Christian Forums

Quote from: bvaug on 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.

Quote from: spurly on 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.

Quote from: ann on 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.

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

Quote from: ann on 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?

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

Quote from: spurly on 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.

Quote from: CSloan on 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

Quote from: mike on Sat Sep 01, 2007 - 15:35:25

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

Quote from: spurly on 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.

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

Quote from: mike on Sat Sep 01, 2007 - 15:35:25

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

Quote from: spurly on 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

Quote from: bvaug on 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?

Quote from: CSloan on Sat Sep 01, 2007 - 20:23:41

Quote from: bvaug on 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

Quote from: CSloan on 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.

Quote from: OldDad on Sat Sep 01, 2007 - 21:12:44

Quote from: marc on 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.)

Quote from: DCR on 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.

Quote from: CSloan on 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!!

Quote from: CSloan on Sat Sep 01, 2007 - 23:18:49

Quote from: DCR on 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.

Quote from: DCR on 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.

Quote from: CSloan on 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.

Quote from: Wayfarer on Sun Sep 02, 2007 - 10:19:39

Quote from: CSloan on 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.

Quote from: CSloan on Sun Sep 02, 2007 - 12:13:36

Quote from: Wayfarer on Sun Sep 02, 2007 - 10:19:39

Quote from: CSloan on 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.

Quote from: Wayfarer on Sun Sep 02, 2007 - 15:10:10

Quote from: CSloan on Sun Sep 02, 2007 - 12:13:36

Quote from: Wayfarer on Sun Sep 02, 2007 - 10:19:39

Quote from: CSloan on 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.

Quote from: CSloan on Sun Sep 02, 2007 - 17:22:27

Quote from: Wayfarer on Sun Sep 02, 2007 - 15:10:10

Quote from: CSloan on Sun Sep 02, 2007 - 12:13:36

Quote from: Wayfarer on Sun Sep 02, 2007 - 10:19:39

Quote from: CSloan on 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.

Quote from: CSloan on Thu Aug 30, 2007 - 11:41:11

Quote from: Robert Pate on 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.

Quote from: Wayfarer on Sun Sep 02, 2007 - 17:38:47

Quote from: CSloan on Sun Sep 02, 2007 - 17:22:27

Quote from: Wayfarer on Sun Sep 02, 2007 - 15:10:10

Quote from: CSloan on Sun Sep 02, 2007 - 12:13:36

Quote from: Wayfarer on Sun Sep 02, 2007 - 10:19:39

Quote from: CSloan on 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.

Quote from: CSloan on 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.

Quote from: jmg3rd on 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,    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.