Is the RCC a cult?

[reformed_baptist]

Christianity is the very group which distinguishes which of the other groups are cults or not.

How so? From where do we get such authority?

It is not a cult, in any sense of the word.

Merriam-Webster, I. (2003). Merriam-Webster’s collegiate dictionary. (Eleventh ed.). Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, Inc. defines a cult as:

cult \ˈkəlt\ noun
often attributive [French & Latin; French culte, from Latin cultus care, adoration, from colere to cultivate—more at WHEEL] 1617
1: formal religious veneration: WORSHIP
2: a system of religious beliefs and ritual also: its body of adherents
3: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious also: its body of adherents
4: a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator 〈health cults〉
5 a: great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book) especially: such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad
b: the object of such devotion
c: a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion—cul•tic \ˈkəl-tik\ adjective—cult•ish \-tish\ adjective—cult•ish•ly \-lē\ adverb—cult•ish•ness \-nəs\ noun—cult•ism \ˈkəl-ˌti-zəm\ noun—cult•ist \ˈkəl-tist\ noun—cult•like \-ˌlīk\ adjective

I would say that Christianity fits very neatly in meaning 2

Particularly in the context it is understood in a discussion like this.

And that is my point - this thread is using the word in respect of those who claim to be christian, but who we disagree with it - that isn't what makes a cult!

We are not "merely a social group," we are a Body created by the salvific effort of God which steps outside of the temporal and physical, and deals in the Eternal and Spiritual.

I'm not denying any of that - and I am not denying that the catholic religion contains great errors - but wouldn't they say the same thing of themselves?

God bless.

And you

 

[Darrell C]

Darrell C said: ↑

Christianity is the very group which distinguishes which of the other groups are cults or not.

How so? From where do we get such authority?

From God, of course.

There is no other group on the face of the earth that is...legitimate.

A "cult" denotes what is not authentic or accepted as being part of the group it claims to be associated with (i.e., Mormons, JWs, etc.).

It is not a cult, in any sense of the word.


Merriam-Webster, I. (2003). Merriam-Webster’s collegiate dictionary. (Eleventh ed.). Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, Inc. defines a cult as:

cult \ˈkəlt\ noun
often attributive [French & Latin; French culte, from Latin cultus care, adoration, from colere to cultivate—more at WHEEL] 1617
1: formal religious veneration: WORSHIP
2: a system of religious beliefs and ritual also: its body of adherents
3: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious also: its body of adherents
4: a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator 〈health cults〉
5 a: great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book) especially: such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad
b: the object of such devotion
c: a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion—cul•tic \ˈkəl-tik\ adjective—cult•ish \-tish\ adjective—cult•ish•ly \-lē\ adverb—cult•ish•ness \-nəs\ noun—cult•ism \ˈkəl-ˌti-zəm\ noun—cult•ist \ˈkəl-tist\ noun—cult•like \-ˌlīk\ adjective

I would say that Christianity fits very neatly in meaning 2

Buddhists have formal religious veneration, but that isn't relevant as to whether Christianity is a cult or not.

Atheists have a system of religious beliefs and ritual, and adherents who embrace them, but that is not relevant as to whether Christianity is a cult or not.

Catholics view everyone unorthodox and spurious...but that is not relevant to whether Christianity is a cult or not.

As I said, it is Christianity that sets the standard by which a group is considered a cult, and in large part that is based on what Scripture (also the singular authentic revelation) teaches Chrsitianity actually is.

Particularly in the context it is understood in a discussion like this.

And that is my point - this thread is using the word in respect of those who claim to be christian, but who we disagree with it - that isn't what makes a cult!

That is the primary meaning for the word, for, who other groups consider a cult is not really relevant to the discussion.

We are not "merely a social group," we are a Body created by the salvific effort of God which steps outside of the temporal and physical, and deals in the Eternal and Spiritual.

I'm not denying any of that - and I am not denying that the catholic religion contains great errors - but wouldn't they say the same thing of themselves?

Not sure I understand the question. If you mean they see themselves as the standard by which others are judged cults, yes, of course. And while we acknowledge their error, we also have to consider that within the Catholic Church there are certainly members of the Body of Christ. As they say, "Even the blind dog finds the water bowl from time to time."

Catholicism is recognized as a Christian group by most, and would not be determined to be a cult because it is a Christian group.

Erroneous in numerous doctrines, to be sure, but, when you can find me one group that does not contain errors, and, errors that could be viewed as equally erroneous, and to some, damning, then point out that group to me.

I will join today.



Most, when they are saved, are woefully ignorant of Doctrine, and have a grasp on the basics. But, we should remember that the Gospel is basic, for salvation is not achieved through intellect, but by grace through faith.

Think about Peter. Walked with the Lord for three years, yet was still a racist after being born again and indwelt by the Spirit. At the very least, he was fearful and a respecter of persons. We know he played the hypocrite.

And I have spoken to many Catholics, and they are very diverse in how they understand certain Catholic Doctrines. So we need to be careful about making the error of putting those in a group in the same box, and thinking they are unified in their beliefs. You won't see it among Baptists, why would you expect it of Catholics?

God bless.

And you

Thanks!

You guys have a blessed day.


God bless.

 

[reformed_baptist]

A "cult" denotes what is not authentic or accepted as being part of the group it claims to be associated with (i.e., Mormons, JWs, etc.).

I understand that is how you are using it, but is that what the word actually means? By that I mean to say can you provide lexical support for your understanding:

I provided a fairly well respected dictionary's definition that says something very different - here it is again:

cult \ˈkəlt\ noun
often attributive [French & Latin; French culte, from Latin cultus care, adoration, from colere to cultivate—more at WHEEL] 1617
1: formal religious veneration: WORSHIP
2: a system of religious beliefs and ritual also: its body of adherents
3: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious also: its body of adherents
4: a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator 〈health cults〉
5 a: great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book) especially: such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad
b: the object of such devotion
c: a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion—cul•tic \ˈkəl-tik\ adjective—cult•ish \-tish\ adjective—cult•ish•ly \-lē\ adverb—cult•ish•ness \-nəs\ noun—cult•ism \ˈkəl-ˌti-zəm\ noun—cult•ist \ˈkəl-tist\ noun—cult•like \-ˌlīk\ adjective
[Merriam-Webster, I. (2003). Merriam-Webster’s collegiate dictionary. (Eleventh ed.). Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, Inc.]

Now, certainly you might be able to argue that what you are saying fits under point 3, but can you honestly say that Christianity is not a system of religious beliefs and ritual (point 2)?

My only point here is that defining anything as 'a cult' is pretty much meaningless in relation to what this thread is trying to unpack.

 

[Vizio]

So if you and I discuss Biblical Doctrine, and either of us finds that the other holds to that which is not Biblical Doctrine...then we are going to Hell?

John 3:16-18. Those that believe have eternal life. Those that don't are condemned already. Ultimately, it comes down to what we believe about Jesus. How does that work? Ephesians 1-2 says it's all God -- he predestines us the beginning, and gives us faith as a gift. Those that believe and adhere to RCC teachings show evidence that they do not have that faith.

The singular point I have tried to make, Vizio, is that despite the fact that the Catholic Church teaches error, and even heresy (as practiced by its members (not all Catholics believe the same way, just as not all Baptists believe the same way)), we still have a human element that we have to deal with, which, in large part, focuses on the differences of belief among members of the Catholic Church.

But, I will go so far to say that I do not, at all, think God is going to send a Catholic to Hell because he/she prays to "saints," or "worships" Mary, or believes they are eating Christ flesh or drinking His blood at Communion. The reason I do not believe that is because men are not saved by what they do.

They are saved by what Christ has done.

As long as they embrace the basics (which I have had numerous Catholics I have witnessed to affirm), which essentially means they are trusting the Sacrifice of Christ for their eternal salvation, then what happens within their salvation is a matter of judgment concerning reward (or loss thereof).

Again...I'm in agreement. I think we are on the same page here.

If we concede that there are members of the Catholic Church that are saved, then we ask how it is they are saved. And just as you will find Baptists that teach doctrine that is distinguishably not Baptist (i.e., Soul Sleep, Annihilation, Pre-Existing spirits, etc.), which is a result of a member taking the teachings he has received and personalizing it (as most do), even so you are going to find Catholics that do not "worship Mary (or even greatly venerate her), do not embrace Transubstantiation, pray to saints or statues.

Evangelism is always a process that involves direct witness technique, we don't evangelize groups (generally). There are those whose ministries target groups, but we have to speak to people...one person at a time.

And even then, it is not ourselves that "save" them, but it is the individual's response to the convicting ministry of the Comforter, and it is to God, not the witness, that is turned to.

Now we ask, when we come into a public forum and make derisive comments about Catholics, just how much chance is there that a Catholic is going to come here to discuss Doctrine? What is more likely to happen, and we see it regularly on forums, is we get an offended Catholic who is here just to "set us straight," lol.

So if we want to discuss the errors of Catholicism, then we must present an arena where Catholics will feel comfortable coming, and then we can get down to the work.

And, sorry, did not mean to go on so long.


God bless.[/QUOTE]

It's all good. I just had this discussion a few nights ago with a woman whose husband goes to a Catholic church. I told her it's Jesus--what we believe about him. I believe that there are Catholics that are saved because of their faith in Jesus -- and they may not realize that their beliefs are wrong.

But if a Catholic believes official RCC doctrine -- that God infuses us with grace that enables us to do meritorious good works, then it's not saving faith that God grants.

 

[Darrell C]

I understand that is how you are using it, but is that what the word actually means? By that I mean to say can you provide lexical support for your understanding:

I provided a fairly well respected dictionary's definition that says something very different - here it is again:

cult \ˈkəlt\ noun
often attributive [French & Latin; French culte, from Latin cultus care, adoration, from colere to cultivate—more at WHEEL] 1617
1: formal religious veneration: WORSHIP
2: a system of religious beliefs and ritual also: its body of adherents
3: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious also: its body of adherents
4: a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator 〈health cults〉
5 a: great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book) especially: such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad
b: the object of such devotion
c: a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion—cul•tic \ˈkəl-tik\ adjective—cult•ish \-tish\ adjective—cult•ish•ly \-lē\ adverb—cult•ish•ness \-nəs\ noun—cult•ism \ˈkəl-ˌti-zəm\ noun—cult•ist \ˈkəl-tist\ noun—cult•like \-ˌlīk\ adjective
[Merriam-Webster, I. (2003). Merriam-Webster’s collegiate dictionary. (Eleventh ed.). Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, Inc.]

And I provided examples of why we do not define with a secular dictionary:

Buddhists have formal religious veneration, but that isn't relevant as to whether Christianity is a cult or not.

Atheists have a system of religious beliefs and ritual, and adherents who embrace them, but that is not relevant as to whether Christianity is a cult or not.

Catholics view everyone unorthodox and spurious...but that is not relevant to whether Christianity is a cult or not.

As I said, it is Christianity that sets the standard by which a group is considered a cult, and in large part that is based on what Scripture (also the singular authentic revelation) teaches Chrsitianity actually is.

The rest of the definition...

4: a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator 〈health cults〉
5 a: great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book) especially: such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad
b: the object of such devotion
c: a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

...still fits with what is not relevant to Christianity itself.

The point is that there is only one Christianity, that is, that which is taught in Scripture. Most groups do not adhere with a flawless Theology or Practice, but, when it comes to a cult, we don't usually define a group as a cult based on errors in that group, because all have them, which would, if we apply "cult" under that understanding, would support your proposal, which would, in my view, negate that there is a Christianity which can be practiced Biblically.

Now, certainly you might be able to argue that what you are saying fits under point 3, but can you honestly say that Christianity is not a system of religious beliefs and ritual (point 2)?

Yes, because Christianity is a result, not an effort. It is relationship to and with God, not the result of efforts of men.

One can be a Christian without ever setting foot into a building in which organized worship takes place. One can be a Christian based on one thing, and that is that they have been born again through responding to the Ministry of God in their hearts, rather than responding to the ministry of men in evangelical efforts. And I am not implying or precluding the importance of how God uses men in these efforts, just pointing out that becoming and remaining a Christian has nothing to do with "religious" beliefs or ritual, because "Religion" is antithetical to Christianity, and ritual is not a factor of salvation (which is what Christianity is).

That is in fact one of the worst offenses we see in the Catholic Church, the implication that religious activity and ritual contribute to salvation. It leads men astray from what God means to teach us in His Word.

My only point here is that defining anything as 'a cult' is pretty much meaningless in relation to what this thread is trying to unpack.

Not really. When it is asked whether they are a cult, most are going to use "cult" in it's typical meaning. To generalize what "cult" means is not what most are doing in their responses, but rather, they use it as we normally use the word in our culture.

My own definition and designating of a cult is thus: anyone who perverts the Biblical Record of Who Jesus Christ is.

There is no Christianity apart from Christ.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

John 3:16-18. Those that believe have eternal life. Those that don't are condemned already. Ultimately, it comes down to what we believe about Jesus. How does that work? Ephesians 1-2 says it's all God -- he predestines us the beginning, and gives us faith as a gift.

I don't look at it exactly like that, but rather that faith is just one result of the Ministry of God in the hearts of men. God enlightens men to the truth, and the response that is generated comes from men, it is not supplied by God. That refers to both receiving as well as rejecting Christ.

God has, from the beginning, given man revelation of truth and demanded obedience, and, being Just, He has always judged men according to their understanding of that revelation (though judged obedience and disobedience just the same).

Now, we know that Abraham was justified...by works. And we know that Christians are called to good works. So the logical conclusion is that Christians...will do good works. And while Catholic Doctrine (as well as much Protestant and Evangelical Doctrine) blurs the lines, and encourages a legalistic mentality, the problem is not really whether we will do good works, the problem is not understanding salvation itself.

We have to leave the truth, that God is wholly Sovereign in salvation, intact. And the sad fact is that most believe "saved by grace through faith," but, teach "saved by faith through grace."

Faith, again, is a result of Sovereign God making the natural man aware of truth, and that faith is not supplied by GOd, but generated by God. In other words, except for His Own intervention, men would remain blind to the truth.

Those that believe and adhere to RCC teachings show evidence that they do not have that faith.

So would we say that those who adhere to the Church of Christ's Baptismal Regeneration evidence they do not have faith?

I would not agree with that.

Again...everyone is wrong about something, and to what extent they are wrong, or the significance of the Doctrine they err in, is diverse.

I personally think that understanding about Regeneration is one of the most confused Doctrines there is, and that this is an Essential Doctrine in regards to a proper interpretation of Scripture. But that doesn't mean I think people can't be saved because they misunderstand this important issue.

It's all good. I just had this discussion a few nights ago with a woman whose husband goes to a Catholic church. I told her it's Jesus--what we believe about him. I believe that there are Catholics that are saved because of their faith in Jesus -- and they may not realize that their beliefs are wrong.

I like to say it like this: "There are people who do not know enough about the group they are part of to be either saved or damned."

The fact is most are nominal in their beliefs, and seldom get beyond the basics. Those who frequent forums stand apart from the norm, and are people I believe God has blessed in areas of the Word. Few read their Bibles, and even fewer...study their Bibles.

But if a Catholic believes official RCC doctrine

You mean like "Baptists believing official Baptist Doctrine?" lol

Everyone in the Baptist Forum here claims to be a Baptist, so explain how we have "Baptists" teaching soul sleep or annihilation? These are doctrines of cults, and no Baptist group I know of teaches these doctrines.

The point is that few are even aware of what their group...actually teaches. That's a little different here, because most here are specific to the type of Baptist they are.

that God infuses us with grace that enables us to do meritorious good works

You do not believe it is the grace of God which enables us to do works which are not dead works?

I certainly do, and consider anything I have, or will accomplish that has any eternal value to be credited to the Spirit of God that indwells me. His leading, His guiding, His instruction.

en it's not saving faith that God grants.

The simple fact is that one can be saved and in error. Most of us are "saved" in one group or another, sit under their teaching, and then seek (as the teachers do) to verify that teaching with Scripture (proof-texting, basically). And the thought that the group we were saved in might not be accurate in their doctrine goes against the human nature, because certainly God would not save them in a group that is in error, right?

Go down to "Other Denominations," we frequently have Catholics that want to debate doctrine, and usually it is defense of the Catholic Faith, rather than a sincere study of the Word. You might be surprised as to how some of them believe. One example might be "the veneration/worship of Mary," where, because the thought that all Catholics view Mary as "the Queen of Heaven," the opposing side goes to the extreme of actually despising Mary.

So I will conclude with just reiterating evangelical process is a one on one effort on our part, and we do little good simply vilifying people without addressing the Doctrine we disagree with.

Keep it doctrinal, make the Word of God central to authenticating Doctrine, and it will be far more enjoyable.


God bless.

 

[reformed_baptist]

And I provided examples of why we do not define with a secular dictionary:

Did you

I saw where you said, this isn't a cult and that isn't a cult - but actually by the dictionary definition they all are!

Know please don't take this the wrong way - but I believe we are both English speakers as such we use English words, words that have meanings - it doesn't matter is the dictionary is secular it still contains the definitions of a term - who are to redefine words at will and how can we expect communicate if words are invested with our own private meanings - it is hard enough not to talk right past as it is - but when the words I use mean something different to you what hope do we have of ever communicating meaningfully?

The point is that there is only one Christianity, that is, that which is taught in Scripture. Most groups do not adhere with a flawless Theology or Practice,

No group does!

but, when it comes to a cult, we don't usually define a group as a cult based on errors in that group, because all have them, which would, if we apply "cult" under that understanding, would support your proposal, which would, in my view, negate that there is a Christianity which can be practiced Biblically.

I'm sorry that makes no sense because you are still applying that sense of 'error' to the word cult as if it is fundamental to the term, when the dictionary clearly says it isn't

Yes, because Christianity is a result, not an effort. It is relationship to and with God, not the result of efforts of men.

Irrelevant to the point - Christianity is defined by a set of shared beliefs and practices. The fact that we enter into Christianity by grace, through faith, and not effort is not being disputed, but at the same time that dsitinction does not contradict point two.

One can be a Christian without ever setting foot into a building in which organized worship takes place. One can be a Christian based on one thing, and that is that they have been born again through responding to the Ministry of God in their hearts, rather than responding to the ministry of men in evangelical efforts. And I am not implying or precluding the importance of how God uses men in these efforts, just pointing out that becoming and remaining a Christian has nothing to do with "religious" beliefs or ritual, because "Religion" is antithetical to Christianity, and ritual is not a factor of salvation (which is what Christianity is).

I guess you don't have James in your bible then!

With all due respect brother the religion/ faith distinction might be one of those things that preaches well by a little critical thought reveals it weakness - not only does James teach us what our religion should look like (James 1:26-27) - again returning to the same dictionary we read this in regards to 'religion':

"a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"

Again Christianity fits that description!

As for ritual being a factor in salvation - again it appears that your objections are down to your reading things into what is being that simply are not there - where did the definition state that? It simply said:

"a system of religious beliefs and ritual"

We have a system of belief (religion) eg, the trinity, the hypostatic union etc and we have ritual - prayer, the Lord's table, Baptism - whether all this comes about as a result of divine grace, or weather it is all of us makes absolutely no difference in regards to this definition.

That is in fact one of the worst offenses we see in the Catholic Church, the implication that religious activity and ritual contribute to salvation. It leads men astray from what God means to teach us in His Word.

Agreed, but not relevant as far as i can tell

Not really. When it is asked whether they are a cult, most are going to use "cult" in it's typical meaning.

One of it's typical meanings - the word has a semantic range.

To generalize what "cult" means is not what most are doing in their responses, but rather, they use it as we normally use the word in our culture.

Our cultures must be very different.

My own definition and designating of a cult is thus: anyone who perverts the Biblical Record of Who Jesus Christ is.

How then can we communicate - how do I know that any of the words I am using mean to you what I intend them to mean?

There is no Christianity apart from Christ.

Again, I agree, but I don't see the point. To be clear I am not arguing about who is right and who is wrong in their system of beliefs - I am trying to discuss the meaning of words - to call something 'a cult' is not the same as saying 'they are wrong,' However I have said my piece and I see no need to continue the dispute

 

[Darrell C]

Did you

I saw where you said, this isn't a cult and that isn't a cult - but actually by the dictionary definition they all are!

I did...twice.



Listen to what you are saying: "Christianity can be called a cult."

And it simply cannot be, because it is the genuine article by which a cult is identified.

Know please don't take this the wrong way - but I believe we are both English speakers as such we use English words, words that have meanings - it doesn't matter is the dictionary is secular it still contains the definitions of a term - who are to redefine words at will and how can we expect communicate if words are invested with our own private meanings - it is hard enough not to talk right past as it is - but when the words I use mean something different to you what hope do we have of ever communicating meaningfully?

So if we use a secular dictionary for "seat," can we exegete Scripture with it?

Not sure why you would argue that "cult" is not viewed to refer to a false group pretending to associate with Christianity.

No group does!

Agreed.

I'm sorry that makes no sense because you are still applying that sense of 'error' to the word cult as if it is fundamental to the term, when the dictionary clearly says it isn't

You don't think devotion to food is not error? lol

Yes, because Christianity is a result, not an effort. It is relationship to and with God, not the result of efforts of men.

Irrelevant to the point -

It is the point.

Your definition speak of religious effort, shared doctrine, etc. So what those who say they are saved do is not relevant to how Christianity begins in the life of an individual. In other words, the witness who shared the Gospel did not "save" the individual, nor perform the enlightening and convicting work of the Spirit of God.

So when we have a cult teaching false doctrine (i.e., you are saved by works, being baptized, etc.), we don't expect those efforts to result in Christianity in the life of the individual.

Christianity is defined by a set of shared beliefs and practices.

So is atheism. And that is not relevant to whether Christianity is a cult.

The fact that we enter into Christianity by grace, through faith, and not effort is not being disputed, but at the same time that dsitinction does not contradict point two.

Agreed, we are not debating salvation by grace through faith...

...we are debating whether Christianity can be called a cult.

I guess you don't have James in your bible then!

I do, and it does not change the fact that Christianity is not a cult.

Now many cults take James teachings and pervert them, and teach a works-based salvation.

With all due respect brother the religion/ faith distinction might be one of those things that preaches well by a little critical thought reveals it weakness - not only does James teach us what our religion should look like (James 1:26-27) -

Well, all sound Doctrine preaches well.

The efforts within our salvation are irrelevant to both salvation itself (how Christianity comes about) as well as the focus of our discussion, which is...

...whether Christianity can be called a cult.

It cannot be, but is the standard which identifies what a cult is.

again returning to the same dictionary we read this in regards to 'religion':

"a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"

Again Christianity fits that description!

Relevance?

We are not discussing whether Christianity can be classified as a religion (though it has come up), but whether it can be determined a cult.

As for ritual being a factor in salvation - again it appears that your objections are down to your reading things into what is being that simply are not there - where did the definition state that? It simply said:

"a system of religious beliefs and ritual"

I did not read it into the quote from the dictionary, RB, I simply took it from what you said:

reformed_baptist said: ↑

Now, certainly you might be able to argue that what you are saying fits under point 3, but can you honestly say that Christianity is not a system of religious beliefs and ritual (point 2)?

We have a system of belief (religion) eg, the trinity, the hypostatic union etc and we have ritual - prayer, the Lord's table, Baptism - whether all this comes about as a result of divine grace, or weather it is all of us makes absolutely no difference in regards to this definition.

Perhaps your performance as a Christian is ritualistic, I do not view my own to be. I pray when it is necessary, not because it is a certain time of the day (which I am sure, if you thought about it, is how you do it as well).

And I agree, all of this is irrelevant as to whether Christianity can be considered a cult. I doubt seriously you will get one person here to agree with you. Or anywhere, for that matter.

Agreed, but not relevant as far as i can tell

It is relevant in regards to your statement:


reformed_baptist said: ↑

Now, certainly you might be able to argue that what you are saying fits under point 3, but can you honestly say that Christianity is not a system of religious beliefs and ritual (point 2)?

One of it's typical meanings - the word has a semantic range.

The dictionary does not give us reason to conclude one can appropriately apply the word cult to Christianity.

Again, Atheism has ritual and doctrine, but would not be considered a cult, because it does not seek to associate with Christianity, but rather, distance itself from Christianity.

JWs and Mormons, though, would be considered a cult, because they depart from the teachings of Scripture.The fact that there may be found some areas of agreement doesn't change that fact.

Our cultures must be very different.

Sounds like it.

How then can we communicate - how do I know that any of the words I am using mean to you what I intend them to mean?

Just ask.

Doesn't change the fact that trying to understand a concept or teaching from Scripture by using a modern English Dictionary is one of the worst things one could do.

Again, I agree, but I don't see the point. To be clear I am not arguing about who is right and who is wrong in their system of beliefs - I am trying to discuss the meaning of words - to call something 'a cult' is not the same as saying 'they are wrong,' However I have said my piece and I see no need to continue the dispute

I am arguing who is right and wrong, lol, namely, that Christianity is the only genuine Faith by which all others are judged.

It is not a cult.

And by the way...thanks for the last word!




God bless.

 

[Robert William]

I think we have to be careful, technically Christianity is a cult - a cult is merely " a social group defined by their religious, spiritual, or philosophical beliefs, or common interest in a particular personality, object or goal"

Bottom line, if anybody rejects the crucifixion and bodily resurrection they will die in their sins and end up in the eternal lake of fire!

 

[Robert William]

I think we largely agree. I see you quoted Sproul..so I'm going to assume you lean toward a belief in the sovereignty of God in regards to salvation. I do, as well. I believe that ultimately it is God that saves. Having said that, those that believe the official RCC doctrine and practice what is taught, I believe go to hell and are not saved.

Your cult does NOT agree with you.


The Roman Catholic cult in their Catechism teaches that we can merit grace necessary for salvation and that eternal life is attained by baptism, sacraments, and keeping the commandments.

1. CCC 2010, "...Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life."

2. CCC 2027, "Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods."

3. CCC 2068, "The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them;28 the Second Vatican Council confirms: "The bishops, successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord . . . the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments."

This obviously faulty teaching in the CCC is hugely problematic since it contradicts Scripture.

1. Rom. 3:28-30, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one."

2. Rom. 4:3, "For what does the Scripture say? "And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness."

3. Rom. 4:5, "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness,"

4. Rom. 5:1, "therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ."

5. Rom. 11:6, "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace."

6. Gal. 2:16, "nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified."

We have to ask questions.

1. Why is the RCC teaching that you attain salvation through observing the commandments when the Bible says we are saved apart from the works of the Law (Rom. 3:28-30; 4:5; Gal. 2:16)?

2. Why would the Roman Catholic Church teach that you merit for yourself the grace needed for eternal life when that clearly contradicts Rom 11:6? See also Matt 7:21-23.

There is a great deal wrong with what the RCC teaches. We must look to God's word and not to what the RCC says we must do to be saved. Our salvation is not merited by our keeping the commandments! The Roman Catholic Church needs to repent.

 

[reformed_baptist]

Bottom line, if anybody rejects the crucifixion and bodily resurrection they will die in their sins and end up in the eternal lake of fire!

Agreed - but that isn't the definition of a cult!

 

[Darrell C]

Bottom line, if anybody rejects the crucifixion and bodily resurrection they will die in their sins and end up in the eternal lake of fire!

What happens if they think they must also perform good works in their walk with Christ? Do they end up in Hell?

3. CCC 2068, "The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them;28 the Second Vatican Council confirms: "The bishops, successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord . . . the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments."

Could you put back in what is missing, I'd like to see this in its full context.

But in the meantime, I would ask one question: can you, as a Christian...violate the Ten Commandments? Is not committing no murder in fact obligatory for Christians? I would agree with the first statement that justified men are still bound to keep them, and in fact keep them with a better understanding than the view held by those who were under Law (i.e., rather than not just committing the act of physical murder, but understanding hating one's brother without cause is also considered murder and to be avoided).

Not that we are saved by this, but, because they are principles that God has not changed his mind on.

But I agree with your statement:

Bottom line, if anybody rejects the crucifixion and bodily resurrection they will die in their sins and end up in the eternal lake of fire!

That is the bottom line. Most of the Doctrinal differences we see will be issues that impact reward (or the loss thereof), rather than one's salvation. I see little distinction between the legalistic Catholic and the Baptist that thinks if one stops going to Church they must not have been saved, lol. I think it was J. Vernon McGee whose wife use to cook Sunday Dinner on Saturday so she was not "working on the Sabbath." That type of mentality is something I have witnessed in numerous Baptists over the years. On a number of issues. perhaps one of the issues that could be said to dominate in a Baptist Arena is the matter of tithing: "If you say you have to 'keep the Law you are a heretic,' just remember...

...to make sure you tithe."




God bless.

 

[Vizio]

Your cult does NOT agree with you.


The Roman Catholic cult in their Catechism teaches that we can merit grace necessary for salvation and that eternal life is attained by baptism, sacraments, and keeping the commandments.

1. CCC 2010, "...Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life."

2. CCC 2027, "Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods."

3. CCC 2068, "The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them;28 the Second Vatican Council confirms: "The bishops, successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord . . . the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments."

This obviously faulty teaching in the CCC is hugely problematic since it contradicts Scripture.

1. Rom. 3:28-30, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one."

2. Rom. 4:3, "For what does the Scripture say? "And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness."

3. Rom. 4:5, "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness,"

4. Rom. 5:1, "therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ."

5. Rom. 11:6, "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace."

6. Gal. 2:16, "nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified."

We have to ask questions.

1. Why is the RCC teaching that you attain salvation through observing the commandments when the Bible says we are saved apart from the works of the Law (Rom. 3:28-30; 4:5; Gal. 2:16)?

2. Why would the Roman Catholic Church teach that you merit for yourself the grace needed for eternal life when that clearly contradicts Rom 11:6? See also Matt 7:21-23.

There is a great deal wrong with what the RCC teaches. We must look to God's word and not to what the RCC says we must do to be saved. Our salvation is not merited by our keeping the commandments! The Roman Catholic Church needs to repent.

Throughout this thread I have stated that the RCC is a false system. I have never suggested that it was not extremely problematic, and outright apostate. There is no question that the teachings of the RCC are flat out heretical.

But the question that I have asked is what is the definition of a cult? Is it simply a false belief system? Or is it something else?

 

[Yeshua1]

Being in error in Doctrine, particularly when it is doctrine one has been taught from a child (or from salvation, for that matter)...is not walking in darkness. It is simply a matter of being childish in the Lord. And the problem we see with all groups is that new converts are not taught to study...they are taught the teachings of whatever System of Theology is in view. And when someone dares to question the validity of the teachings of the ones in leadership over them, the natural tendency is to deny that those we trust might be wrong.

You, for example, have a habit of making derisive remarks about "dispys." And the fact is that most Dispensational Theology comes far closer to Biblical truth than many of the systems embraced by many here. So shall I consider you to be walking in darkness...because you have this fault?


God bless.

We are not talking about the necessity of learning more about the doctrines of the faith, we are facing in the Roman Church a false Gospel and other false doctrines that can not save sinners!

I am a tolerant calvinist, so do accept differing points of doctrine and disagreemnts, but Catholic church main doctrines come not from God...

and I am a Dispy, so why would I be making remarks on that?

 

[Yeshua1]

I do. Salvation is wholly the work of Holy God, man plays no part in it at all (from a spiritual/eternal perspective). It is true that man responds to the Gospel, which they are enlightened to only through the Ministry of the Comforter (for natural man apart from the enlightening of God cannot understand, nor receive the spiritual things of God), but, until God reveals the truth of their condition they are unaware that they are sinners, and that they need Christ.

So my usual statement is "The only free will man will ever exert in a salvific context is to...reject Christ." And that is the proclivity of natural man.



Wholly and fully. He reveals the truth to us in our natural state, and we do what every believer since Abel has done...we obey or disobey.

And what is significant in this Age is that God is revealing, through the Comforter, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which was not revealed to men in previous Eras.




So if you and I discuss Biblical Doctrine, and either of us finds that the other holds to that which is not Biblical Doctrine...then we are going to Hell?

The singular point I have tried to make, Vizio, is that despite the fact that the Catholic Church teaches error, and even heresy (as practiced by its members (not all Catholics believe the same way, just as not all Baptists believe the same way)), we still have a human element that we have to deal with, which, in large part, focuses on the differences of belief among members of the Catholic Church.

But, I will go so far to say that I do not, at all, think God is going to send a Catholic to Hell because he/she prays to "saints," or "worships" Mary, or believes they are eating Christ flesh or drinking His blood at Communion. The reason I do not believe that is because men are not saved by what they do.

They are saved by what Christ has done.

As long as they embrace the basics (which I have had numerous Catholics I have witnessed to affirm), which essentially means they are trusting the Sacrifice of Christ for their eternal salvation, then what happens within their salvation is a matter of judgment concerning reward (or loss thereof).

If we concede that there are members of the Catholic Church that are saved, then we ask how it is they are saved. And just as you will find Baptists that teach doctrine that is distinguishably not Baptist (i.e., Soul Sleep, Annihilation, Pre-Existing spirits, etc.), which is a result of a member taking the teachings he has received and personalizing it (as most do), even so you are going to find Catholics that do not "worship Mary (or even greatly venerate her), do not embrace Transubstantiation, pray to saints or statues.

Evangelism is always a process that involves direct witness technique, we don't evangelize groups (generally). There are those whose ministries target groups, but we have to speak to people...one person at a time.

And even then, it is not ourselves that "save" them, but it is the individual's response to the convicting ministry of the Comforter, and it is to God, not the witness, that is turned to.

Now we ask, when we come into a public forum and make derisive comments about Catholics, just how much chance is there that a Catholic is going to come here to discuss Doctrine? What is more likely to happen, and we see it regularly on forums, is we get an offended Catholic who is here just to "set us straight," lol.

So if we want to discuss the errors of Catholicism, then we must present an arena where Catholics will feel comfortable coming, and then we can get down to the work.

And, sorry, did not mean to go on so long.


God bless.

I am talking about the "official" viewpoints of the RCC, as in Council of Trent, and they do deny Grace alone faith alone, and do deny the full suffiency of the cross and the scriptures!

 

[Darrell C]

We are not talking about the necessity of learning more about the doctrines of the faith, we are facing in the Roman Church a false Gospel and other false doctrines that can not save sinners!

So do what I asked and present a Roman Catholic presentation of the Gospel and then present your own presentation of the Gospel.

Then we will know if we are talking about "the necessity of learning more about the Doctrines of The Faith.

I am a tolerant calvinist,

Yes, it shows, lol.

so do accept differing points of doctrine and disagreemnts,

Then we might consider you a waffler, right?

I do not accept differing points of Doctrine, because there is usually one truth in a two sided disagreement.

That's why it is a debate forum, don't you know...

but Catholic church main doctrines come not from God...

How very tolerant of you.

Still, you continue to miss the point.

and I am a Dispy, so why would I be making remarks on that?

You tell me.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

I am talking about the "official" viewpoints of the RCC, as in Council of Trent, and they do deny Grace alone faith alone, and do deny the full suffiency of the cross and the scriptures!

And I am talking about the actual members of the Catholic Faith, which is as diverse as Baptists are.

Not all Catholics deny the sufficiency of the Cross, just as not all Baptists believe tithing is a Christian practice.

That is the point you are missing.


God bless.

 

[Yeshua1]

And I am talking about the actual members of the Catholic Faith, which is as diverse as Baptists are.

Not all Catholics deny the sufficiency of the Cross, just as not all Baptists believe tithing is a Christian practice.

That is the point you are missing.


God bless.

I have always stated that there are saved Catholics, but they are saved DESPITE their xhurch false Gospel, and they should depart from there!

 

[Darrell C]

I have always stated that there are saved Catholics, but they are saved DESPITE their xhurch false Gospel, and they should depart from there!

And that is a point I have been making throughout the thread.

Another is if we are going to call them a cult based on the fact they have error...then we have to label every group out there a cult, the result being...no-one is left which can be viewed as a physical presence of the Body of Christ in the world anymore. The fact is that much of the secular world recognizes the Catholic Church as a Christian Organization, and it is also true the Catholic Church has done some good things in the world, and I would go so far as to say is still doing good things in the world. So it is the member of that group we have to consider, who, despite being a member of a group that has error, sincerely loves the Lord and lives their life in seeking to do his will. It kind of reminds me of MacArthur's statement about speaking in tongues, after preaching numerous sermons about their errors: "If someone want to go into a corner and babble, okay. I can think of a lot of things much worse:l like gossip, for one."

Martin Luther...was a Catholic. So we can say that at least at one time in the history of the Catholic Church there was at least one Catholic...who did not fall prey to the teachings and practice of the leadership.

And the irony today is that speaking to many Reformed and Catholics in Eschatological matters...they are usually indistinguishable. While Catholicism was pre-millennial historically, their method of interpretation leaves most Catholics (meaning those who are not in leadership, but members) with a mushy "spiritual" interpretation that is very particular when it comes to what is literal or not.

As already noted, there are many people who simply do not know enough of what their group teaches to be either saved or damned (meaning their participation in a Christian group that teaches error does not keep them from being saved).

Now when we have an actual cult that has so far departed from the truth of Scripture (i.e., teaches God was a man, man can become gods, Jesus is the spirit brother of Satan/Lucifer, etc.), I don't think we can be as forgiving, though we still do not deny the fact that God has always saved men in environments of idolatry. We rightly say they have a responsibility to leave that group, but, for example, I myself have remained at a fellowship for several years despite disagreeing with some of the teaching...for the sake of other family members. Some may continue to go because they feel they can have an influence on other members. There are numerous reasons why one would not relocate.

So in conclusion I would just say that the leadership of any given group does not necessarily make that group illegitimate. Before Luther protested the leadership, practice, and Doctrine, it is a safe bet to say there were others like him, and a possibility a majority. Either way, God always has a remnant.


God bless.

 

[Yeshua1]

And that is a point I have been making throughout the thread.

Another is if we are going to call them a cult based on the fact they have error...then we have to label every group out there a cult, the result being...no-one is left which can be viewed as a physical presence of the Body of Christ in the world anymore. The fact is that much of the secular world recognizes the Catholic Church as a Christian Organization, and it is also true the Catholic Church has done some good things in the world, and I would go so far as to say is still doing good things in the world. So it is the member of that group we have to consider, who, despite being a member of a group that has error, sincerely loves the Lord and lives their life in seeking to do his will. It kind of reminds me of MacArthur's statement about speaking in tongues, after preaching numerous sermons about their errors: "If someone want to go into a corner and babble, okay. I can think of a lot of things much worse:l like gossip, for one."

Martin Luther...was a Catholic. So we can say that at least at one time in the history of the Catholic Church there was at least one Catholic...who did not fall prey to the teachings and practice of the leadership.

And the irony today is that speaking to many Reformed and Catholics in Eschatological matters...they are usually indistinguishable. While Catholicism was pre-millennial historically, their method of interpretation leaves most Catholics (meaning those who are not in leadership, but members) with a mushy "spiritual" interpretation that is very particular when it comes to what is literal or not.

As already noted, there are many people who simply do not know enough of what their group teaches to be either saved or damned (meaning their participation in a Christian group that teaches error does not keep them from being saved).

Now when we have an actual cult that has so far departed from the truth of Scripture (i.e., teaches God was a man, man can become gods, Jesus is the spirit brother of Satan/Lucifer, etc.), I don't think we can be as forgiving, though we still do not deny the fact that God has always saved men in environments of idolatry. We rightly say they have a responsibility to leave that group, but, for example, I myself have remained at a fellowship for several years despite disagreeing with some of the teaching...for the sake of other family members. Some may continue to go because they feel they can have an influence on other members. There are numerous reasons why one would not relocate.

So in conclusion I would just say that the leadership of any given group does not necessarily make that group illegitimate. Before Luther protested the leadership, practice, and Doctrine, it is a safe bet to say there were others like him, and a possibility a majority. Either way, God always has a remnant.


God bless.

Just look at the Council of Trent, that shows to us an apostate Church!