point?

Nope.

Consider the 276 dead children from the afore mentioned Jonestown.

That sounds like an answer, but it's not, it's an emotional appeal to look beyond the question.

: charlie  Thu Aug 30, 2007 - 11:35:12
I don't like this list. It's biased, and seems to make cults out to be some kind of bad thing.

And I'm not supposed to choke and snort tea out my nose all over the keyboard when I read this?

CSloan

Jim Jones was the devil incarnate.  I think that the total death toll was over 900.  Some of the cult leaders lead their congregation into a death pact.
"Beware of men"  Matthew 10:17.  

: jmg3rd  Thu Aug 30, 2007 - 12:10:24

: CSloan  Thu Aug 30, 2007 - 12:03:50

: Just As I Am  Thu Aug 30, 2007 - 12:02:35Do you think perhaps Charlie has a point?

Nope.

Consider the 276 dead children from the afore mentioned Jonestown.

That sounds like an answer, but it's not, it's an emotional appeal to look beyond the question.

To the stark reality of what cultism has done.

charlie

Please list what you don't like about the orignal post so that we can better understand your objections.

The list is totally subjective.  Depending upon one's own worldview, another person could come up with a completely different list. 

I found some cult characteristics on another site that some of you might find interesting --

The cult claims that they have the only way -- the only way to Heaven, or to salvation, or spirituality, or eternal bliss, or higher knowledge, or sanity, or mental powers, or recovery...

The cult members are special -- they are morally and spiritually superior to the common rabble who haven't been "saved" and who don't have The Big Answer...

The deceit that "we have no structure or system", when in fact they have a very despotic system of control.

Denigration of competing sects, cults, or religions.  A corollary to cults' claims of having The Only Way is the assertion that "the other people" do not have The Way. "They" are all misguided and missing the boat, and "they" won't be going to Heaven.


I can definitely think of some groups that meet each of these very subjective criteria.  I wonder why we're so anxious to label those who disagree with us as cultists, heretics, apostates, etc.  Projection, perhaps?

: janine  Thu Aug 30, 2007 - 12:17:10

: charlie  Thu Aug 30, 2007 - 11:35:12
I don't like this list. It's biased, and seems to make cults out to be some kind of bad thing.

And I'm not supposed to choke and snort tea out my nose all over the keyboard when I read this?

rofl ok not just me!  but coffee not tea!!!

a cult is very simply any religious movement that is man centered rather than Jesus centered, and that takes control over people thru ignorance and fear. They also whether knowing it or not are anti-chirst, although it may be very subtle. the difference between a cult and church is this: the church will still be Christ centered and not try to control its members, now it may be a bad church that misinturprets bible theology and practices, but not at the core base, that God is supreme, Jesus is our only salvation.

: CSloan  Thu Aug 30, 2007 - 12:22:42

: jmg3rd  Thu Aug 30, 2007 - 12:10:24

: CSloan  Thu Aug 30, 2007 - 12:03:50

: Just As I Am  Thu Aug 30, 2007 - 12:02:35Do you think perhaps Charlie has a point?

Nope.

Consider the 276 dead children from the afore mentioned Jonestown.

That sounds like an answer, but it's not, it's an emotional appeal to look beyond the question.

To the stark reality of what cultism has done.

But that's not the question you were asked.

: jmg3rd  Thu Aug 30, 2007 - 14:59:31

: CSloan  Thu Aug 30, 2007 - 12:22:42

: jmg3rd  Thu Aug 30, 2007 - 12:10:24

: CSloan  Thu Aug 30, 2007 - 12:03:50

: Just As I Am  Thu Aug 30, 2007 - 12:02:35Do you think perhaps Charlie has a point?

Nope.

Consider the 276 dead children from the afore mentioned Jonestown.

That sounds like an answer, but it's not, it's an emotional appeal to look beyond the question.

To the stark reality of what cultism has done.

But that's not the question you were asked.

Charlie said this:

: charlie  Thu Aug 30, 2007 - 11:35:12
I don't like this list. It's biased, and seems to make cults out to be some kind of bad thing.

Then after some brief obfuscation I was asked if I thought he had a point. I thought I was pretty clear, but in case you didn't get it the first time: No, I do think cults are a bad thing.

Any further questions?

No use gettin' wound up is there?

So how do we know the person who made the list is not a cult?

The list is OK but is it the guide line?

: kamakaz  Thu Aug 30, 2007 - 14:35:25

: janine  Thu Aug 30, 2007 - 12:17:10

: charlie  Thu Aug 30, 2007 - 11:35:12
I don't like this list. It's biased, and seems to make cults out to be some kind of bad thing.

And I'm not supposed to choke and snort tea out my nose all over the keyboard when I read this?

rofl ok not just me!  but coffee not tea!!!

a cult is very simply any religious movement that is man centered rather than Jesus centered, and that takes control over people thru ignorance and fear. They also whether knowing it or not are anti-chirst, although it may be very subtle. the difference between a cult and church is this: the church will still be Christ centered and not try to control its members, now it may be a bad church that misinturprets bible theology and practices, but not at the core base, that God is supreme, Jesus is our only salvation.

Better guide line.

FTL

: CSloan  Thu Aug 30, 2007 - 16:36:07

: jmg3rd  Thu Aug 30, 2007 - 14:59:31

: CSloan  Thu Aug 30, 2007 - 12:22:42

: jmg3rd  Thu Aug 30, 2007 - 12:10:24

: CSloan  Thu Aug 30, 2007 - 12:03:50

: Just As I Am  Thu Aug 30, 2007 - 12:02:35Do you think perhaps Charlie has a point?

Nope.

Consider the 276 dead children from the afore mentioned Jonestown.

That sounds like an answer, but it's not, it's an emotional appeal to look beyond the question.

To the stark reality of what cultism has done.

But that's not the question you were asked.

Charlie said this:

: charlie  Thu Aug 30, 2007 - 11:35:12
I don't like this list. It's biased, and seems to make cults out to be some kind of bad thing.

Then after some brief obfuscation I was asked if I thought he had a point. I thought I was pretty clear, but in case you didn't get it the first time: No, I do think cults are a bad thing.

Any further questions?

Well, you know what this guy would say...

(http://www.bloodhoundrealty.com/BloodhoundBlog/MrMackey.gif)

No can't say I would could you please enlighten me?

"Cults are bad... Mmmkay..."

Thats it ????  Looks like he had lots more to say. Maybe he better let it out before his head explodes.

: Just As I Am  Thu Aug 30, 2007 - 22:52:41

: bvaug  Thu Aug 30, 2007 - 22:48:59
Thats it ????  Looks like he had lots more to say. Maybe he better let it out before his head explodes.

Memories of the "Last Post Thread" run through my head as I read this between you two!  ::intherain::

LOL... Those were the days!

: James Rondon  Thu Aug 30, 2007 - 22:44:49
"Cults are bad... Mmmkay..."

(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a60/jamesrondon/Miscellaneous/mackey_cultsarebad.jpg)

: Just As I Am  Thu Aug 30, 2007 - 22:51:54Did you happen to take a look at the link to the book I mentioned CSloan?

No, to be honest I didn't.

On thinking about it I am with Charley on this one and I don't like it either.  I am wondering why CSLoan needed to start this thread? Was it something that was said on another.  I remember some sort of confession coming from CSLoan about way he had handled the Catholic discussions?  Is this something stemmed from that in which case I really don't like this and hope the moderators do something about this one. I feel sure that CSLoan is trying to undermine the Catholic Church in some way. I apologise now if I am wrong but this is what I think this is the subtle message of the board and yet we have all been told not to judge others and that the Catholic Church is Christian. I really am not happy with the topic of cults and hope someone is going through it with a very fine comb and drawing out all possibilities it hasn't any subtle messages against the Catholic Church!

: ann  Fri Aug 31, 2007 - 13:06:50
On thinking about it I am with Charley on this one and I don't like it either.  I am wondering why CSLoan needed to start this thread? Was it something that was said on another.  I remember some sort of confession coming from CSLoan about way he had handled the Catholic discussions?  Is this something stemmed from that in which case I really don't like this and hope the moderators do something about this one. I feel sure that CSLoan is trying to undermine the Catholic Church in some way. I apologise now if I am wrong but this is what I think this is the subtle message of the board and yet we have all been told not to judge others and that the Catholic Church is Christian. I really am not happy with the topic of cults and hope someone is going through it with a very fine comb and drawing out all possibilities it hasn't any subtle messages against the Catholic Church!

I resent your accusations that I started this thread with a hidden motive. But if anyone has drawn the conclusion that this list points to the catholic church, it seems to be you.

I am not accusing, I am being up front about how I feel on this post!  If you read my post carefully enough you will read that I have apologised up front if this is not the case. YOu are just as quick to jump to conclusions that are wrong. Please read my post through once again and you will find that I have apologised if  this is not the case. CSloan, the apology is there if you care to read it and therefore I am not targeting or anything, just voicing my concern of the purpose of this thread.  Please read my post again before posting again.

On thinking about it I am with Charley on this one and I don't like it either.  I am wondering why CSLoan needed to start this thread? Was it something that was said on another.  I remember some sort of confession coming from CSLoan about way he had handled the Catholic discussions?  Is this something stemmed from that in which case I really don't like this and hope the moderators do something about this one. I feel sure that CSLoan is trying to undermine the Catholic Church in some way. I apologise now if I am wrong but this is what I think this is the subtle message of the board and yet we have all been told not to judge others and that the Catholic Church is Christian. I really am not happy with the topic of cults and hope someone is going through it with a very fine comb and drawing out all possibilities it hasn't any subtle messages against the Catholic Church!

I completely agree with you, Ann.  Whether that was the original poster's intent or not, the original poster has become so tainted as anti-Catholic in the last few days that I cannot see beyond that.  I look at everything the original poster writes with suspicious eyes.

Thank You Don Has a plan, though clearly CSloan does not agree with me though perhaps like you say he is somewhat against the catholic church and may not realise the message that he is putting over in his posts. Sorry CSloan if you are female. Can an administrator check this thread please for external opinions. Sorry CSloan but if you are genuine and up front you will be happy for it to be checked and therefore can prove me wrong which I am happy to be proved wrong. 

Bottomline, the original post has nothing to do with defining cults.  Those are not marks of a cult.  It seems that many of those marks highlight differences between most Protestants and Catholics.  I see it for what it is.  I tried to stay away from this thread, but I am glad that some see it for what it is.

If you delete everything past "...jbeard" in the OP's link, you will find that jbeard is a bit, um....conservative and reactionary for my tastes.

I wouldn't take much of what he has to say very far.

But that's just my opinion; some of you might think he's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

: broach972  Fri Aug 31, 2007 - 16:13:53
Bottomline, the original post has nothing to do with defining cults.  Those are not marks of a cult.  It seems that many of those marks highlight differences between most Protestants and Catholics.  I see it for what it is.  I tried to stay away from this thread, but I am glad that some see it for what it is.

I guess Ann's not the only one who seems to think the catholic church fits this bill.

: CSloan  Fri Aug 31, 2007 - 16:22:31

: broach972  Fri Aug 31, 2007 - 16:13:53
Bottomline, the original post has nothing to do with defining cults.  Those are not marks of a cult.  It seems that many of those marks highlight differences between most Protestants and Catholics.  I see it for what it is.  I tried to stay away from this thread, but I am glad that some see it for what it is.

I guess Ann's not the only one who seems to think the catholic church fits this bill.

First of all CSloan, the Catholic Church is not a cult.  I very much disagree with the criteria set forth in the opening posts.  Most of those marks are way off.  However, most anti-Catholics, including yourself, have this impression of the Church.  What you have offered is more anti-Catholic junk disguised as "scholarly" analysis.  Quite frankly, you have zero credibility as long as you continue these tactics.  Then again, those who lack any substance or anything worthy to say will resort to things like the opening post.

fwiw, this exact list (or something similar) has been posted before, I believe, without anyone thinking it was about the Catholic Church. Bad Christology has tended to be the focus of many of these discussions in the past.

Well, CSloan, let me ask the question directly.  Do you consider the Catholic Church to be a cult based on the criteria posed in the opening post?  Yes or no answer would be nice.  Please don't invoke the "strawman."

: broach972  Fri Aug 31, 2007 - 16:33:44
Well, CSloan, let me ask the question directly.  Do you consider the Catholic Church to be a cult based on the criteria posed in the opening post?  Yes or no answer would be nice.  Please don't invoke the "strawman."

*I think it would be best not to ask questions of this nature.

: marc  Fri Aug 31, 2007 - 16:33:09
fwiw, this exact list (or something similar) has been posted before, I believe, without anyone thinking it was about the Catholic Church. Bad Christology has tended to be the focus of many of these discussions in the past.

I agree. 

I don't see that the OP is necessarily targeted toward the RCC, as some of the points don't apply to the RCC anyway (at least, as I understand it).  In fact, the only group that is mentioned by name is Mormonism. 

: OldDad  Fri Aug 31, 2007 - 16:27:30
I've spent a fair amount of time studying cults and cultic practices and the list in the opening post ARE INDEED pretty standard cultic indicators from those who have "cult awareness" type ministries.

Here's the list I use when I'm teaching on the cults:

Bad Christology - if you get Jesus wrong, you can't be right about anything else. 

Exclusivism – the only group that's got it right

Extra-biblical revelation, that changes to suit the group's needs

Personality driven, frequently identifying a single person as "the prophet" - Joseph Smith, Jim Jones, L. Ron Hubbard, Mary Baker Eddy, Rev. Moon, David Koresh, etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

History twisting – making history up to support their claims

If either list makes anyone think their own group is being attacked, perhaps the place to look is their group, instead of impugning the motives of others.

I think that's fair enough (good to see you 'round).

The list is too vague, and fits jbeard's style of broad brush and generalizations. Sometimes we prove too much.

: CSloan  Wed Aug 29, 2007 - 18:11:06

The Marks of a Cult* 

1. Extrabiblical Authority: All cults deny what God says in His Word as true. Cults have shifted their theological point of authority away from God's full and final written Word, the Bible, to their own unique, self-promoting opinions about the Bible; they generally will use parts of the Bible but will have their own unique scripture which is considered to be superior to the Bible. While some cult groups give token respect for the Bible and go through the motions of accepting the authority of Scripture, in reality, they honor the group's or leader's novel interpretation of Scripture as normative.

Like, say, the Nicene Creed?

2. Works Salvation/Legalism: Cults teach that eternal life depends upon something other than the Atonement; i.e., faith in the atoning, finished work of Christ on the cross is deemed not to be sufficient (usually replaced with human works and human responsibility). Rather than relying on the grace of God alone for salvation, the salvation message of the cults always boils down to required obedience to, or abstention from, certain obligations and practices (some even including obedience to the Old Testament law).

Like, say, repentence or baptism?

3. No Assurance of Salvation: The issue of a cult member's salvation is never settled, but is constantly affected by the changing circumstances of life; in this way, cult leaders are able to produce continued obligation and spiritual bondage, rather than spiritual freedom.

Like, say, denying the OSAS idea?

4. Guru-Type Leader/Modern Prophet: The cult leader is looked to as the infallible interpreter of Scripture, specially appointed by God to be a special saint, guru, or contemporary messiah, and thereby, has divine authority that must not be violated. Cultists almost always quote their leader rather than the Bible. The cult's adherents often expound the virtues of the founders and seek to cover the founder's sins and wickedness.

Like, say, the Pope, or another Patriarch?

5. Vacillating, Ambiguous Doctrines/Spiritual Deception: In order to gain favor with the public, and thereby aid in the recruitment of new members, cult "doctrine" tends to be characterized by many false or deceptive claims concerning the cult's true spiritual beliefs (e.g., Mormons are not quick to reveal their belief that God was a man, who has now become the God of planet Earth).

Like, say, whether Limbo is real or not?

6. Exclusivity from/Denunciation of Other Groups: Each cult group, regardless of what other doctrines are taught, will all have this one common idea -- "The Only True Church Syndrome." The members of each specific organization have been taught that their church, organization, or community, is the only true group and that all other groups are false. The group's leaders will explain that it is impossible to serve God without being a member of the specific group. Moreover, when the cult leader announces himself as the true "Messiah," all others are declared to be dishonest, deceitful, and deluded, and must be put down; alternative views are denounced as being satanic and corrupt. Persecution is welcomed, and even glorified in, as "evidence" that they are being persecuted for righteousness sake. Thus, if a member decides to leave the group, they have been told that they are not simply leaving an organization, but rather they are leaving God and His only true organization. Hence, for a member of a cult who has been in a group for any length of time, the action of leaving the group is much more difficult than what most Christians understand. To leave the group is, in the minds of the cult member, tantamount to leaving God.

Like, say, most mainline religions? As far as leaving a group being difficult, have we missed the thread, "Finally left a church?" Has no one heard of someone's grandmother being just beside herself when she finds out that someone has left the Catholic/Baptist/Christian Church?

7. Claims of Special Discoveries/Additional Revelation: Acceptance of new, contemporary, continual revelations that either deny the Bible or are allowed to explain it. The fundamental characteristic of Christianity is that it is historical, not dependent upon private knowledge and secret, unconfirmable relationships, while the almost universal basis of cult religion is the claimed exclusive revelation that one person has supposedly received. Rather than conforming to Biblical rules of evidence (2 Cor. 13:1), cult leader revelations almost always emanate from hallucinations, visions, dreams, private discoveries, etc. These new revelations often become codified as official written "scripture" of the cults (e.g., The Book of Mormon), and are considered as valid as that of the apostles (and even more relevant because they are given in these end times).

Like, say, Peter? (OK, that's a stretch).

8. Defective Christology: Cults always have a false view of the nature of the Person of Jesus Christ; a cult will usually deny the true deity of Christ, His true humanity, His true origin, or the true union of the two natures in one Person.

Like, say, some first millenium heretics? I'm glad someone has the origin and personal nature of Christ figured out.

9. Defective "Nature of Man": Most cults do not see man as an immortal being; instead they see him either as an animal without a soul or as a being which is being perfected to the point of becoming a god. They usually do not see man as a spirit clothed in a body of flesh awaiting the redemption of body and soul.

Is Man immortal? Is Fudge a cultist?

10. Out-Of-Context Scripture Use as Proof-Texts/Segmented Biblical Attention: Cults tend to focus on one verse or passage of the Bible to the exclusion of others, and without regard for the context in which Scripture is given (e.g., 1 Cor. 15:29 used by Mormons to justify baptism for the dead). In addition, cults have made an art form out of using Christian terminology, all the while pouring out their own meanings into the words.

Like, say, "Faith only?" Couldn't resist.

11. Erroneous Doctrines Concerning Life After Death and Retribution: Covering the gamut from soul sleep to annihilationism to purgatory to universalism to the progression to godhood, cults invariably deny the existence of a final judgment of, and a final "resting" place for, the unrighteous.

So Fudge is a cultist, as are most Catholics?

12. Entangling Organization Structure: The less truth a movement represents, the more highly it seems to have to organize itself; the absence of truth seems to make necessary the application of the bonds of fear. Cults often demand total commitment by their converts to an organizational involvement that entangles them in a complicated set of human restrictions, giving the impression of passionate and often irrational devotion to a cause.

Jim Jones didn't seem to have much organization. Well, except in the poison Kool-aid department. 

13. Financial Exploitation: The cultic practitioner strongly implies that money contributed to the cause will earn the contributor numerous gifts, powers, and abilities, and in many cases, outright salvation.

"Give with a cheerful heart, because God loves a cheerful giver."

14. Pseudomystical/Spiritistic/Occultic Influence: Occult influence is many times found in either the origin of the group and/or in its current practices.

Like, say, praying to some diety? Or founding a religioni on some transient rabbi?

From: http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Cults/marksof.htm[/i]

: DCR  Fri Aug 31, 2007 - 16:49:38

: marc  Fri Aug 31, 2007 - 16:33:09
fwiw, this exact list (or something similar) has been posted before, I believe, without anyone thinking it was about the Catholic Church. Bad Christology has tended to be the focus of many of these discussions in the past.

I agree. 

I don't see that the OP is necessarily targeted toward the RCC, as some of the points don't apply to the RCC anyway (at least, as I understand it).  In fact, the only group that is mentioned by name is Mormonism. 

Oddly, most of the list does fit a mysterious new electric service company in town.  Seriously. 

Well, I warned you all against 4-H on another thread!


Seriously, for those who were wondering, the reason I bumped the "Catholic/Protestant" stickied thread is that I think we've reached a point of saturation and emotions are starting to run off and drip all over the board, and I'm afraid they're going to short out my computer.

Recent threads are causing people to take things the worst way possible.  As I mentioned earlier, we have had this same discussion before with no reference being made to Catholicism at all. 

To switch metaphors (the other one was a bit labored anyway), I'd advise cooling off a bit before posting more.

: OldDad  Fri Aug 31, 2007 - 16:27:30
If either list makes anyone think their own group is being attacked, perhaps the place to look is their group, instead of impugning the motives of others.

Give me a break.  This is pretty disingenuous.  I have been around long enough to know what "baiting" is.  Granted I took it.  But as a Catholic, I know the junk that is often spread about us and those "marks" are nothing new.  However, one gets tired of it from time to time.  Excuse me if I seem a little sensitive but CSloan has developed quite a reputation here for his anti-Catholic positions.

I should probably let OD speak for himself, but honestly, broach, I think you're taking that the wrong way. 

: OldDad  Fri Aug 31, 2007 - 17:19:49
I'm not baiting anyone.  The list is a reliable, fairly standard checklist of cultic indicators.  If you don't believe me, google "cult awareness ministry" and see what you get.

As has been said, when the list or one very similar was posted in a thread on Mormonism, no one jumped up and down in righteous indignation, or said it was "too vague," or considered it an attack.

And again, if someone looks at the list and says, "Hey!  That sounds like my group!"  I submit that the problem may not be with the list.

CSloan was the one "baiting."  He knew what he was doing when he posted that thread.

Besides, I didn't look at that list and say "Hey!  That sounds like my group!"  I looked at it and said, "Hey!  This is what most ignorant people believe and say about my group!  Here we go again!"  Big difference.

Btw....what's the * for?

Well then we have a lot in common because  I looked at it and said, "Hey!  This is what most ignorant people believe and say about my group! So maybe they were not talking about your group but was instead referring to mine.

Some of you have branded CSloan as "anti-catholic". Just an FYI, the majority of posters on GCM would hardly be considered "pro-catholic", or more particularly, "pro-Roman Catholicism". If you're looking for a "Roman Catholic" discussion forum, you really need to look elsewhere.

: OldDad  Fri Aug 31, 2007 - 17:19:49
As has been said, when the list or one very similar was posted in a thread on Mormonism, no one jumped up and down in righteous indignation, or said it was "too vague," or considered it an attack.

And again, if someone looks at the list and says, "Hey!  That sounds like my group!"  I submit that the problem may not be with the list.

The list is too vague. There's room to condemn just about anyone I want to disagree with. Whether it's normal or not doesn't address whether it's vague. Sorry I didn't disagree with the list when it was in a Mormon thread. Perhaps I ignored that thread all together. But, my failure in that regard doesn't affect the (in-)validity of the list as posted.
In general, you are correct that if we fit a defintion, then perhaps its us that need some reflection. However, that requires first that we have a definition that's worth using. In this instance, I don't think we do.

: HRoberson  Fri Aug 31, 2007 - 18:09:03
you are correct that if we fit a defintion, then perhaps its us that need some reflection.

Indeed.

This guy claims to be a Cult Awareness Center: http://www.bloomington.in.us/~lgthscac/

So what?

Here's another list, from Watchman Fellowship...

They're all Baptists from Alabama!

They probably think Baptist theology is it!

How much stock can we put in what they have to say!?????

How's that for ad hominem? ::smile::

ad hominem? ::smile::

That would be a better title for this thread.

I guess there is no such thing as a cult?

I guess it all is a matter of subjectivity?...

Maybe we should invite edpobre into this discussion, in order to consider his definition?

: James Rondon  Fri Aug 31, 2007 - 18:51:15
I guess there is no such thing as a cult?

I guess it all is a matter of subjectivity?...

Maybe we should invite edpobre into this discussion, in order to consider his definition?

There probably are cults, and yes to some degree, it is subjective. However, the list provided in the OP does not adequately define cult. The defiinition requires more specificity than the OP provides, and in some cases, the OP seems a bit too restrictive. Thus my observation concerning knowing the personal nature of Christ. How much is too much? How little is too little?

Cults.  It is very very difficult to leave a cult and sometimes your lives could be threatend if you leave.

It is very very very easy to leave the Catholic Church if you want to! You simply stop going.

The Catholic Church is not a cult!

: ann  Sat Sep 01, 2007 - 05:52:52
Cults.  It is very very difficult to leave a cult and sometimes your lives could be threatend if you leave.

It is very very very easy to leave the Catholic Church if you want to! You simply stop going.

The Catholic Church is not a cult!

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks." ~Shakespeare

Have I touched on a nerve CSloan

How did this discussion of cults turn into a discussion of the Catholic Church?  I don't believe that was the intent of the opening post at all!

: spurly  Sat Sep 01, 2007 - 09:39:07
How did this discussion of cults turn into a discussion of the Catholic Church?  I don't believe that was the intent of the opening post at all!

Thank you Spurly, that was not my intention to drag catholicism in to discussion. I felt that the list was good for examination and had some very sound points to consider. But people have since used this thread to accuse me of being anti-catholic, baiting, and being generally underhanded.

Quite frankly, I'm offended at the spirit in which I have been received.

: ann  Fri Aug 31, 2007 - 13:06:50
On thinking about it I am with Charley on this one and I don't like it either.  I am wondering why CSLoan needed to start this thread? Was it something that was said on another.  I remember some sort of confession coming from CSLoan about way he had handled the Catholic discussions?  Is this something stemmed from that in which case I really don't like this and hope the moderators do something about this one. I feel sure that CSLoan is trying to undermine the Catholic Church in some way. I apologise now if I am wrong but this is what I think this is the subtle message of the board and yet we have all been told not to judge others and that the Catholic Church is Christian. I really am not happy with the topic of cults and hope someone is going through it with a very fine comb and drawing out all possibilities it hasn't any subtle messages against the Catholic Church!

I admitt it was me that said all this but read it through once again, CSloan because I have indeed apologised if I am wrong but if you haven't read this post fully then it will be not much good attracting your attention to this apology.  You can keep harping on about how you have been wronged but is that the christian thing to do?  I will apologise and it feels wierd because I said initially I could well be wrong.  All you have done CSloan is take advantage of me being wrong and homed in on it rather than seeing that I am trying to also say if I am wrong then I am sorry.

Just because some think one is a cult and the other is not does not make it true. Everyone has v their opinion and that is just what they are opinions that one holds to. I have not got a grasp on the definition of cults as to the way everyone is using it. It seems to me that the real term would been used as such as Jonestown and Koresh and the likes of them. But the way we are going at it now seems like that we can lump any division that does not agree with ours into such a term. I just do not see any division fitting the terms as found in the Kore sh or Jonestown event. I do not see any division having the followers to commit the acts as the real cult calls into play. Maybe I am just to unlearned to know the difference.

: ann  Sat Sep 01, 2007 - 10:20:35

: ann  Fri Aug 31, 2007 - 13:06:50
On thinking about it I am with Charley on this one and I don't like it either.  I am wondering why CSLoan needed to start this thread? Was it something that was said on another.  I remember some sort of confession coming from CSLoan about way he had handled the Catholic discussions?  Is this something stemmed from that in which case I really don't like this and hope the moderators do something about this one. I feel sure that CSLoan is trying to undermine the Catholic Church in some way. I apologise now if I am wrong but this is what I think this is the subtle message of the board and yet we have all been told not to judge others and that the Catholic Church is Christian. I really am not happy with the topic of cults and hope someone is going through it with a very fine comb and drawing out all possibilities it hasn't any subtle messages against the Catholic Church!

I admitt it was me that said all this but read it through once again, CSloan because I have indeed apologised if I am wrong but if you haven't read this post fully then it will be not much good attracting your attention to this apology.  You can keep harping on about how you have been wronged but is that the christian thing to do?  I will apologise and it feels wierd because I said initially I could well be wrong.  All you have done CSloan is take advantage of me being wrong and homed in on it rather than seeing that I am trying to also say if I am wrong then I am sorry.

Ann,

Your not the only one who made accusations. But your apology didn't stop you from continuing to make accusations even after I told you it wasn't my intentions, did it?

: ann  Fri Aug 31, 2007 - 15:47:00
Thank You Don Has a plan, though clearly CSloan does not agree with me though perhaps like you say he is somewhat against the catholic church and may not realise the message that he is putting over in his posts. Sorry CSloan if you are female. Can an administrator check this thread please for external opinions. Sorry CSloan but if you are genuine and up front you will be happy for it to be checked and therefore can prove me wrong which I am happy to be proved wrong. 

You just apologize and continue to accuse.

: bvaug  Sat Sep 01, 2007 - 10:23:03
Just because some think one is a cult and the other is not does not make it true. Everyone has v their opinion and that is just what they are opinions that one holds to. I have not got a grasp on the definition of cults as to the way everyone is using it. It seems to me that the real term would been used as such as Jonestown and Koresh and the likes of them. But the way we are going at it now seems like that we can lump any division that does not agree with ours into such a term. I just do not see any division fitting the terms as found in the Kore sh or Jonestown event. I do not see any division having the followers to commit the acts as the real cult calls into play. Maybe I am just to unlearned to know the difference.

you are quite learned and don't need all the fancy verbage needed to prove any point.  You have eyes to see and ears to hear and I appreciate your insight bvaug

: bvaug  Sat Sep 01, 2007 - 10:23:03
Just because some think one is a cult and the other is not does not make it true. Everyone has v their opinion and that is just what they are opinions that one holds to. I have not got a grasp on the definition of cults as to the way everyone is using it. It seems to me that the real term would been used as such as Jonestown and Koresh and the likes of them. But the way we are going at it now seems like that we can lump any division that does not agree with ours into such a term. I just do not see any division fitting the terms as found in the Kore sh or Jonestown event. I do not see any division having the followers to commit the acts as the real cult calls into play. Maybe I am just to unlearned to know the difference.

Well bvaug, I would have to disagree.

I don't think you need a body count to identify a cult.

: spurly  Sat Sep 01, 2007 - 09:39:07
How did this discussion of cults turn into a discussion of the Catholic Church?  I don't believe that was the intent of the opening post at all!

It seems that most of the discussions here, lately, have deteriorated into discussions of Roman Catholicism. As I said before, this is not a Roman Catholic Forum. If someone is looking for a Roman Catholic Forum, they need to look elsewhere.

: ann  Sat Sep 01, 2007 - 05:52:52
Cults.  It is very very difficult to leave a cult and sometimes your lives could be threatend if you leave.

It is very very very easy to leave the Catholic Church if you want to! You simply stop going.

The Catholic Church is not a cult!

That's why I can certainly see Islam is a cult, but don't consider Catholicism a cult.

: Mere Nick  Sat Sep 01, 2007 - 13:05:24

: ann  Sat Sep 01, 2007 - 05:52:52
Cults.  It is very very difficult to leave a cult and sometimes your lives could be threatend if you leave.

It is very very very easy to leave the Catholic Church if you want to! You simply stop going.

The Catholic Church is not a cult!

That's why I can certainly see Islam is a cult, but don't consider Catholicism a cult.

So is this the only mark of a cult?

: James Rondon  Sat Sep 01, 2007 - 12:54:04

: spurly  Sat Sep 01, 2007 - 09:39:07
How did this discussion of cults turn into a discussion of the Catholic Church?  I don't believe that was the intent of the opening post at all!

It seems that most of the discussions here, lately, have deteriorated into discussions of Roman Catholicism. As I said before, this is not a Roman Catholic Forum. If someone is looking for a Roman Catholic Forum, they need to look elsewhere.

James,
You are a moderator, and I am not, so my opinion certainly counts for less.
However, I think that we are enriched by civil and learned discussion with other believers in Jesus, regardless of their denomination or undenomination.
I would like the few Catholics and remaining Orthodox posters here to feel welcome.

: CSloan  Wed Aug 29, 2007 - 18:11:06

The Marks of a Cult* 

1. Extrabiblical Authority: All cults deny what God says in His Word as true. Cults have shifted their theological point of authority away from God's full and final written Word, the Bible, to their own unique, self-promoting opinions about the Bible; they generally will use parts of the Bible but will have their own unique scripture which is considered to be superior to the Bible. While some cult groups give token respect for the Bible and go through the motions of accepting the authority of Scripture, in reality, they honor the group's or leader's novel interpretation of Scripture as normative.

2. Works Salvation/Legalism: Cults teach that eternal life depends upon something other than the Atonement; i.e., faith in the atoning, finished work of Christ on the cross is deemed not to be sufficient (usually replaced with human works and human responsibility). Rather than relying on the grace of God alone for salvation, the salvation message of the cults always boils down to required obedience to, or abstention from, certain obligations and practices (some even including obedience to the Old Testament law).

3. No Assurance of Salvation: The issue of a cult member's salvation is never settled, but is constantly affected by the changing circumstances of life; in this way, cult leaders are able to produce continued obligation and spiritual bondage, rather than spiritual freedom.

4. Guru-Type Leader/Modern Prophet: The cult leader is looked to as the infallible interpreter of Scripture, specially appointed by God to be a special saint, guru, or contemporary messiah, and thereby, has divine authority that must not be violated. Cultists almost always quote their leader rather than the Bible. The cult's adherents often expound the virtues of the founders and seek to cover the founder's sins and wickedness.

5. Vacillating, Ambiguous Doctrines/Spiritual Deception: In order to gain favor with the public, and thereby aid in the recruitment of new members, cult "doctrine" tends to be characterized by many false or deceptive claims concerning the cult's true spiritual beliefs (e.g., Mormons are not quick to reveal their belief that God was a man, who has now become the God of planet Earth).

6. Exclusivity from/Denunciation of Other Groups: Each cult group, regardless of what other doctrines are taught, will all have this one common idea -- "The Only True Church Syndrome." The members of each specific organization have been taught that their church, organization, or community, is the only true group and that all other groups are false. The group's leaders will explain that it is impossible to serve God without being a member of the specific group. Moreover, when the cult leader announces himself as the true "Messiah," all others are declared to be dishonest, deceitful, and deluded, and must be put down; alternative views are denounced as being satanic and corrupt. Persecution is welcomed, and even glorified in, as "evidence" that they are being persecuted for righteousness sake. Thus, if a member decides to leave the group, they have been told that they are not simply leaving an organization, but rather they are leaving God and His only true organization. Hence, for a member of a cult who has been in a group for any length of time, the action of leaving the group is much more difficult than what most Christians understand. To leave the group is, in the minds of the cult member, tantamount to leaving God.

7. Claims of Special Discoveries/Additional Revelation: Acceptance of new, contemporary, continual revelations that either deny the Bible or are allowed to explain it. The fundamental characteristic of Christianity is that it is historical, not dependent upon private knowledge and secret, unconfirmable relationships, while the almost universal basis of cult religion is the claimed exclusive revelation that one person has supposedly received. Rather than conforming to Biblical rules of evidence (2 Cor. 13:1), cult leader revelations almost always emanate from hallucinations, visions, dreams, private discoveries, etc. These new revelations often become codified as official written "scripture" of the cults (e.g., The Book of Mormon), and are considered as valid as that of the apostles (and even more relevant because they are given in these end times).

8. Defective Christology: Cults always have a false view of the nature of the Person of Jesus Christ; a cult will usually deny the true deity of Christ, His true humanity, His true origin, or the true union of the two natures in one Person.

9. Defective "Nature of Man": Most cults do not see man as an immortal being; instead they see him either as an animal without a soul or as a being which is being perfected to the point of becoming a god. They usually do not see man as a spirit clothed in a body of flesh awaiting the redemption of body and soul.

10. Out-Of-Context Scripture Use as Proof-Texts/Segmented Biblical Attention: Cults tend to focus on one verse or passage of the Bible to the exclusion of others, and without regard for the context in which Scripture is given (e.g., 1 Cor. 15:29 used by Mormons to justify baptism for the dead). In addition, cults have made an art form out of using Christian terminology, all the while pouring out their own meanings into the words.

11. Erroneous Doctrines Concerning Life After Death and Retribution: Covering the gamut from soul sleep to annihilationism to purgatory to universalism to the progression to godhood, cults invariably deny the existence of a final judgment of, and a final "resting" place for, the unrighteous.

12. Entangling Organization Structure: The less truth a movement represents, the more highly it seems to have to organize itself; the absence of truth seems to make necessary the application of the bonds of fear. Cults often demand total commitment by their converts to an organizational involvement that entangles them in a complicated set of human restrictions, giving the impression of passionate and often irrational devotion to a cause. 

13. Financial Exploitation: The cultic practitioner strongly implies that money contributed to the cause will earn the contributor numerous gifts, powers, and abilities, and in many cases, outright salvation.

14. Pseudomystical/Spiritistic/Occultic Influence: Occult influence is many times found in either the origin of the group and/or in its current practices.

So far, it seems that everyone is talking about whether the list is targeting Catholics or not.  Now, as far as that goes, I do not believe that the Catholic Church is even close to being a cult.  I also think that Catholics are welcome to post here.  The Nicene Creed adaptation in the rules would seem to affirm this.

The question that seems to be the focus of this thread is perhaps when a disagreement crosses the threshhold into attack.  I don't know.  I know that the reason words such as "cult" and "heretic" are not to be targeted at members who agree with the Creed adaptation is that these words tend to derail discussions.  In the case of this thread, however, the questionable word was brought up and discussed first, then the references to the Catholic Church were brought in.  Some felt that this was the natural progression.

Now, I want to make it clear that I'm speaking for myself here and not for the moderators.

I have a couple of questions for those posting here:

1. Would it be a good thing to take the points from the op, quoted above, and tell which ones you disagree with and why?

2. Has this thread built up too much ill feeling to make beneficial discussion possible?

3. Is there a point where you would draw a line and say "this is acceptable disagreement, this is unacceptable attack."

I'll answer the last question for myself.  As a member of the Church of Christ, any time the word "Campbellite" is used in a discussion, I immediately turn off the speaker.  There are a few other phrases that do the same.  To me, these kinds of words and labels stifle discussion.

Now, I do see one difference here:  cults exist, whether "Campbellites" exist is debatable.

Anyone else have any opinions on these questions?

Here's my take on the original list:

1. Extrabiblical Authority:  I don't think this is a true mark.  Many of us believe that outside educated sources who understand the historical and cultural background of the Bible are helpful for understanding.  While I disagree with the concept of oral tradition holding authority, I don't see this idea as cult-like, either.

2. Works Salvation/Legalism: This is one that's thrown at us in the Church of Christ frequently.  Sometimes the accusation has merit; sometimes it doesn't.  I don't see including this on a list of cult characteristics, though.  Putting this, and another I'll mention, on this list seems to say that anything that isn't truly Calvinistic is a cult.  btw, the concept of "works salvation", while, I believe, wrong, is often mischaracterized.

3. No Assurance of Salvation: While this is often used as a control tactic by cults, the implication here seems to be more pro-Calvinist than anything else.

4. Guru-Type Leader/Modern Prophet: This one's always present, it seems, but a cult of personality doesn't always equal a true cult.  Still, this is a danger.  If we trust too much in a person, it can lead to problems.  And I guess that would be my answer here; this doesn't make an organization a cult, but it can help create a cult.

5. Vacillating, Ambiguous Doctrines/Spiritual Deception: This is true, I think.  Confuse the members.  Keep control at all times.  btw, to me this doesn't sound like the Catholic Church; they tend to be pretty direct about things.

6. Exclusivity from/Denunciation of Other Groups: Well yeah, this is necessary.  If you're going to keep control of your members, you have to convince them That the woods are full of evil creatures and one must never leave the village.  That doesn't make every "true church" a cult, but it is the area where we, the Church of Christ, have come the closest, imho. I don't think we've been intentionally deceptive, though, like most true cults are. And we have encouraged our members to read and think for themselves (that's how I got where I am now).

7. Claims of Special Discoveries/Additional Revelation: I sort of agree, but I would state this more strongly. Cults usually have a separate revelation.

8. Defective Christology: A big one, as has been discussed.

9. Defective "Nature of Man": I hadn't really thought about this.  Interesting point.

10. Out-Of-Context Scripture Use as Proof-Texts/Segmented Biblical Attention: Sure cults do this. So do churches. Politicians.  Insurance salesman.  Carnival barkers.  Me and you (unfortunately).

11. Erroneous Doctrines Concerning Life After Death and Retribution: I argue against soul-sleep, but I don't see anything the least bit cultic about it.  In truth, most of us don't know half of what we think we do in this area.

12. Entangling Organization Structure: I guess...I'm not sure, really.

13. Financial Exploitation: Yep. Which is why cults rarely prey on the poor. The Catholic Church, otoh, is strong in the third world.

14. Pseudomystical/Spiritistic/Occultic Influence: Yep.



Okay, there's my opinion.  Anyone else?

Labeling cults is in the eye of the beholder, to a Muslim we are a cult, Christians in general. The link I put up see the CoC as a cult, the CoC sees others as a cult. Check out CARM, if you are not in line with their theology you are a cult.

So I look at this and try to stay away from labels, I think the discussion would be better if we take some of the points and discuss them on their own merits.

I agree with you Marc, and why bash the Catholics/Orthodox, CD Healy was fun to debate, and he had a lot of good info to share. I think the forum is less without him.

But that's just me.

FTL

: mike  Sat Sep 01, 2007 - 15:35:25

: James Rondon  Sat Sep 01, 2007 - 12:54:04

: spurly  Sat Sep 01, 2007 - 09:39:07
How did this discussion of cults turn into a discussion of the Catholic Church?  I don't believe that was the intent of the opening post at all!

It seems that most of the discussions here, lately, have deteriorated into discussions of Roman Catholicism. As I said before, this is not a Roman Catholic Forum. If someone is looking for a Roman Catholic Forum, they need to look elsewhere.

James,
You are a moderator, and I am not, so my opinion certainly counts for less.
However, I think that we are enriched by civil and learned discussion with other believers in Jesus, regardless of their denomination or undenomination.
I would like the few Catholics and remaining Orthodox posters here to feel welcome.

Their presence here, and seemingly every thread that they participate on deteriorating into a discussion of Roman Catholicism are not the same thing. I value your opinion. But I also value the integrity of this forum. They are welcome here. But this is not, nor will it become a Roman Catholic Forum. Thus, my statement.

: James Rondon  Sat Sep 01, 2007 - 19:25:47

: mike  Sat Sep 01, 2007 - 15:35:25

: James Rondon  Sat Sep 01, 2007 - 12:54:04

: spurly  Sat Sep 01, 2007 - 09:39:07
How did this discussion of cults turn into a discussion of the Catholic Church?  I don't believe that was the intent of the opening post at all!

It seems that most of the discussions here, lately, have deteriorated into discussions of Roman Catholicism. As I said before, this is not a Roman Catholic Forum. If someone is looking for a Roman Catholic Forum, they need to look elsewhere.

James,
You are a moderator, and I am not, so my opinion certainly counts for less.
However, I think that we are enriched by civil and learned discussion with other believers in Jesus, regardless of their denomination or undenomination.
I would like the few Catholics and remaining Orthodox posters here to feel welcome.

Their presence here, and seemingly every thread that they participate on deteriorating into a discussion of Roman Catholicism are not the same thing. I value your opinion. But I also value the integrity of this forum. They are welcome here. But this is not, nor will it become a Roman Catholic Forum. Thus, my statement.

Okay.
Thanks for the reply.

^{**quoted link removed by moderator**}

Why is my link removed because it implies the RCC, but a outright attack on the CoC is tolerated?

Because the Church of Christ is strong enough to defend itself against outrageous remarks and are quite capable of enduring persecution.




























Just joking I really have no honest answer to your question

: bvaug  Sat Sep 01, 2007 - 20:22:31
Because the Church of Christ is strong enough to defend itself against outrageous remarks and are capable of enduring persecution.

Are you kidding?

: CSloan  Sat Sep 01, 2007 - 20:23:41

: bvaug  Sat Sep 01, 2007 - 20:22:31
Because the Church of Christ is strong enough to defend itself against outrageous remarks and are capable of enduring persecution.

Are you kidding?

Yes.

He learned this trick from marc  -- see the "invisible" part of his post below:
"Because the Church of Christ is strong enough to defend itself against outrageous remarks and are quite capable of enduring persecution.

Just joking I really have no honest answer to your question"

Yes I edited it as you were posting thinking that someone might just take it literally

: CSloan  Sat Sep 01, 2007 - 20:17:21
^{**quoted link removed by moderator**}

Why is my link removed because it implies the RCC, but a outright attack on the CoC is tolerated?

I removed the link in question... not because I'm a CofC affiliate... but, for consistency's sake.  Thanks for calling attention to it.

: OldDad  Sat Sep 01, 2007 - 21:12:44

: marc  Sat Sep 01, 2007 - 17:00:03

1. Extrabiblical Authority:  I don't think this is a true mark.  Many of us believe that outside educated sources who understand the historical and cultural background of the Bible are helpful for understanding.  While I disagree with the concept of oral tradition holding authority, I don't see this idea as cult-like, either.

I've got to disagree with you on this one, marc.   There's a distinct difference in using extra-biblical resources and assigning those sources an authority that equals or exceeds the Scriptures.

It's one thing to use a commentary or read a systematic theology or the Early Church Fathers for information purposes.  It is another thing altogether to consider The Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, or Science and Health with a Key to the Scriptures as being equally authoritative with the Bible.

That's what #1 is saying, and it is a critical indicator of a cult.

Is this what it's saying, or is this a jab at oral tradition?  If this is what it's saying, I agree, but given the way this discussion has gone, I'm not sure what the intent is.

Also, I was thinking of the debates that have happened a few times on this board about The Bible-The Church-Jesus, as to which is most important.  There can be some question about elevating the Bible. Could this also refer to this idea?

One disagreement i have with this list is that it seems to take stances and put those who disagree on the cult side.  That's why I took this the way I did.

otoh, if this is referring to a "Ways of the Enlightened Guru" type manual, then yes, it is a mark of a cult.

(honestly, I'm just trying to get people to talk about the content of the post rather than each other.  People don't seem particularly interested, though.

Here are my 3 questions again.  Any takers at all?

1. Would it be a good thing to take the points from the op, quoted above, and tell which ones you disagree with and why?

2. Has this thread built up too much ill feeling to make beneficial discussion possible?

3. Is there a point where you would draw a line and say "this is acceptable disagreement, this is unacceptable attack.")

Not even limited to the RCC, other churches besides the RCC, such as the Orthodox, believe that the Church's teachings/"Tradition" beyond Scripture alone ("sola scriptura") is authoritative.

So, in that sense, those that disagree with the Protestant notion of "sola scriptura" subscribe to "extra-biblical authority."  However, they believe their Church's extra-biblical teachings trace back to the Apostles.

Maybe what we should clarify is whether there is any new extra-biblical authority, which may be what the point from the OP is really talking about (which addresses latter-day texts such as the Book of Mormon or modern prophets, etc.)

: DCR  Sat Sep 01, 2007 - 21:57:40
Not even limited to the RCC, other churches besides the RCC, such as the Orthodox, believe that the Church's teachings/"Tradition" beyond Scripture alone ("sola scriptura") is authoritative.

So, in that sense, those that disagree with the Protestant notion of "sola scriptura" subscribe to "extra-biblical authority."  However, they believe their Church's extra-biblical teachings trace back to the Apostles.

Maybe what we should clarify is whether there is any new extra-biblical authority, which may be what the point from the OP is really talking about (which addresses latter-day texts such as the Book of Mormon or modern prophets, etc.)

I think that what is outlined 7. Claims of Special Discoveries/Additional Revelation.

Extra-biblical authority could be considered things like the Watchtower, Catechisms, Magisterium, oral traditions, or things of that nature. Although I doubt creeds would fall under this catergory as someone tried to point out, since I've never heard of these held as an authority above scripture.

: CSloan  Sat Sep 01, 2007 - 23:18:49

I think that what is outlined 7. Claims of Special Discoveries/Additional Revelation.

Extra-biblical authority could be considered things like the Watchtower, Catechisms, Magisterium, oral traditions, or things of that nature. Although I doubt creeds would fall under this catergory as someone tried to point out, since I've never heard of these held as an authority above scripture.

I guess this would include the Didache, which early Christians relied on?  The Nicene Creed would have to fit this definition as well since it is "extra-biblical".  Why make the distinction?  Oh my, I just came to a realization.  That means that since the New Testament wasn't canonized until the 4th century, then the early Christians would be...oh no...they couldn' t be.  Well, wouldn't you know it.  The early Christians were members of a cult!!

::droppingjaw:: ::scared::

: CSloan  Sat Sep 01, 2007 - 23:18:49

: DCR  Sat Sep 01, 2007 - 21:57:40
Not even limited to the RCC, other churches besides the RCC, such as the Orthodox, believe that the Church's teachings/"Tradition" beyond Scripture alone ("sola scriptura") is authoritative.

So, in that sense, those that disagree with the Protestant notion of "sola scriptura" subscribe to "extra-biblical authority."  However, they believe their Church's extra-biblical teachings trace back to the Apostles.

Maybe what we should clarify is whether there is any new extra-biblical authority, which may be what the point from the OP is really talking about (which addresses latter-day texts such as the Book of Mormon or modern prophets, etc.)

I think that what is outlined 7. Claims of Special Discoveries/Additional Revelation.

Extra-biblical authority could be considered things like the Watchtower, Catechisms, Magisterium, oral traditions, or things of that nature. Although I doubt creeds would fall under this catergory as someone tried to point out, since I've never heard of these held as an authority above scripture.

Those that believe in the extra-biblical authority of creeds and traditions don't necessarily believe that these other things hold authority above Scripture either.  They would say that these things hold an authority alongside Scripture.  And, I don't even know if that would be an "equal" authority... but, someone else can speak to that.

I don't know know how important a distinction that is... but, I thought I would point that out.

: DCR  Sun Sep 02, 2007 - 06:36:15

Those that believe in the extra-biblical authority of creeds and traditions don't necessarily believe that these other things hold authority above Scripture either.  They would say that these things hold an authority alongside Scripture.  And, I don't even know if that would be an "equal" authority... but, someone else can speak to that.

I don't know know how important a distinction that is... but, I thought I would point that out.

The distinction is extremely important.  Manna for you.

One must understand that the Magisterium and Tradition can never contradict Scripture.  The three legs of the Church do not work against each other.  There is an order to it all.  The Catechism is nothing more than a collection of the doctrines and teachings of the Catholic Church.  And wouldn't you know it.  It cites Scripture.

Extra-biblical authority would only have to be held equal to scripture. But I never knew the Didache or the Nicene Creed was considered an authority equal to scripture. I never considered them to be, neither has any other Christian I've met.

: CSloan  Sun Sep 02, 2007 - 09:53:42
Extra-biblical authority would only have to be held equal to scripture. But I never knew the Didache or the Nicene Creed was considered an authority equal to scripture. I never considered them to be, neither has any other Christian I've met.

This is a bit ironic, considering what you've deemed as "extra biblical" authority, such as other ancient writings, whether by fathers of the church or councils of those fathers, is exactly where scripture is confirmed.

Without the witness of the early fathers writings of scripture the NT would never have been confirmed as trustworthy and canonized.

While I realize there are many who believe that by the dating of ancient literature scripture was established, this is not true. As none of the ancient writings are originals, but copies, which are put to the test of the established truths taught by the Apostles and also by later fathers.

There were many ancient writings, some were trustworthy, others were not. But all were tested by the original truth taught by the Jesus and His Apostles. If they were found lacking, they were considered suspect.

: Wayfarer  Sun Sep 02, 2007 - 10:19:39

: CSloan  Sun Sep 02, 2007 - 09:53:42
Extra-biblical authority would only have to be held equal to scripture. But I never knew the Didache or the Nicene Creed was considered an authority equal to scripture. I never considered them to be, neither has any other Christian I've met.

This is a bit ironic, considering what you've deemed as "extra biblical" authority, such as other ancient writings, whether by fathers of the church or councils of those fathers, is exactly where scripture is confirmed.

Without the witness of the early fathers writings of scripture the NT would never have been confirmed as trustworthy and canonized.

While I realize there are many who believe that by the dating of ancient literature scripture was established, this is not true. As none of the ancient writings are originals, but copies, which are put to the test of the established truths taught by the Apostles and also by later fathers.

There were many ancient writings, some were trustworthy, others were not. But all were tested by the original truth taught by the Jesus and His Apostles. If they were found lacking, they were considered suspect.

There are innumberable sources that confirm scripture, that doesn't make them an equal authority.

: CSloan  Sun Sep 02, 2007 - 12:13:36

: Wayfarer  Sun Sep 02, 2007 - 10:19:39

: CSloan  Sun Sep 02, 2007 - 09:53:42
Extra-biblical authority would only have to be held equal to scripture. But I never knew the Didache or the Nicene Creed was considered an authority equal to scripture. I never considered them to be, neither has any other Christian I've met.

This is a bit ironic, considering what you've deemed as "extra biblical" authority, such as other ancient writings, whether by fathers of the church or councils of those fathers, is exactly where scripture is confirmed.

Without the witness of the early fathers writings of scripture the NT would never have been confirmed as trustworthy and canonized.

While I realize there are many who believe that by the dating of ancient literature scripture was established, this is not true. As none of the ancient writings are originals, but copies, which are put to the test of the established truths taught by the Apostles and also by later fathers.

There were many ancient writings, some were trustworthy, others were not. But all were tested by the original truth taught by the Jesus and His Apostles. If they were found lacking, they were considered suspect.

There are innumberable sources that confirm scripture, that doesn't make them an equal authority.

Only because they are not part of the canon of scripture. Not because they do not contain the truth of scripture in them.

But then not all hold to the same canon of scripture. Which also shouldn't be of great concern as there are those historical references to attest facts from.

: Wayfarer  Sun Sep 02, 2007 - 15:10:10

: CSloan  Sun Sep 02, 2007 - 12:13:36

: Wayfarer  Sun Sep 02, 2007 - 10:19:39

: CSloan  Sun Sep 02, 2007 - 09:53:42
Extra-biblical authority would only have to be held equal to scripture. But I never knew the Didache or the Nicene Creed was considered an authority equal to scripture. I never considered them to be, neither has any other Christian I've met.

This is a bit ironic, considering what you've deemed as "extra biblical" authority, such as other ancient writings, whether by fathers of the church or councils of those fathers, is exactly where scripture is confirmed.

Without the witness of the early fathers writings of scripture the NT would never have been confirmed as trustworthy and canonized.

While I realize there are many who believe that by the dating of ancient literature scripture was established, this is not true. As none of the ancient writings are originals, but copies, which are put to the test of the established truths taught by the Apostles and also by later fathers.

There were many ancient writings, some were trustworthy, others were not. But all were tested by the original truth taught by the Jesus and His Apostles. If they were found lacking, they were considered suspect.

There are innumberable sources that confirm scripture, that doesn't make them an equal authority.

Only because they are not part of the canon of scripture. Not because they do not contain the truth of scripture in them.

But then not all hold to the same canon of scripture. Which also shouldn't be of great concern as there are those historical references to attest facts from.

This would be one of the defining differences between Catholic/Orthodox and Protestant. Protestants don't consider historical documents equal to scripture.

: CSloan  Sun Sep 02, 2007 - 17:22:27

: Wayfarer  Sun Sep 02, 2007 - 15:10:10

: CSloan  Sun Sep 02, 2007 - 12:13:36

: Wayfarer  Sun Sep 02, 2007 - 10:19:39

: CSloan  Sun Sep 02, 2007 - 09:53:42
Extra-biblical authority would only have to be held equal to scripture. But I never knew the Didache or the Nicene Creed was considered an authority equal to scripture. I never considered them to be, neither has any other Christian I've met.

This is a bit ironic, considering what you've deemed as "extra biblical" authority, such as other ancient writings, whether by fathers of the church or councils of those fathers, is exactly where scripture is confirmed.

Without the witness of the early fathers writings of scripture the NT would never have been confirmed as trustworthy and canonized.

While I realize there are many who believe that by the dating of ancient literature scripture was established, this is not true. As none of the ancient writings are originals, but copies, which are put to the test of the established truths taught by the Apostles and also by later fathers.

There were many ancient writings, some were trustworthy, others were not. But all were tested by the original truth taught by the Jesus and His Apostles. If they were found lacking, they were considered suspect.

There are innumberable sources that confirm scripture, that doesn't make them an equal authority.

Only because they are not part of the canon of scripture. Not because they do not contain the truth of scripture in them.

But then not all hold to the same canon of scripture. Which also shouldn't be of great concern as there are those historical references to attest facts from.

This would be one of the defining differences between Catholic/Orthodox and Protestant. Protestants don't consider historical documents equal to scripture.

But scripture is historical documents.
What say ye of Protestants taking books from the bible that were canonized by the early church. Is it OK to take scripture away from scripture?

Orthodox consider scripture holy, and part of the tradition of the Church.

: CSloan  Thu Aug 30, 2007 - 11:41:11

: Robert Pate  Wed Aug 29, 2007 - 20:34:55
CSloan

Excellent post.  Are you old enough to remember Jim Jones?

Some of the things you listed can be found in your neighborhood church.

The gospel is the guiding light, everything should be tried in the light of the gospel. All of the cults have one thing in common, they are all man centered.  Beware of men.

Yes I know about Jim Jones, but I was only 3 when the horror of Jonestown occured. I do have a number of cults in my area, including a LDS right down the street from me.

__________________________________________

Hi CSloan,

Ok I confess!  What is an LDS?

Colin.

That's what kids used to pass around when I was a teenager....no, wait.  That's not right.

LDS is The Church of Jesus Christ of  Latter-Day Saints.  The Mormons.

: Wayfarer  Sun Sep 02, 2007 - 17:38:47

: CSloan  Sun Sep 02, 2007 - 17:22:27

: Wayfarer  Sun Sep 02, 2007 - 15:10:10

: CSloan  Sun Sep 02, 2007 - 12:13:36

: Wayfarer  Sun Sep 02, 2007 - 10:19:39

: CSloan  Sun Sep 02, 2007 - 09:53:42
Extra-biblical authority would only have to be held equal to scripture. But I never knew the Didache or the Nicene Creed was considered an authority equal to scripture. I never considered them to be, neither has any other Christian I've met.

This is a bit ironic, considering what you've deemed as "extra biblical" authority, such as other ancient writings, whether by fathers of the church or councils of those fathers, is exactly where scripture is confirmed.

Without the witness of the early fathers writings of scripture the NT would never have been confirmed as trustworthy and canonized.

While I realize there are many who believe that by the dating of ancient literature scripture was established, this is not true. As none of the ancient writings are originals, but copies, which are put to the test of the established truths taught by the Apostles and also by later fathers.

There were many ancient writings, some were trustworthy, others were not. But all were tested by the original truth taught by the Jesus and His Apostles. If they were found lacking, they were considered suspect.

There are innumberable sources that confirm scripture, that doesn't make them an equal authority.

Only because they are not part of the canon of scripture. Not because they do not contain the truth of scripture in them.

But then not all hold to the same canon of scripture. Which also shouldn't be of great concern as there are those historical references to attest facts from.

This would be one of the defining differences between Catholic/Orthodox and Protestant. Protestants don't consider historical documents equal to scripture.

But scripture is historical documents.
What say ye of Protestants taking books from the bible that were canonized by the early church. Is it OK to take scripture away from scripture?

Orthodox consider scripture holy, and part of the tradition of the Church.

Scripture is inspired of God, 2Timothy 3:16. Just because the scripture contains history does not make all historical documents scripture.

"Orthodox consider scripture holy, and part of the tradition of the Church."

As someone here once sorta put it (don't remember who):

To most evangelicals the Scriptures define the church.
To the Orthodox the Church defines the scriptures.

: CSloan  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 11:19:42

Scripture is inspired of God, 2Timothy 3:16. Just because the scripture contains history does not make all historical documents scripture.

You mean the men who wrote scripture were inspired by God.
I agree not all historical documents are scripture. Nor is the bible a history book.

There was certain criteria for scripture to be canonized in the NT. Spirit filled Christian men decided by council what would be included.

: jmg3rd  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 11:21:34
"Orthodox consider scripture holy, and part of the tradition of the Church."

As someone here once sorta put it (don't remember who):

To most evangelicals the Scriptures define the church.
To the Orthodox the Church defines the scriptures.

Hmm,   ::pondering:: can what is both divine and human be defined, such as the body of Christ, His Church.

Orthodox don't define scripture they live it. Coming from a Baptist background into Orthodoxy, was like seeing the scriptures come to life in worship.  ::nodding::

: Wayfarer  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 12:10:31
Orthodox don't define scripture they live it. Coming from a Baptist background into Orthodoxy, was like seeing the scriptures come to life in worship.  ::nodding::

Coming from a Baptist background into Catholicism, this is how I felt as well.

As I recall, it was an Orthodox person that made the statement. ::shrug:: 

: jmg3rd  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 11:21:34
To most evangelicals the Scriptures define the church.
To the Orthodox the Church defines the scriptures.

The Church must define scripture.  Without a central authority to do so, nothing but chaos reigns, i.e. the Reformation.  If Scripture defines the Church, then why are there close to 35,000 different Protestant denominations?  Hmmmm...makes you wonder a bit.

Well, they're there because they didn't think the Catholic church defined it either.  Remember, the "mother" gives birth to children not the other way 'round, and therefore can't blame the children for their existence.

: jmg3rd  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 12:27:37
Well, they're there because they didn't think the Catholic church defined it either.  Remember, the "mother" gives birth to children not the other way 'round, and therefore can't blame the children for their existence.

Except the "Mother" in this case was not the Catholic Church, but the Renaissance.  This is where the seeds of the Reformation were originally sown.

I am just thankful to the Lord that this "child" has seen the light and returned home.

If only men and women would tear down their idols, and stop resting in their oxies, ists, and isms...

Salvation is in Christ, and He is none of these.

I was unaware that papal abuse, false relics, and indulgences were just Renaissance issues.  I thought Luther viewed them as Catholic issues.

Indeed.

: jmg3rd  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 12:32:49
I was unaware that papal abuse, false relics, and indulgences were just Renaissance issues.  I thought Luther viewed them as Catholic issues.

This is what is laughable.  If you think that Reformation dealth primarily with religious issues, then you are sadly wrong.  Did the Church have its problems, of course it did.  But it goes much deeper than what Luther had thought.  The Renaissance set the stage for relativist thinking, concentrating on the realm of the subjective.  The Renaissance compelled man to question traditional values and reexamine his role in the world.  The relationship between man and God was also questioned in a variety of ways as well.  It was at this point that many questioned the role of the Church.

Ironically, the Church did have its problems but what Luther did was shift Christianity as a religion that had existed primarily in the objective realm into the dangerous waters of the subjective.  Again, why do you think there are 35,000 Protestant denominations.  Protestants cannot even agree on how the Scriptures should be interpreted.  I call it the battle of the "Holy Spirits."

First of all, you ignored the main issues: papal abuse, false relics, and indulgences with a waving of your hand. Secondly, you attempted to muddy the waters by reinterpreting history, and used the Renaissance as a smokescreen to avoid said issues (papal abuse, false relics, and indlugences). Third, you continue to use a bloated figure of "35,000 denominations" as some sort of supposed trump card, that only you see as relevant. If there were 35,000, or even 100,000 "Protestant denominations", it would not validate the Roman Catholic church, papal abuse, false relics, or indulgences... Let me ask you a question, broach: are you a Roman Catholic apologist, or a follower of Jesus Christ? If you are a follower of Christ, deal with the issues. Please don't brush them aside.

What he said.

: James Rondon  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 12:55:09
First of all, you ignored the main issues: papal abuse, false relics, and indulgences with a waving of your hand. Secondly, you attempted to muddy the waters by reinterpreting history, and used the Renaissance as a smokescreen to avoid said issues (papal abuse, false relics, and indlugences). Third, you continue to use a bloated figure of "35,000 denominations" as some sort of supposed trump card, that only you see as relevant. If there were 35,000, or even 100,000 "Protestant denominations", it would not validate the Roman Catholic church, papal abuse, false relics, or indulgences... Let me ask you a question, broach: are you a Roman Catholic apologist, or a follower of Jesus Christ? If you are a follower of Christ, deal with the issues. Please don't brush them aside.

1. Follower of Christ--this is why I am a Catholic.

2. I did address the issues.  I haven't brushed anything aside.  The Church had problems at the time of Luther.  I dealt with those issues.  Were there bad popes?  Yes.  You need to specify more on "false relics."  Were there issues with indulgences..YES.  Was there corruption within the Church...YES.  Surely, you are not suggesting that sinners do not exist within the Church?  What church doesn't have its problems today?  You don't throw out the baby with the bath water though.  I think that most people fail to really grasp what the Reformation did.

However, these issues have nothing to do with the cental doctrines that have stood for 1500 years prior to Luther.  Luther did more than just whine about corruption here and there.  He totally took Christianity into an entirely different direction.  He revamped the entire faith, including its doctrines that have stood for more than 1500 years.  He let Pandora out of the box that led to the destruction of the sacraments, the authority of the Church, the rejection of the Real Presence, etc.

I am not reinterpreting history.  The Renaissance is not a smokescreen.  It sowed the seeds.  History just doesn't happen overnight.  The emerging ideals of the Renaissance set the stage for the Church to be challenged.

: jmg3rd  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 12:26:13
As I recall, it was an Orthodox person that made the statement. ::shrug:: 

Then the person likely meant that the scriptures are not above the Church. It is the Church which is a witness of scripture, that is what all those stories are about in there. The witness of God's people and His interaction with them throughout history.

Human history is the witness of God, not poetic literature. That is if one believes in the miraculous, God's divine interaction with humanity.

God is a living dynamic in our lives, either one acknowledges that or not. The bible, is only a tip of the iceberg of all the peoples lives He has touched in His mysterious way. ::reading:: ::smile::

: Wayfarer  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 12:06:15

: CSloan  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 11:19:42

Scripture is inspired of God, 2Timothy 3:16. Just because the scripture contains history does not make all historical documents scripture.

You mean the men who wrote scripture were inspired by God.
I agree not all historical documents are scripture. Nor is the bible a history book.

There was certain criteria for scripture to be canonized in the NT. Spirit filled Christian men decided by council what would be included.

The Apocrypha was never considered scripture before the catholic cannon.

: CSloan  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:15:46

: Wayfarer  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 12:06:15

: CSloan  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 11:19:42

Scripture is inspired of God, 2Timothy 3:16. Just because the scripture contains history does not make all historical documents scripture.

You mean the men who wrote scripture were inspired by God.
I agree not all historical documents are scripture. Nor is the bible a history book.

There was certain criteria for scripture to be canonized in the NT. Spirit filled Christian men decided by council what would be included.

The Apocrypha was never considered scripture before the catholic cannon.

It was in the 1611 AV (Authorized Version).

: broach972  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:10:45
1. Follower of Christ--this is why I am a Catholic.

What does this mean, if your not a catholic your not a follower of Christ?

Or if you are a follower of Christ your automatically a catholic?

: Gary  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:16:56

: CSloan  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:15:46

: Wayfarer  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 12:06:15

: CSloan  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 11:19:42

Scripture is inspired of God, 2Timothy 3:16. Just because the scripture contains history does not make all historical documents scripture.

You mean the men who wrote scripture were inspired by God.
I agree not all historical documents are scripture. Nor is the bible a history book.

There was certain criteria for scripture to be canonized in the NT. Spirit filled Christian men decided by council what would be included.

The Apocrypha was never considered scripture before the catholic cannon.

It was in the 1611 AV (Authorized Version).

That certainly wouldn't be before the catholic cannon, would it?

: CSloan  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:20:49

: Gary  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:16:56

: CSloan  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:15:46

: Wayfarer  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 12:06:15

: CSloan  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 11:19:42

Scripture is inspired of God, 2Timothy 3:16. Just because the scripture contains history does not make all historical documents scripture.

You mean the men who wrote scripture were inspired by God.
I agree not all historical documents are scripture. Nor is the bible a history book.

There was certain criteria for scripture to be canonized in the NT. Spirit filled Christian men decided by council what would be included.

The Apocrypha was never considered scripture before the catholic cannon.

It was in the 1611 AV (Authorized Version).

That certainly wouldn't be before the catholic cannon, would it?

I believe many protestants considered it scripture.

: CSloan  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:15:46
The Apocrypha was never considered scripture before the catholic cannon.

Asbolutely false.

1) They were included in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament from the third century B.C.), which was the "Bible" of the Apostles. They usually quoted the Old Testament scriptures (in the text of the New Testament) from the Septuagint.

2) Almost all of the Church Fathers regarded the Septuagint as the standard form of the Old Testament. The deuterocanonical books were in no way differentiated from the other books in the Septuagint, and were generally regarded as canonical. St. Augustine thought the Septuagint was apostolically-sanctioned and inspired, and this was the consensus in the early Church.

3) Many Church Fathers (such as St. Irenaeus, St. Cyprian, Tertullian) cite these books as Scripture without distinction. Others, mostly from the east (for example, St. Athanasius, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory Nazianzus) recognized some distinction but nevertheless still customarily cited the deuterocanonical books as Scripture. St. Jerome, who translated the Hebrew Bible into Latin (the Vulgate, early fifth century), was an exception to the rule (the Church has never held that individual Fathers are infallible).

4) The Church Councils at Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419), influenced heavily by St. Augustine, listed the deuterocanonical books as Scripture, which was simply an endorsement of what had become the general consensus of the Church in the west and most of the east. Thus, the Council of Trent merely reiterated in stronger terms what had already been decided eleven and a half centuries earlier, and which had never been seriously challenged until the onset of Protestantism.

5) Since these Councils also finalized the 66 canonical books which all Christians accept, it is quite arbitrary for Protestants to selectively delete seven books from this authoritative Canon. This is all the more curious when the complicated, controversial history of the New Testament Canon is understood.

Additionally, you if reject some of the "Catholic cannon," then you must by definition reject the entire New Testament cannon.  It was the Catholic Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, that decided what books would be included in the final cannon.  Either accept all or reject all.  The Holy Spirit is either right or wrong...and my guess is that the Holy Spirit is never wrong.

: Gary  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:23:38

: CSloan  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:20:49

: Gary  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:16:56

: CSloan  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:15:46

: Wayfarer  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 12:06:15

: CSloan  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 11:19:42

Scripture is inspired of God, 2Timothy 3:16. Just because the scripture contains history does not make all historical documents scripture.

You mean the men who wrote scripture were inspired by God.
I agree not all historical documents are scripture. Nor is the bible a history book.

There was certain criteria for scripture to be canonized in the NT. Spirit filled Christian men decided by council what would be included.

The Apocrypha was never considered scripture before the catholic cannon.

It was in the 1611 AV (Authorized Version).

That certainly wouldn't be before the catholic cannon, would it?

I believe many protestants considered it scripture.

I believe it still wasn't considered scripture before the catholic cannon.

: CSloan  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:25:32
I believe it still wasn't considered scripture before the catholic cannon.

What do you mean by "catholic cannon?"  There was only one approved cannon...period.

: broach972  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:24:59

: CSloan  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:15:46
The Apocrypha was never considered scripture before the catholic cannon.

Asbolutely false.

1) They were included in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament from the third century B.C.), which was the "Bible" of the Apostles. They usually quoted the Old Testament scriptures (in the text of the New Testament) from the Septuagint.

2) Almost all of the Church Fathers regarded the Septuagint as the standard form of the Old Testament. The deuterocanonical books were in no way differentiated from the other books in the Septuagint, and were generally regarded as canonical. St. Augustine thought the Septuagint was apostolically-sanctioned and inspired, and this was the consensus in the early Church.

3) Many Church Fathers (such as St. Irenaeus, St. Cyprian, Tertullian) cite these books as Scripture without distinction. Others, mostly from the east (for example, St. Athanasius, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory Nazianzus) recognized some distinction but nevertheless still customarily cited the deuterocanonical books as Scripture. St. Jerome, who translated the Hebrew Bible into Latin (the Vulgate, early fifth century), was an exception to the rule (the Church has never held that individual Fathers are infallible).

4) The Church Councils at Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419), influenced heavily by St. Augustine, listed the deuterocanonical books as Scripture, which was simply an endorsement of what had become the general consensus of the Church in the west and most of the east. Thus, the Council of Trent merely reiterated in stronger terms what had already been decided eleven and a half centuries earlier, and which had never been seriously challenged until the onset of Protestantism.

5) Since these Councils also finalized the 66 canonical books which all Christians accept, it is quite arbitrary for Protestants to selectively delete seven books from this authoritative Canon. This is all the more curious when the complicated, controversial history of the New Testament Canon is understood.

Additionally, you if reject some of the "Catholic cannon," then you must by definition reject the entire New Testament cannon.  It was the Catholic Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, that decided what books would be included in the final cannon.  Either accept all or reject all.  The Holy Spirit is either right or wrong...and my guess is that the Holy Spirit is never wrong.

"The Jewish canon, or the Hebrew Bible, was universally received, while the Apocrypha added to the Greek version of the Septuagint were only in a general way accounted as books suitable for church reading, and thus as a middle class between canonical and strictly apocryphal (pseudonymous) writings. And justly; for those books, while they have great historical value, and fill the gap between the Old Testament and the New, all originated after the cessation of prophecy, and they cannot therefore be regarded as inspired, nor are they ever cited by Christ or the apostles" (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, book 3, chapter 9)

: broach972  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:10:45
1. Follower of Christ--this is why I am a Catholic.

No, you are a Catholic because you are a follower of the Catholic Church, a great difference.

: da525382  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:29:23

: broach972  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:10:45
1. Follower of Christ--this is why I am a Catholic.

No, you are a Catholic because you are a follower of the Catholic Church, a great difference.

Thank you for pointing that out, manna to you.

: broach972  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:27:29

: CSloan  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:25:32
I believe it still wasn't considered scripture before the catholic cannon.

What do you mean by "catholic cannon?"  There was only one approved cannon...period.

A big gun?  or the bit for a horse?

: da525382  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:29:23

: broach972  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:10:45
1. Follower of Christ--this is why I am a Catholic.

No, you are a Catholic because you are a follower of the Catholic Church, a great difference.

I am a Catholic because I am a follower of Christ.  And you are right, there is a big difference. ::smile::

: broach972  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:34:02

: da525382  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:29:23

: broach972  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:10:45
1. Follower of Christ--this is why I am a Catholic.

No, you are a Catholic because you are a follower of the Catholic Church, a great difference.

I am a Catholic because I am a follower of Christ.  And you are right, there is a big difference. ::smile::

You logic thereby fails.  If you were a follower of Christ you would not be Catholic.

: broach972  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:34:02

: da525382  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:29:23

: broach972  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:10:45
1. Follower of Christ--this is why I am a Catholic.

No, you are a Catholic because you are a follower of the Catholic Church, a great difference.

I am a Catholic because I am a follower of Christ.  And you are right, there is a big difference. ::smile::

This comment points to mark number 6.

: Gary  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:23:38

: CSloan  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:20:49

: Gary  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:16:56

: CSloan  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:15:46

: Wayfarer  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 12:06:15

: CSloan  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 11:19:42

Scripture is inspired of God, 2Timothy 3:16. Just because the scripture contains history does not make all historical documents scripture.

You mean the men who wrote scripture were inspired by God.
I agree not all historical documents are scripture. Nor is the bible a history book.

There was certain criteria for scripture to be canonized in the NT. Spirit filled Christian men decided by council what would be included.

The Apocrypha was never considered scripture before the catholic cannon.

It was in the 1611 AV (Authorized Version).

That certainly wouldn't be before the catholic cannon, would it?

I believe many protestants considered it scripture.

Not so much scripture as beneficial reading to the Christian. 

: CSloan  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:29:11
"The Jewish canon, or the Hebrew Bible, was universally received, while the Apocrypha added to the Greek version of the Septuagint were only in a general way accounted as books suitable for church reading, and thus as a middle class between canonical and strictly apocryphal (pseudonymous) writings. And justly; for those books, while they have great historical value, and fill the gap between the Old Testament and the New, all originated after the cessation of prophecy, and they cannot therefore be regarded as inspired, nor are they ever cited by Christ or the apostles" (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, book 3, chapter 9)

That's it?  Please tell me you have more than that.  This is very much subject to opinion and very convenient.  But let me continue...

The Church Councils at Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419), influenced heavily by St. Augustine, listed the deuterocanonical books as Scripture, which was simply an endorsement of what had become the general consensus of the Church in the west and most of the east. Thus, the Council of Trent merely reiterated in stronger terms what had already been decided eleven and a half centuries earlier, and which had never been seriously challenged until the onset of Protestantism.  The councils, guided by the Holy Spirit, made this determination.  The Chirstian Church was in no way bound by the opinions of the Jewish authorities on the canonical standing of these books.  They couldn't even agree on the canonical standing of these books.

Pope Innocent I concurred with and sanctioned the canonical ruling of the above Councils (Letter to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse) in 405.  In addition, the earliest Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament, such as Codex Sinaiticus (fourth century), and Codex Alexandrinus (c.450) include all of the deuterocanonical books mixed in with the others and not separated. Imagine that, even after the Jewish canon has been supposedly closed in 94 A.D., they were still included.

The practice of collecting these books into a separate unit dates back no further than 1520 (in other words, it was a novel innovation of Protestantism). This is admitted by, for example, the Protestant New English Bible (Oxford University Press, 1976), in its "Introduction to the Apocrypha," (p.iii).

Protestantism, following Martin Luther, removed the deuterocanonical books from their Bibles due to their clear teaching of doctrines which had been recently repudiated by Protestants, such as prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12, 2 Maccabees 12:39-45 ff.; cf. 1 Corinthians 15:29), intercession of dead saints (2 Maccabees 15:14; cf. Revelation 6:9-10), and intermediary intercession of angels (Tobit 12:12,15; cf. Revelation 5:8, 8:3-4). We know this from plain statements of Luther and other Reformers.

Luther was not content even to let the matter rest there, and proceeded to cast doubt on many other books of the Bible which are accepted as canonical by all Protestants. He considered Job and Jonah mere fables, and Ecclesiastes incoherent and incomplete. He wished that Esther (along with 2 Maccabees) "did not exist," and wanted to "toss it into the Elbe" river.

The New Testament fared scarcely better under Luther's gaze. He rejected from the New Testament Canon ("chief books") Hebrews, James ("epistle of straw"), Jude and Revelation, and placed them at the end of his translation, as a New Testament "Apocrypha." He regarded them as non-apostolic. Of the book of Revelation he said, "Christ is not taught or known in it." These opinions are found in Luther's Prefaces to biblical books, in his German translation of 1522.

Although the New Testament does not quote any of these books directly, it does closely reflect the thought of the deuterocanonical books in many passages. For example, Revelation 1:4 and 8:3-4 appear to make reference to Tobit 12:15:

Revelation 1:4 Grace to you . . . from the seven spirits who are before his throne. {see also 3:1, 4:5, 5:6}

Revelation 8:3-4 And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God.

{see also Revelation 5:8}

Tobit 12:15 I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints and enter into the presence of the glory of the Holy One.

St. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15:29, seems to have 2 Maccabees 12:44 in mind. This saying of

Paul is one of the most difficult in the New Testament for Protestants to interpret, given their theology:

1 Corinthians 15:29 Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?

2 Maccabees 12:44 For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead.

This passage of St. Paul shows that it was the custom of the early Church to watch, pray and fast for the souls of the deceased. In Scripture, to be baptized is often a metaphor for affliction or (in the Catholic understanding) penance (for example, Matthew 3:11, Mark 10:38-39, Luke 3:16, 12:50). Since those in heaven have no need of prayer, and those in hell can't benefit from it, these practices, sanctioned by St. Paul, must be directed towards those in purgatory. Otherwise, prayers and penances for the dead make no sense, and this seems to be largely what Paul is trying to bring out. The "penance interpretation" is contextually supported by the next three verses, where St. Paul speaks of "Why am I in peril every hour? . . . I die every day," and so forth.

As a third example, Hebrews 11:35 mirrors the thought of 2 Maccabees 7:29:

Hebrews 11:35 Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life.

2 Maccabees 7:29 Do not fear this butcher, but prove worthy of your brothers. Accept death, so that in God's mercy I may get you back again with your brothers.

{a mother speaking to her son: see 7:25-26}

Ironically, in some of the same verses where the New Testament is virtually quoting the "Apocrypha," doctrines are taught which are rejected by Protestantism, and which were a major reason why the deuterocanonical books were "demoted" by them. Therefore, it was not as easy to eliminate these disputed doctrines from the Bible as it was (and is) supposed, and Protestants still must grapple with much New Testament data which does not comport with their beliefs.

Despite this lowering of the status of the deuterocanonical books by Protestantism, they were still widely retained separately in Protestant Bibles for a long period of time (unlike the prevailing practice today). John Wycliffe, considered a forerunner of Protestantism, included them in his English translation. Luther himself kept them separately in his Bible, describing them generally as (although sub-scriptural) "useful and good to read." Zwingli and the Swiss Protestants, and the Anglicans maintained them in this secondary sense also. The English Geneva Bible (1560) and Bishop's Bible (1568) both included them as a unit. Even the Authorized, or King James Version of 1611 contained the "Apocrypha" as a matter of course. And up to the present time many Protestant Bibles continue this practice. The revision of the King James Bible (completed in 1895) included these books, as did the Revised Standard Version (1957), the New English Bible (1970), and the Goodspeed Bible (1939), among others.

Bottomline, you argument is weak and historically without merit.  The Canon was decided by the Church and sanctioned by the councils, with guidance with the Holy Spirit, this included the Apocrypha.

: da525382  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:42:26

: broach972  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:34:02

: da525382  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:29:23

: broach972  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:10:45
1. Follower of Christ--this is why I am a Catholic.

No, you are a Catholic because you are a follower of the Catholic Church, a great difference.

I am a Catholic because I am a follower of Christ.  And you are right, there is a big difference. ::smile::

You logic thereby fails.  If you were a follower of Christ you would not be Catholic.

Someday you may get it....

: da525382  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:42:26
You logic thereby fails.  If you were a follower of Christ you would not be Catholic.

I know it can be a thin line in such discussions, and we all often find ourselves on either side (accuser/accused) of it.  But I do think this is awfully close to breaking the rule of questioning another poster's Christianity. 

: broach972  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:50:49

: CSloan  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:29:11
"The Jewish canon, or the Hebrew Bible, was universally received, while the Apocrypha added to the Greek version of the Septuagint were only in a general way accounted as books suitable for church reading, and thus as a middle class between canonical and strictly apocryphal (pseudonymous) writings. And justly; for those books, while they have great historical value, and fill the gap between the Old Testament and the New, all originated after the cessation of prophecy, and they cannot therefore be regarded as inspired, nor are they ever cited by Christ or the apostles" (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, book 3, chapter 9)

That's it?  Please tell me you have more than that. 

I do.

http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/index.php?topic=20142.msg413517#msg413517

: broach972  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:50:49
The Canon was decided by the Church and sanctioned by the councils, with guidance with the Holy Spirit, this included the Apocrypha.

Oh, please, please, please.

: jmg3rd  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:53:22

: da525382  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:42:26
You logic thereby fails.  If you were a follower of Christ you would not be Catholic.

I know it can be a thin line in such discussions, and we all often find ourselves on either side (accuser/accused) of it.  But I do think this is awfully close to breaking the rule of questioning another poster's Christianity. 

Oh, I am use to it.

: broach972  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:52:46

: da525382  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:42:26

: broach972  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:34:02

: da525382  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:29:23

: broach972  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:10:45
1. Follower of Christ--this is why I am a Catholic.

No, you are a Catholic because you are a follower of the Catholic Church, a great difference.

I am a Catholic because I am a follower of Christ.  And you are right, there is a big difference. ::smile::

You logic thereby fails.  If you were a follower of Christ you would not be Catholic.

Someday you may get it....

Thank you anyway, but I have already.  

Hi All,

The Church of England an Apostolick Catholick Church set the Old and New Testaments as Scriptural Canon when it Authorised the Bible called The King James Version.  It is ours, get off!

The Apocrypha is limited in it's use.  For instruction of manners and examples of life,  "but yet doth it not apply them to establish doctrine; such are these follow!'

Rome kept them in their Canon! With slight variation.  LXX. also makes a good read bearing in mind the quotes of Jesus  are in it not the Hebrew Bible if my memory serves me right.  I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong?.  Sixty-six books and not rising we have the Protestants.

But what it is to have a Church until today who used to know where it was going.  Now we have joined the club some of us in ism's etc.

But never mind isn't the LORD wonderful and The Temples of God have the HolyGhost sitting in some of them!!! ...

Yours in His Everlovingtenderkindness,  or something like that if you are a cult,

Colin.

: jmg3rd  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:53:22

: da525382  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:42:26
You logic thereby fails.  If you were a follower of Christ you would not be Catholic.

I know it can be a thin line in such discussions, and we all often find ourselves on either side (accuser/accused) of it.  But I do think this is awfully close to breaking the rule of questioning another poster's Christianity. 

I agree. This thread needs some Moderation. The Catholic/Protestant sticky thread doesn't seem to be doing the job.

: charlie  Tue Sep 04, 2007 - 10:57:52

: jmg3rd  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:53:22

: da525382  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:42:26
You logic thereby fails.  If you were a follower of Christ you would not be Catholic.

I know it can be a thin line in such discussions, and we all often find ourselves on either side (accuser/accused) of it.  But I do think this is awfully close to breaking the rule of questioning another poster's Christianity. 

I agree. This thread needs some Moderation. The Catholic/Protestant sticky thread doesn't seem to be doing the job.

Why is it when Catholics promote their doctrine here its tolerated or even embraced, but when someone voices objections it suddenly needs to be moderated?

: CSloan  Tue Sep 04, 2007 - 11:01:14

: charlie  Tue Sep 04, 2007 - 10:57:52

: jmg3rd  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:53:22

: da525382  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:42:26
You logic thereby fails.  If you were a follower of Christ you would not be Catholic.

I know it can be a thin line in such discussions, and we all often find ourselves on either side (accuser/accused) of it.  But I do think this is awfully close to breaking the rule of questioning another poster's Christianity. 

I agree. This thread needs some Moderation. The Catholic/Protestant sticky thread doesn't seem to be doing the job.

Why is it when Catholics promote their doctrine here its tolerated or even embraced, but when someone voices objections it suddenly needs to be moderated?

Read the forum rules here for the answer to your question:
http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/index.php?topic=13977.0

If one breaks the rules, moderation is appropriate. It's that simple. 

I would draw particular attention to the following rules:

1.2 You will not directly call another member or his or her religious organization a "cult

: charlie  Tue Sep 04, 2007 - 11:18:59
However, this rule does not protect the statement of da525382 quoted above for obvious reasons. He is not objecting to a Catholic teaching. Rather, he is categorically stating that Catholics are not Christians. Against the rules, and worthy of moderation.

This comment made by broach implies that if your not catholic, your not a Christian; so whats the difference?

: broach972  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:10:451. Follower of Christ--this is why I am a Catholic.

: CSloan  Tue Sep 04, 2007 - 11:25:43

: charlie  Tue Sep 04, 2007 - 11:18:59
However, this rule does not protect the statement of da525382 quoted above for obvious reasons. He is not objecting to a Catholic teaching. Rather, he is categorically stating that Catholics are not Christians. Against the rules, and worthy of moderation.

This comment made by broach implies that if your not catholic, your not a Christian; so whats the difference?

: broach972  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:10:451. Follower of Christ--this is why I am a Catholic.

I feel like a kindergarten teacher here, but I'll answer.

Broach made a positive statement, da, a negative one. Broach made a statement about himself, da525382 made one about someone else. Broach said that he himself was a Catholic because he was a follower of Christ, which does not necessarily imply that someone else is not a follower of Christ simply because they are not Catholic. da525382 specifically told Broach that he was not a follower of Christ because he was a Catholic.

I'll illustrate:

"I am eating because I am hungry" does not mean that everybody who is not eating is not hungry. Nor does broach's statement impugn the Chrisitanity of non-Catholics (at least, not necessarily. You'd have to look at other things he says to determine if he might be suggesting that non-Catholics are not Christian)

"If you had passed your tests, you would not have to take that course again" does mean that everybody who fails their tests has to retake the course. In the same way, da525382 claims that anyone, including broach, who is Catholic, is not Christian.

I have to agree with Charlie on this.

: charlie  Tue Sep 04, 2007 - 11:58:27

: CSloan  Tue Sep 04, 2007 - 11:25:43

: charlie  Tue Sep 04, 2007 - 11:18:59
However, this rule does not protect the statement of da525382 quoted above for obvious reasons. He is not objecting to a Catholic teaching. Rather, he is categorically stating that Catholics are not Christians. Against the rules, and worthy of moderation.

This comment made by broach implies that if your not catholic, your not a Christian; so whats the difference?

: broach972  Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 13:10:451. Follower of Christ--this is why I am a Catholic.

I feel like a kindergarten teacher here, but I'll answer.

Broach made a positive statement, da, a negative one. Broach made a statement about himself, da525382 made one about someone else. Broach said that he himself was a Catholic because he was a follower of Christ, which does not necessarily imply that someone else is not a follower of Christ simply because they are not Catholic. da525382 specifically told Broach that he was not a follower of Christ because he was a Catholic.

I'll illustrate:

"I am eating because I am hungry" does not mean that everybody who is not eating is not hungry. Nor does broach's statement impugn the Chrisitanity of non-Catholics (at least, not necessarily. You'd have to look at other things he says to determine if he might be suggesting that non-Catholics are not Christian)

"If you had passed your tests, you would not have to take that course again" does mean that everybody who fails their tests has to retake the course. In the same way, da525382 claims that anyone, including broach, who is Catholic, is not Christian.

Your condescendance is unnecessary.

I think this is purely a matter of perspective, and since you seem to be a sympathizer I feel you are being biased. I don't believe eating or taking tests are fitting analogies to describe this situation.

As you said, broach's statement is about himself; and this didn't apply to anyone else. The same could be said about da525382; since his statement was directed at broach; it didn't include anyone else. If we are not free to speak about other people and our convictions concerning their beliefs, then we have no business sharing our own.

This is MHO, take it for what you will.

: CSloan  Tue Sep 04, 2007 - 12:35:32As you said, broach's statement is about himself; and this didn't apply to anyone else. The same could be said about da525382; since his statement was directed at broach; it didn't include anyone else. If we are not free to speak about other people and our convictions concerning their beliefs, then we have no business sharing our own.

I don't wish to belabor the point.  But, there is quite a difference.

Someone could ask me why I am a part of the church fellowship where I am.  Someone could ask the same of you.  We could answer, "because I am a follower of Jesus Christ."  Is there something wrong with that answer?

Should the person asking assume that means that if they aren't a part of the same church fellowship, then they aren't a follower of Jesus Christ?  Of course not.  They might infer that.  But, that doesn't necessarily mean that you or I intentionally implied it.

However, if someone tells you in no uncertain terms that "if you were a follower of Jesus Christ, then you would not be a part of the church fellowship where you are"... that's a whole different ballgame.

: CSloan  Tue Sep 04, 2007 - 12:35:32
As you said, broach's statement is about himself; and this didn't apply to anyone else.

True.

: CSloan  Tue Sep 04, 2007 - 12:35:32
The same could be said about da525382; since his statement was directed at broach; it didn't include anyone else.

The same cannot be said at all. They were directed at someone else, namely, broach. In addition, they necessarily applied to all Catholics. If you can't see this for yourself and with other people's help, then something else is clouding your view of the discussion. My suspicion is that it is your zeal to expose Catholicism as a false religion which causes you to reflexively agree with fellow critics of Catholicism, whatever they might say.

: CSloan  Tue Sep 04, 2007 - 12:35:32
If we are not free to speak about other people and our convictions concerning their beliefs, then we have no business sharing our own.

I agree up to the point of breaking forum rules which you so far have abided by, albeit barely, and which da525382 has broken. If he wants to say absolutely anything he wants to about anyone (e.g. Catholics aren't Christians), he should start a blog and post a link.

We have some differences of perspective and opinions, which is understandable. I don't wish to argue or sow discord, and I'm certainly not here to try and change the rules. I would rather just share my views and get along peaceably.

But with the recent advent of catholic propaganda, I am finding this increasingly difficult.

As far as I can tell, a handful of Catholics (2, maybe 3?) have posted in defense of their faith, which for some reason unknown to the rest of us, has come under increasing attack on this board in the last couple of weeks.  They have done so in a respectful tone and have attempted to correct many of the falsehoods--outright lies--that have been posted against their church.  Do we need to be reminded of the praise heaped on Jack Chick tracts last week?  If I find the most vociferous anti-church of Christ or anti-Baptist (or whatever faith some of you may be) person out there, and I talk about what a good guy he is, I would expect you to become defensive and try to correct the errors I was espousing.

Of course, I suppose the two or three Catholics here could just follow what James Rondon has suggested/urged and get lost, leaving you guys to create whatever fictions you want to create.  (I wonder if James could make people who disagree with him feel any more unwelcome, btw.)

: don has a plan  Tue Sep 04, 2007 - 15:21:46
As far as I can tell, a handful of Catholics (2, maybe 3?) have posted in defense of their faith, which for some reason unknown to the rest of us, has come under increasing attack on this board in the last couple of weeks.  They have done so in a respectful tone and have attempted to correct many of the falsehoods--outright lies--that have been posted against their church.  Do we need to be reminded of the praise heaped on Jack Chick tracts last week?  If I find the most vociferous anti-church of Christ or anti-Baptist (or whatever faith some of you may be) person out there, and I talk about what a good guy he is, I would expect you to become defensive and try to correct the errors I was espousing.

Of course, I suppose the two or three Catholics here could just follow what James Rondon has suggested/urged and get lost, leaving you guys to create whatever fictions you want to create.  (I wonder if James could make people who disagree with him feel any more unwelcome, btw.)

It's not my intention, nor James to make anyone feel unwelcome. But I have felt just as much attack from these so-called peaceful catholics as you accuse others or myself of delivering. If I have so much disagreed with their doctrines or teachings, I have been combated relentlessly.

The truth is this is NOT a catholic forum, and they are going to meet with disagreements. As ravenlorre suggested that moderators just silence people who disagree, that is just another tactic to promote their doctrine without allowing others to object.

By the way, people agreement or disagreement with Jack Chick is neither here nor there. If people don't like his tracts, then don't read them.

But I have felt just as much attack from these so-called peaceful catholics as you accuse others or myself of delivering.

Can you point to threads they have started that praise anti-church of Christ writers?  Can you point to threads they have started with the specific intent of challenging your faith and proving it wrong?  I would be interested in reading such threads, if they exist; surely these would demonstrate this unbearable persecution the two Catholics on the board have leveled against you.

: don has a plan  Tue Sep 04, 2007 - 15:59:07

But I have felt just as much attack from these so-called peaceful catholics as you accuse others or myself of delivering.

Can you point to threads they have started that praise anti-church of Christ writers?  Can you point to threads they have started with the specific intent of challenging your faith and proving it wrong?  I would be interested in reading such threads, if they exist; surely these would demonstrate this unbearable persecution the two Catholics on the board have leveled against you.

You have missed my entire point, this is NOT a catholic forum. Catholic doctrine will not be received on a protestant forum. If these catholics want to share their doctrines without anyone arguing, they should find themselves a catholic forum.

My understanding was that this isn't either a Catholic forum or a Protestant forum, but is simply a Christian forum.  See the Nicene Creed adaptation in the forum rules.

12 pages and lately it has degenerated into personal attacks.  There were some posts that crossed the line, but the cat is out of the bag, and I don't want to heavily edit.

If you don't like the doctrines of X group, debate the doctrines using scripture.  This goes for both "Catholics" or "Protestants" or "Non-Denominational" types. 

This thread is locked, if another moderator wants to unlock it fine, but I think there has been enough childish behavior in this thread already.

I will leave it locked for now, Gary, but since I was mentioned, and since my words were twisted, I am going to make one more post in order to set the record straight...

: don has a plan  Tue Sep 04, 2007 - 15:21:46
Of course, I suppose the two or three Catholics here could just follow what James Rondon has suggested/urged and get lost, leaving you guys to create whatever fictions you want to create.  (I wonder if James could make people who disagree with him feel any more unwelcome, btw.)

Please do not twist my words, don. It makes me feel less than welcome.

For the record, here is my actual post:

: James Rondon  Fri Aug 31, 2007 - 17:33:08
Some of you have branded CSloan as "anti-catholic". Just an FYI, the majority of posters on GCM would hardly be considered "pro-catholic", or more particularly, "pro-Roman Catholicism". If you're looking for a "Roman Catholic" discussion forum, you really need to look elsewhere.

Here is a follow-up to that post, in reply to a post by spurly, after the discussion veered into a discussion of Roman Catholicism:

: James Rondon  Sat Sep 01, 2007 - 12:54:04

: spurly  Sat Sep 01, 2007 - 09:39:07
How did this discussion of cults turn into a discussion of the Catholic Church?  I don't believe that was the intent of the opening post at all!

It seems that most of the discussions here, lately, have deteriorated into discussions of Roman Catholicism. As I said before, this is not a Roman Catholic Forum. If someone is looking for a Roman Catholic Forum, they need to look elsewhere.

And here is a post where I reply to Mike, elaborating on the previous two posts:

: James Rondon  Sat Sep 01, 2007 - 19:25:47

: mike  Sat Sep 01, 2007 - 15:35:25

: James Rondon  Sat Sep 01, 2007 - 12:54:04

: spurly  Sat Sep 01, 2007 - 09:39:07
How did this discussion of cults turn into a discussion of the Catholic Church?  I don't believe that was the intent of the opening post at all!

It seems that most of the discussions here, lately, have deteriorated into discussions of Roman Catholicism. As I said before, this is not a Roman Catholic Forum. If someone is looking for a Roman Catholic Forum, they need to look elsewhere.

James,
You are a moderator, and I am not, so my opinion certainly counts for less.
However, I think that we are enriched by civil and learned discussion with other believers in Jesus, regardless of their denomination or undenomination.
I would like the few Catholics and remaining Orthodox posters here to feel welcome.

Their presence here, and seemingly every thread that they participate on deteriorating into a discussion of Roman Catholicism are not the same thing. I value your opinion. But I also value the integrity of this forum. They are welcome here. But this is not, nor will it become a Roman Catholic Forum. Thus, my statement.

The thread will not be shut down.  If we discarding every thread where some folks got testy, there wouldn't be much on here.  People can learn from the mistakes that are here and grow.

Does this mean that you are going to unlock the thread, or are you saying that you are not going to delete the thread? I kind of lost you there, especially since you were the one that just locked it...

: James Rondon  Tue Sep 04, 2007 - 16:42:00
Does this mean that you are going to unlock the thread, or are you saying that you are not going to delete the thread? I kind of lost you there, especially since you were the one that just locked it...

I was responding to a post that got deleted asking to delete the entire thread.  Sorry for the confusion.