Apologetics: What type of church is this?

[evangelist6589]

My book on the cults by Ron Rhodes arrived yesterday and he names many different groups and differs between New Age, New thought, Christian Science, and Religious science. So I am trying to figure out where this church would fall.

http://www.milehichurch.org

I do not think they are New Age as that would describe one of these Scientology places, nor do I think they are Christian Science, so is this a religious science, or a New Thought church? I can't tell the difference.

 

[DHK]

My book on the cults by Ron Rhodes arrived yesterday and he names many different groups and differs between New Age, New thought, Christian Science, and Religious science. So I am trying to figure out where this church would fall.

http://www.milehichurch.org

I do not think they are New Age as that would describe one of these Scientology places, nor do I think they are Christian Science, so is this a religious science, or a New Thought church? I can't tell the difference.

Its history:

A spiritual beacon in Colorado since 1960

It all started in the sales auditorium of a vacuum store. The on West Colfax, to be exact. There were 17 adults and even more children. This group of visionaries began meeting on January 18, 1959 as a study group, learning and embracing the Science of Mind and Spirit principles. Just over a year later, on March 14, 1960, Mile Hi Church was officially recognized as an affiliated church with the Church of Religious Science. Rev. Roger Miller, a local youth pastor and a favorite with the teens in the group, was Mile Hi’s first minister. It was the beginning of an incredible story that illustrates the power of committed individuals with a vision!

There is not a word about Jesus or Christ anywhere, not even in the statement of faith. It doesn't fall under the umbrella of Christendom.

 

[evangelist6589]

Its history:



There is not a word about Jesus or Christ anywhere, not even in the statement of faith. It doesn't fall under the umbrella of Christendom.

It's a cult but which one? I may need to read the Rhodes chapters twice. If not a cult its a new religion.

 

[matt wade]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Science

 

[evangelist6589]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Science

Thanks Matt.

 

[Yeshua1]

My book on the cults by Ron Rhodes arrived yesterday and he names many different groups and differs between New Age, New thought, Christian Science, and Religious science. So I am trying to figure out where this church would fall.

http://www.milehichurch.org

I do not think they are New Age as that would describe one of these Scientology places, nor do I think they are Christian Science, so is this a religious science, or a New Thought church? I can't tell the difference.

Combo of modern Christian Science and ba hai faith, as they teach metaphysical realiites, and that all faiths led to same place!

 

[evangelist6589]

Combo of modern Christian Science and ba hai faith, as they teach metaphysical realiites, and that all faiths led to same place!

Trying to decide how to address these kinds of churches and I use different arguments and different tracts for different churches. I imagine a apologetics defense of Christianity concluding with a good person test would be best for them.

I trust solely in Gods election in that only He grants faith and repentance to the elect so it's not like my argument and tracts will persuade anyone. But I do believe God is glorified when we try and persuade people and preach repentance and the full gospel.

Those that preach and use simple gospel tracts that hardly touch on sin and get lots of decisions I think hurt the cause.

 

[PreachTony]

From their website

...that the basic principles of Science of Mind and Spirit are Love and Law.
...that there is only one power, the power of Love which is the power of God, and that there is an all-powerful Law that responds to our thinking.

The Law does not respond to our thinking. Our thinking was supposed to respond to the Law. The Law is presented as God's direction to mankind. It was not meant for man to try to change God's Law. Of course, Grace worked wonders for us in that respect.

...that Spirit is the Source of our ever flowing, unlimited good and Its nature is to give. But it can only give as much as we are open to receiving. This is the spiritual Law of Attraction.

Humans have "unlimited good"? No, no we don't. While not all of us hold to Calvin's Total Depravity in the TULIP sense, we do admit that man has a sin nature and is more given to sin than to righteousness. Even man's best attempt at righteousness is nothing more than a filthy rag to God.

...that there is a Golden Thread of Spiritual Truth that weaves through the world’s Faith traditions. That among these threads of truth we understand the Oneness of God is found in Its creation, that the power of Love heals, and that we live, move and have our very being in pure Spirit. Because of this we blend the rich and diverse experiences of spiritual tradition to honor the many paths to God.

Per Romans 1:19-25
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

There is no spiritual thread. Mankind has seen the truths of God in nature, but they denied God and set up for themselves mythologies and rituals. This is not spiritual truth, but is instead an abject denial of God.

For the record, Joel Osteen has said there is only one path to God, which is Jesus, but there are many paths to Jesus. So much for that bit where Jesus said "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him" (John 6:44) and "no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" (John 14:6).

...that this philosophy is a “science” since it is based on spiritual laws. Just as there are natural laws of physics which govern the physical world, there are spiritual laws that control our lives. These principles are as impersonal as gravity and electricity and whether we are aware or not, we are using them constantly.
...through this teaching, we make intentional and constructive use of spiritual principles and thus we are set free.
...that every person is a magnificent expression of the Spirit – the One Life – and that each is endowed with unique qualities, gifts and talents for life expression and for making a difference in this world. As our logo symbolizes, we are each spiritual beings on a pathway of ever greater spiritual self-realization … that we are here to “stand forth and shine!”

My response to this nonsense: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShwM7gBGjWs

 

[Yeshua1]

From their website


The Law does not respond to our thinking. Our thinking was supposed to respond to the Law. The Law is presented as God's direction to mankind. It was not meant for man to try to change God's Law. Of course, Grace worked wonders for us in that respect.



Humans have "unlimited good"? No, no we don't. While not all of us hold to Calvin's Total Depravity in the TULIP sense, we do admit that man has a sin nature and is more given to sin than to righteousness. Even man's best attempt at righteousness is nothing more than a filthy rag to God.



Per Romans 1:19-25
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

There is no spiritual thread. Mankind has seen the truths of God in nature, but they denied God and set up for themselves mythologies and rituals. This is not spiritual truth, but is instead an abject denial of God.

For the record, Joel Osteen has said there is only one path to God, which is Jesus, but there are many paths to Jesus. So much for that bit where Jesus said "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him" (John 6:44) and "no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" (John 14:6).



My response to this nonsense: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShwM7gBGjWs

Joel Olsteen would then be wrong on this, as he is on most of his theology!

 

[evangelist6589]

From their website





The Law does not respond to our thinking. Our thinking was supposed to respond to the Law. The Law is presented as God's direction to mankind. It was not meant for man to try to change God's Law. Of course, Grace worked wonders for us in that respect.







Humans have "unlimited good"? No, no we don't. While not all of us hold to Calvin's Total Depravity in the TULIP sense, we do admit that man has a sin nature and is more given to sin than to righteousness. Even man's best attempt at righteousness is nothing more than a filthy rag to God.







Per Romans 1:19-25

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.



There is no spiritual thread. Mankind has seen the truths of God in nature, but they denied God and set up for themselves mythologies and rituals. This is not spiritual truth, but is instead an abject denial of God.



For the record, Joel Osteen has said there is only one path to God, which is Jesus, but there are many paths to Jesus. So much for that bit where Jesus said "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him" (John 6:44) and "no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" (John 14:6).







My response to this nonsense: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShwM7gBGjWs

Good post. You give me good ideas on what to say to them.

 

[evangelist6589]

Joel Olsteen would then be wrong on this, as he is on most of his theology!

I am not sure if Osteen is a heretic. I know he is no question a false teacher, but his church teaches the essentials of the faith which baffles me. These charismatic are very confused on many doctrines but not sure yet if I can place them at the same level as this church.

Just sent a letter to a charismatic church with a rebuke. But I did not say if they were not saved. Very different tone than my letter to a universalist church where I told the pastor she would burn in hell without Christ.

 

[Yeshua1]

I am not sure if Osteen is a heretic. I know he is no question a false teacher, but his church teaches the essentials of the faith which baffles me. These charismatic are very confused on many doctrines but not sure yet if I can place them at the same level as this church.

Just sent a letter to a charismatic church with a rebuke. But I did not say if they were not saved. Very different tone than my letter to a universalist church where I told the pastor she would burn in hell without Christ.

He would be part of those seeing Jesus as being One to "write our own ticket to God with", so would see him as being a false teacher, or someone saved but really duped and deluded into bad doctrines!

And a good read on modern Charasnmatic movement is the book by Dr macArthur, Charasmatic chaos...

 

[JonC]

I am not sure if Osteen is a heretic. QUOTE]

I am (sure that Osteen is a heretic...not that I am one myself).

 

[PreachTony]

I am not sure if Osteen is a heretic. I know he is no question a false teacher, but his church teaches the essentials of the faith which baffles me. These charismatic are very confused on many doctrines but not sure yet if I can place them at the same level as this church.

Just sent a letter to a charismatic church with a rebuke. But I did not say if they were not saved. Very different tone than my letter to a universalist church where I told the pastor she would burn in hell without Christ.

I don't really call him a "heretic," but that's mostly because I'm not one to throw that word around. He is, most definitely, a false teacher. He is one of those that Philippians 3:18-19 calls "(For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.)"

I don't have a problem calling Osteen an enemy of the cross of Christ.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Can you take a look at their books....just bet you they are tremendously profitable. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[JonC]

Can you take a look at their books....just bet you they are tremendously profitable. :smilewinkgrin:

They are tremendously profitable....for Osteen :smilewinkgrin:.

BTW, I always thought that if you taught heresy you were a heretic. Now you're just a fella who happens to teach wrong ideas.

 

[JonC]

I don't really call him a "heretic,"

I don't think anyone really calls people heretics anymore. It's a word reserved for studying Church history and posting on Christian forums. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[PreachTony]

I don't think anyone really calls people heretics anymore. It's a word reserved for studying Church history and posting on Christian forums. :smilewinkgrin:

Especially considering my long history in small backwoods churches in the northeast Georgia mountains...you don't hear the word "heretic" thrown around all that often.