True teachers.

[reba]

Thanks Mike

Another book i have read was days of vengance.. reading it was just plain ol hard.
couldn't just read it, slow going for me, it is not in readers digest form....

Years back the reading of The power of His Presence was quite good. A bit more to my brain wave lengths then some...

The second time i read the Bible through i took a short cut, well 2 short cuts..The first was i read the Living Bible second i skipped most of Numbers... The whole 'story' of the Word was made plain in the living. Being story like it stuck in my memory quit well.

seems to me if a person reads/uses a study guide for scripture the thoughts you will come away from the reading with would be those of the author of the study guide. That could well be a hangover from the Scofield days

 

[Strangelove]

Friend, You state, "We affirm that the meanings of receiving salvation is faith alone". That is Martin Luther's version of Romans 3:28, where he ADDED the non-Greek word "alone" to his German text of Romans. That makes Romans contradict James 2:24, which said believers are not justified by "faith alone".
It is something you should read from the NT, James 2:24 contradicts your point of doctrine no. 5. What is true is that salvation comes in stages. We come to Jesus without works (Eph. 2:8-9), but we do not remain without good works (Eph. 2:10). We come by faith, but not by "faith alone", but by faith which worketh through love (Galatians 5:6). We must love God and love neighbor to be saved, not just believe by "faith alone". In Erie PA Scott PS For love is greater than faith (1 Cor. 13:13).
PPS I would disagree with some of the teachers on these lists. They are not teaching all that should be taught. They teach doctrines of men sometimes. As for lists that contain "women teachers", this is against the word of God (1 Corinthians). Men have the place of teaching in the church; the charismatics have women teachers, in disobedience to the writings of blessed St. Paul. And of the practice of all the 12 apostles of Christ. Men have the leadership roles in the Church.

You are in DEEP error sir.

I beg of you, please start a topic on 'Justification by Faith AND WORKS' and we can examine all these scripture references that you've posted.

 

[Strangelove]

Well, you didn't say if you have listened to Hanegraaff or how much, but I'll go on the assumption that you have with that comment. I respect your opinion, although I agree and disagree. I've listened to him a lot, almost daily. He is very black and white with his interpretation of scripture, and I don't know how that can be "ecumenical" to a fault. He simply tells what is meant by scripture. He is very consistent with his stance on scripture and gives a very informed argument for everything he says. He refuses to back down from something that he finds biblically sound.

There can be good ecumenical and bad ecumenical in my opinion. Bad ecumenical begins when we accept flawed theology and put it on the same level with biblical Truth. He doesn't promote this approach, but he does say that there comes a time when we should stop a nonsalvific issue from driving us apart. In that sense, ecumenical can be a good thing.

If you are holding up the RCC as a light of true Christianity then, in my opinion, thats bad ecumenical.

Christian Research Institute (CRI)

 

[Strangelove]

Dear Mike, Everything truly ecumenical begins with Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ leads us to Jesus Christ's Church. The truly ecumenical statement of Christian Faith was stated in Constantinople, the First Council of Constantinople, and the Second Ecumenical Council after the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. The second council was at Constantinople and was in 381 AD. This Creed that the Council wrote did not contain the words "AND THE SON" (FILIOQUE). And this is the Creed all truly ecumenical Christian will believe and want to, do all their best, to live by. It is a Creed for All Christians. In Erie PA Scott Harrington

You can keep your creeds Scott, I'll stick with scripture. TBO I'm growing weary of your pushing TRADITIONS OF MEN on the brethren here. Enough is enough.

I challenge you to a one on one debate regarding the Eastern Orthodox lithurgy.

 

[Mike]

If you are holding up the RCC as a light of true Christianity then, in my opinion, thats bad ecumenical.

Christian Research Institute (CRI)

Rather than depending on the views of others on Hanegraff, I would suggest you listen yourself, or at least go directly to him to form an opinion.

http://www.equip.org/categories/catholicism

If you read this and feel the same way, then I guess we will both have an informed difference of opinion.

 

[Strangelove]

Rather than depending on the views of others on Hanegraff, I would suggest you listen yourself, or at least go directly to him to form an opinion.

http://www.equip.org/categories/catholicism

If you read this and feel the same way, then I guess we will both have an informed difference of opinion.

Does this make sense to you Mike:

"IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH A CULT?- Not Cultic, but Heretical."

He's calling the entire system of the RCC heretical but he wont label them a cult. What does it take to be a cult??

Its suspicious.

 

[francisdesales]

Does this make sense to you Mike:

"IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH A CULT?- Not Cultic, but Heretical."

He's calling the entire system of the RCC heretical but he wont label them a cult. What does it take to be a cult??

Its suspicious.

Without even addressing the truth of the conclusion, it doesn't follow that a heretic or heretical group is a "cult". Most would agree that cults use some sort of mind-altering brainwashing and undo pressure to maintain one in the rank and file. We don't find that within the Catholic Church.

Regards

 

[Proverbs3/5]

Rather than depending on the views of others on Hanegraff, I would suggest you listen yourself, or at least go directly to him to form an opinion.

http://www.equip.org/categories/catholicism

If you read this and feel the same way, then I guess we will both have an informed difference of opinion.

I have read the above: http://www.equip.org/categories/catholicism and:
Christian Research Institute
and they seem to be quite opposite. I personally agree with the perspective of CRI on Roman Catholicism (@http://www.equip.org/categories/catholicism), and don't see a problem with it. Mike, thanks for the informative link.

 

[Strangelove]

Without even addressing the truth of the conclusion, it doesn't follow that a heretic or heretical group is a "cult". Most would agree that cults use some sort of mind-altering brainwashing and undo pressure to maintain one in the rank and file. We don't find that within the Catholic Church.

Regards

With all due respect Fran, if you were a victim of that mind-altering brainwashing thats exactly the answer I'd expect.

We don't find that within the Catholic Church.

 

[Scotth1960]

You are in DEEP error sir.

I beg of you, please start a topic on 'Justification by Faith AND WORKS' and we can examine all these scripture references that you've posted.

Dear Strangelove. No. I a not in deep error. Did Martin Luther add a word to the Bible in Romans 3:28, "allein durch den Glauben", or did he not? Do you not know the Scripture that says, "Neither add too, nor take away from the Word of God". Or, at least, that is the meaning of it; I forget the exact reference. But there is no doubt that adding "alone" to Romans 3:28 makes Paul contradict James in 2:24. Was Luther then, right, sir, in saying that James should be removed from the NT?
Objectivity was not Luther's speciality. We should defend the NT, not a man's interpretation of the NT. Luther was clearly inserting words into St. Paul's mouth here. We are justified by faith in Christ. Good works will follow from faith in Christ. Therefore, justification is not by faith alone (James 2:24). We come to Christ without works (Eph. 2:8-9), but we do not remain without works (Eph. 2:10). What is unclear about this? We are justified by grace, not by the works of the law of Moses. In Erie PA Scott Harrington
PS Luther stands "alone" with his mis-translation of Romans 3:28.

 

[Scotth1960]

You can keep your creeds Scott, I'll stick with scripture. TBO I'm growing weary of your pushing TRADITIONS OF MEN on the brethren here. Enough is enough.

I challenge you to a one on one debate regarding the Eastern Orthodox lithurgy.

Dear Strangelove, Do you believe in Dr. Strangelove? Isn't the movie "Dr. Strangelove" a tradition of men? What has that got to do with you? Why venture to do that, it makes no sense. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

 

[Mike]

Does this make sense to you Mike:

"IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH A CULT?- Not Cultic, but Heretical."

He's calling the entire system of the RCC heretical but he wont label them a cult. What does it take to be a cult??

Its suspicious.

SL, I'm not interested in defending Hanegraff until the cows come home (don't have room for 'em anyway). As I said, I'm fine if we end up disagreeing here. If you can follow cri.org and check out some of Hanegraaff's past shows, I'd really be interested in knowing what you think.

I'm responding more to your comment I've attached. In writing "Kingdom of the Cults", there was careful attention paid to what is defined as a cult. Some of the things were:

• Members are only given certain secrets of the faith as they climb the hierarchy, so much of their doctrine is hidden from the typical members.
• Members of cults are strictly forbidden to leave. If one does, cults will dismiss them from their lives. This means that if you had a brother who converted from JW to Christianity, he would no longer exist to his own family who were till active in that cult.
• They are founded by a leader who has apparently been given some precious 1-on-1 time with the Lord or an angel, and they speak in authority over the entire church. No one is allowed to disagree.

While the RCC has some belief and practices Hanegraaff affirms are heretical, he doesn't believe they cross the line and become a "cult" by definition. I can respect that. They don't meet the three points listed above. This might be the last post I make on this thread. I don't like to go on and on defending him. I just listen, and find myself seeing his interpretations in scripture.

 

[reba]

Can a group form a cult and the leader not be fully aware of the groups thoughts?


That third point Mike is scary that sure covers lots of folks...


We lost a sibling , to a cult, discipleship. the cult broke up…He got out of the cult but the cult never has gotten out of him…That pastor kept those young men so tired... Church Sunday morning & nite Wed bible study, prayer meeting & discipleship class it was hard on the families

 

[Strangelove]

Dear Strangelove. No. I a not in deep error. Did Martin Luther add a word to the Bible in Romans 3:28, "allein durch den Glauben", or did he not? Do you not know the Scripture that says, "Neither add too, nor take away from the Word of God". Or, at least, that is the meaning of it; I forget the exact reference. But there is no doubt that adding "alone" to Romans 3:28 makes Paul contradict James in 2:24. Was Luther then, right, sir, in saying that James should be removed from the NT?
Objectivity was not Luther's speciality. We should defend the NT, not a man's interpretation of the NT. Luther was clearly inserting words into St. Paul's mouth here. We are justified by faith in Christ. Good works will follow from faith in Christ. Therefore, justification is not by faith alone (James 2:24). We come to Christ without works (Eph. 2:8-9), but we do not remain without works (Eph. 2:10). What is unclear about this? We are justified by grace, not by the works of the law of Moses. In Erie PA Scott Harrington
PS Luther stands "alone" with his mis-translation of Romans 3:28.

Do you really wanna argue about this when we both say the same thing?

We are Justified by faith ALONE. Faith which MUST naturally bear good works.

We dont purposefully do good works in order to ADD justification before God.

Agreed or not? Make a thread if your still confused over this.

 

[Strangelove]

Dear Strangelove, Do you believe in Dr. Strangelove?

: No. He's a movie character.

Isn't the movie "Dr. Strangelove" a tradition of men?

No it's a movie. And has no bearing on my faith.

What has that got to do with you? Why venture to do that, it makes no sense. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

Your rambling man. Venture to do what?

I challenge you to a one on one debate regarding the Eastern Orthodox lithurgy.

Either accept or decline. Or you can continue evading.

 

[Strangelove]

SL, I'm not interested in defending Hanegraff until the cows come home (don't have room for 'em anyway). As I said, I'm fine if we end up disagreeing here. If you can follow cri.org and check out some of Hanegraaff's past shows, I'd really be interested in knowing what you think.

I'm responding more to your comment I've attached. In writing "Kingdom of the Cults", there was careful attention paid to what is defined as a cult. Some of the things were:

• Members are only given certain secrets of the faith as they climb the hierarchy, so much of their doctrine is hidden from the typical members.
• Members of cults are strictly forbidden to leave. If one does, cults will dismiss them from their lives. This means that if you had a brother who converted from JW to Christianity, he would no longer exist to his own family who were till active in that cult.
• They are founded by a leader who has apparently been given some precious 1-on-1 time with the Lord or an angel, and they speak in authority over the entire church. No one is allowed to disagree.

While the RCC has some belief and practices Hanegraaff affirms are heretical, he doesn't believe they cross the line and become a "cult" by definition. I can respect that. They don't meet the three points listed above. This might be the last post I make on this thread. I don't like to go on and on defending him. I just listen, and find myself seeing his interpretations in scripture.

Well, even though the RCC does absolutely fulfill those 3 points, why don't we have a look at an unbiased dictionary definition of cult rather than using the definition written by the guy that we are examining?

1.
a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
b. The followers of such a religion or sect.
2. A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
3. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual.
4. A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.
5.
a. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.
b. The object of such devotion.
6. An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest.

I think most will agree thats the RCC pretty much down to the letter.

 

[jasoncran]

With all due respect Fran, if you were a victim of that mind-altering brainwashing thats exactly the answer I'd expect.

having been in a cult, the rcc is no such thing.

trust me, i as a former jw who still to this day remember my "training" can say the rcc isnt one.

does the rcc allow you to learn from the outside world?
and think for yourself yes.

keep in mind that just because men or a group have traditions and keep them doesnt mean that they are a cult.

if so,

all martial arts are cults to include precious mma.

and add sports as well.

 

[Strangelove]

having been in a cult, the rcc is no such thing.

trust me, i as a former jw who still to this day remember my "training" can say the rcc isnt one.

does the rcc allow you to learn from the outside world?
and think for yourself yes.

keep in mind that just because men or a group have traditions and keep them doesnt mean that they are a cult.

if so,

all martial arts are cults to include precious mma.

and add sports as well.

It all depends on whether the group fulfills the general defintions of a cult.

Sports? Well, actually...I've definatley seen fans of certain football teams developing into cults. With veneration for their team and having authoritarian leaders and certain initiation rituals involved.

A 'cult' doesn't have to be the Hollwood version of the term.

 

[francisdesales]

Well, even though the RCC does absolutely fulfill those 3 points, why don't we have a look at an unbiased dictionary definition of cult rather than using the definition written by the guy that we are examining?

1.
a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
b. The followers of such a religion or sect.
2. A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
3. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual.
4. A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.
5.
a. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.
b. The object of such devotion.
6. An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest.

I think most will agree thats the RCC pretty much down to the letter.

I'm sure if I knew enough about you, I could twist your life into that definition, as well...

Just for starters:

One could consider yourself to be the authoritative and charismatic leader of your own "cult of one", who has a "faddish" or "ritualistic" expression of drinking his coffee or eating your bran muffin while reading the bible, a "ritualistic expression". Naturally, we would presume that you have a devoted veneration of yourself and your proclaimed wisdom, the object of devotion, given some of your posts. And finally, being a church of one, it consists of an exclusive group sharing an esoteric interest in black and white movies on nuclear warfare.

People who know or have experienced a cult first hand would never claim that the Catholic Church is a cult. The very proof of that is that people are free to come and go. Try that as a member of a cult.

Regards

 

[Strangelove]

I'm sure if I knew enough about you, I could twist your life into that definition, as well...

Just for starters:

One could consider yourself to be the authoritative and charismatic leader of your own "cult of one", who has a "faddish" or "ritualistic" expression of drinking his coffee or eating your bran muffin while reading the bible, a "ritualistic expression". Naturally, we would presume that you have a devoted veneration of yourself and your proclaimed wisdom, the object of devotion, given some of your posts. And finally, being a church of one, it consists of an exclusive group sharing an esoteric interest in black and white movies on nuclear warfare.

You cant have a cult of one Franny. And it needs to be religiously inclined not about coffee and movies bud.

People who know or have experienced a cult first hand would never claim that the Catholic Church is a cult. The very proof of that is that people are free to come and go. Try that as a member of a cult.

Where in the definition does it say cult members are not free to come and go? Thats not a prerequisite of a cult.

Thats just the Hollywood version of a cult. Indeed, the most effective and biggest cults are subtle.