Is the Church of Christ a cult?

[JonC]

Hmm interesting. Mac does not speak too well of NT Wright and I wonder if its for good reasons but yet I do not know. I have one of his books on the end times but I may need to buy another one of his books, perhaps on this topic. Can you name a title?

That's too bad. I always liked MacArthur. It would have been better had he recognized Wright's contributions while disagreeing with his conclusions (like D.A. Carson did both in interviews and in his book opposing Wright's position). I will say that Wright is on a different level (as far as scholarship) than is MacArthur, but I tend to agree with Carson's rebuttal.

For a good summary, just read Justification.

 

[Zenas]

I'm not a fan. But are they preventing members from contacting their families, managing members finances for them, claiming that their pastor is a messiah or prophet? Those are the things I associate with a cult, not just bad doctrine.

Branch Davidians, Scientologists, Heaven's Gate; those are what I consider cults.

Absolutely. The word "cult" is thrown around way too much.

 

[Zenas]

This thread seems to have diverted into a discussion of the shortcomings of Catholicism as well as commentary on John MacArthur vs. N. T. Wright. Let's get back to the Church of Christ for a bit. One misconception is that they are KJVO. They are not. I go to a Church of Christ in my town about once a year and I have never heard them read from the King James Bible. Like Baptists, they are very diverse in their choice of Bible translations.

Another thing, someone implied they are insular and exclusive. That may be true of some of the smaller congregations but the ones I am familiar with are open and welcoming. They also practice open communion.

As for whether they are a denomination, they are clearly just as much of a denomination as Southern Baptists, American Baptists, Reformed Baptists, etc. They have their own publishing house, Gospel Advocate in Nashville. They have a number of colleges and universities, the most prominent one in our area being David Lipscomb University in Nashville. They even have their own seminary, Sunset International Bible Institute in Lubbock, Texas. Yes, I know many of you don't regard "Baptist" as a denomination and that's OK. You can set yourself apart from Catholics and mainline Protestants by saying that fiction but, hey, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's probably a duck.

 

[JonC]

This thread seems to have diverted into a discussion of the shortcomings of Catholicism as well as commentary on John MacArthur vs. N. T. Wright. Let's get back to the Church of Christ for a bit. One misconception is that they are KJVO. They are not. I go to a Church of Christ in my town about once a year and I have never heard them read from the King James Bible. Like Baptists, they are very diverse in their choice of Bible translations.

Another thing, someone implied they are insular and exclusive. That may be true of some of the smaller congregations but the ones I am familiar with are open and welcoming. They also practice open communion.

As for whether they are a denomination, they are clearly just as much of a denomination as Southern Baptists, American Baptists, Reformed Baptists, etc. They have their own publishing house, Gospel Advocate in Nashville. They have a number of colleges and universities, the most prominent one in our area being David Lipscomb University in Nashville. They even have their own seminary, Sunset International Bible Institute in Lubbock, Texas. Yes, I know many of you don't regard "Baptist" as a denomination and that's OK. You can set yourself apart from Catholics and mainline Protestants by saying that fiction but, hey, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's probably a duck.

I think that the relevancy lies in what is and is not a departure from the gospel. I do not think CoC doctrine, to include the error of baptismal regeneration, excludes churches in that denomination from being legitimate churches. I do know of some that I would not hesitate to consider a cult, but I also know of some Reformed Baptist believers who I would not hesitate to consider cult-like in their understanding.

 

[JonC]

The bible teaches justification by faith alone.

How do you define "justification" anyway?

 

[stevewm1963]

That's too bad. I always liked MacArthur. It would have been better had he recognized Wright's contributions while disagreeing with his conclusions (like D.A. Carson did both in interviews and in his book opposing Wright's position). I will say that Wright is on a different level (as far as scholarship) than is MacArthur, but I tend to agree with Carson's rebuttal.

For a good summary, just read Justification.

MacArthur is excellent when it comes to new testament scripture until he gets to Revelations..he says that you can take the mark of the beast and still be saved! I was really disappointed when I heard him say that!

 

[BobRyan]

Oh for the love of the rabbit! He may be wrong on his view of Catholicism if he does not label them as a false religion. In the meantime I suggest you do some reading.

http://www.pro-gospel.org/site/cpage.asp?cpage_id=180066646&sec_id=180014816

John MacArthur
http://www.gty.org/resources/distinctives/DD09/roman-catholicism

"It is a false and deceptive form of Christianity."

"As long as the Roman Catholic Church continues to assert its own authority and bind its people to “another gospel,” it is the spiritual duty of all true Christians to oppose Roman Catholic doctrine with biblical truth and to call all Catholics to true salvation"

Well as for that rabbit -- I would never argue that nobody out there is handing out the not-a-christian label to JW's and Mormons etc. Certainly Walter Martin did it in his book "Kingdom of the Cults" and certainly MacArthur is prone to doing that as well.

I just don't find that very useful and it is more than a little misleading. It is much more valuable to identify the doctrines that they teach that are in opposition to the Bible than to get stuck on "labels" as if coming up with some "label" proves something.

Catholics excelled at coming up with "labels and name-calling" to condemn Protestants "with a mere label" to sway the illiterate masses. Not a good history on that one.

 

[BobRyan]

MacArthur is excellent when it comes to new testament scripture until he gets to Revelations..he says that you can take the mark of the beast and still be saved! I was really disappointed when I heard him say that!

Talk about straining at the gnat and swallowing the camel!! I did not know he took a leap off of that cliff.

Do you have a reference for that?

 

[stevewm1963]

Talk about straining at the gnat and swallowing the camel!! I did not know he took a leap off of that cliff.

Do you have a reference for that?

There is a youtube video of him saying it and he validated it on his website! It's not hard to find! I was talking to pastor from Lamb and Lion ministry and he was shocked MacArthur had said it himself!

 

[JonC]

Talk about straining at the gnat and swallowing the camel!! I did not know he took a leap off of that cliff.

Do you have a reference for that?

Apparently he was speaking of the forgiveness of God, that the "mark of the Beast" in Revelation is not the unforgivable sin mentioned in Scripture.

The attached is from GTY explaining the context (and the statement taken out of context by other "Christian" organizations). The problem is speaking in hypothetically for illustration. MacArthur, being a prominent pastor who is often criticized, should have realized his words would be taken out of context before he spoke them. While it is an unfortunate spirit within the Church today, it is unfortunately not an uncommon one.

https://www.gty.org/blog/B131030

 

[stevewm1963]

Apparently he was speaking of the forgiveness of God, that the "mark of the Beast" in Revelation is not the unforgivable sin mentioned in Scripture.

The attached is from GTY explaining the context (and the statement taken out of context by other "Christian" organizations). The problem is speaking in hypothetically for illustration. MacArthur, being a prominent pastor who is often criticized, should have realized his words would be taken out of context before he spoke them. While it is an unfortunate spirit within the Church today, it is unfortunately not an uncommon one.

https://www.gty.org/blog/B131030

Either way it is the unforgivable sin because it is a rejection of Christ...MacArthur should never have went there! What he said was blatantly clear but he is wrong!

 

[kyredneck]

Oh and by the way do you believe one cannot be saved unless one is water baptized?

I believe the JEW, of that day, could not be "saved" from the wrath that was to come upon 'that generation' apart from the act of profession of water baptism.

38 And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39 For to you is the promise, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call unto him.
40 And with many other words he testified, and exhorted them, saying, Save yourselves from this crooked generation. Acts 2

As much as some of you seem to resist the idea, God indeed AVENGED the murder of His Son on 'that generation' in culminating the Mosaic Covenant, along with the curses laid out in Lev 26/Dt 28 upon their progeny for generations to follow.

 

[Rob_BW]

Either way it is the unforgivable sin because it is a rejection of Christ...MacArthur should never have went there! What he said was blatantly clear but he is wrong!

So we should never try to evangelize atheists, because they've rejected Christ already? I'm not sure I'm following.

 

[JonC]

Either way it is the unforgivable sin because it is a rejection of Christ...MacArthur should never have went there! What he said was blatantly clear but he is wrong!

You have to keep in mind MacArthur is calvinistic. He would not read Revelation to conclude that either men by their decision or the Beast can prevent God from accomplishing His will. The "Christian" websites attacking the preacher here view taking the "mark" to be prescriptive (they receive the mark and now God is powerless to save them for they are bound, as we all were, for Hell). I understand it to be descriptive, so perhaps I am viewing MacArthurs comments differently.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530A using Tapatalk

 

[stevewm1963]

So we should never try to evangelize atheists, because they've rejected Christ already? I'm not sure I'm following.

I will make it clear to you what the bible says about taking the mark of the beast! I don't care how prominent MacArthur or anybody else is..God is the final and only authority!

Revelation 14:9-11King James Version (KJV)
9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,

10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:

11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

Scripture makes it clear you cannot be saved should you take the mark of the beast! How much clearer can it be?

 

[stevewm1963]

You have to keep in mind MacArthur is calvinistic. He would not read Revelation to conclude that either men by their decision or the Beast can prevent God from accomplishing His will. The "Christian" websites attacking the preacher here view taking the "mark" to be prescriptive (they receive the mark and now God is powerless to save them for they are bound, as we all were, for Hell). I understand it to be descriptive, so perhaps I am viewing MacArthurs comments differently.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530A using Tapatalk

I am at least a 4 point Calvinist myself..I just struggle with the idea of predestination!

 

[JonC]

I am at least a 4 point Calvinist myself..I just struggle with the idea of predestination!

James Arminius was also Calvinist whose struggle was with predestination.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530A using Tapatalk

 

[stevewm1963]

James Arminius was also Calvinist whose struggle was with predestination.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530A using Tapatalk

I actually prefer to keep an open mind and stay away from man made doctrines but most would see me as a Calvinist I suppose..The bible is the ultimate authority I subscribe to! The bible tells us we don't need men to teach us..we have the anointing of the Holy Spirit that will teach us!

1 John 2:27King James Version (KJV)
27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

BB seems to be having problems today!

 

[JonC]

I actually prefer to keep an open mind and stay away from man made doctrines but most would see me as a Calvinist I suppose..The bible is the ultimate authority I subscribe to! The bible tells us we don't need men to teach us..we have the anointing of the Holy Spirit that will teach us!

1 John 2:27King James Version (KJV)
27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

BB seems to be having problems today!

I also do not describe myself by a Calvinistic measuring stick. But insofar as not needing teachers, Paul denounces that idea when he speaks of teaching as a gift given to some within and for the Church.

 

[stevewm1963]

I also do not describe myself by a Calvinistic measuring stick. But insofar as not needing teachers, Paul denounces that idea when he speaks of teaching as a gift given to some within and for the Church.

That would mean the bible contradicts itself which it does not..understand that Paul was referring to spiritual gifts which do not exist today!