"The Biblicist,
Yes...this is the core issue......over and over again.
Yes...this is the core issue......over and over again.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Vast Majority of Christian Denominations are Christian "cults"
- Thread starter The Biblicist
- Start date
- Status
When Paul teaches the Galatians the truth concerning the doctrine of justification by grace as opposed to works he calls his teaching on this particular subject "the truth of the gospel" (Gal. 2:5; 14) and then as "the truth" (Gal. 3:1; 4:16; 5:7)
What men like W.T. Wright have done is taken the Biblical language and redefined it contrary to the Biblical context and meaning. Wright insists the Paul's doctrine of justification "without works" does not refer to justification "without works" or without personal obedience to God, but rather insists that Paul is merely denying that gentiles must be justified by becoming identified with the works of the Old Covenant that made them a social and ethnic people called Judaism. In short hand, Wright simply says Paul is denying one must become a Jew by the practice of things that identify them as an ethnic and social culture.
However, this redefinition of "works" contradicts the very context of Romans 3:24-5:2. First he fails to see that Abraham is set forth to illustrate that justification by faith provides no basis for self-glorying before God. He introduces this principle in Romans 3:27-28. So the "works" in Romans 3-5 have nothing to do with social and ethnic identification as a cultural people (Jews) but rather with the moral basis before God that could glory in self-produced justification. Paul makes this point in Romans 4:1 that if Paul was justified by works he would indeed have a moral basis to glory in, but not before God. However, there was no "social and cultural covenant expression" existent at the time Abraham was justified and so such a definition could not be associated with "works" in the day of Abraham. The only kind of "works" that could give Abraham a basis for self-glorying was self-produced righteousness in his own eyes or in the eyes of other but "not before God."
That "works" refers to self-righteousness as a moral basis for self-glorying is proved in Romans 4:5 as it is the "ungodly" rather than the "godly" that is justified by faith without works. "Without works" defines the personal moral condition of the justified as "ungodly" rather than defining a person outside a cultural and social covenant expression. Moreover, Wright's view of justification by faith is progressive and not final until judgment day when that person is shown to be "godly." Whereas, Paul's view of justification is instantaneous at the point of faith when Abraham was "in uncircumcision" but not "in circumcision" (Rom. 4:9-11). Therefore, Wright's view of justified by faith is really justified by faithfulness that is inclusive of both the uncircumcised and circumcised aspects of Abraham's life.
Wright has simply redefined "works" to mean something else in contexts where justification by faith without works are found, while redefining justification to not only include personal obedience but a progressive act of God that only is expressed in full finality when that person is proved to be "godly" in their own person.
Wright is skillfully and demonically teaching "another gospel" and falls under Paul's curse in Galatians 1:8-9 and so do all who embrace his redefined doctrine which is nothing but justification by works repackaged.
The worst kind of heretic is not the one who simply denies the truth, but it is the one who takes the carefully crafted inspired definitive lines that are put in place to separate truth from error and redefine them so that error is defined as truth.
What men like W.T. Wright have done is taken the Biblical language and redefined it contrary to the Biblical context and meaning. Wright insists the Paul's doctrine of justification "without works" does not refer to justification "without works" or without personal obedience to God, but rather insists that Paul is merely denying that gentiles must be justified by becoming identified with the works of the Old Covenant that made them a social and ethnic people called Judaism. In short hand, Wright simply says Paul is denying one must become a Jew by the practice of things that identify them as an ethnic and social culture.
However, this redefinition of "works" contradicts the very context of Romans 3:24-5:2. First he fails to see that Abraham is set forth to illustrate that justification by faith provides no basis for self-glorying before God. He introduces this principle in Romans 3:27-28. So the "works" in Romans 3-5 have nothing to do with social and ethnic identification as a cultural people (Jews) but rather with the moral basis before God that could glory in self-produced justification. Paul makes this point in Romans 4:1 that if Paul was justified by works he would indeed have a moral basis to glory in, but not before God. However, there was no "social and cultural covenant expression" existent at the time Abraham was justified and so such a definition could not be associated with "works" in the day of Abraham. The only kind of "works" that could give Abraham a basis for self-glorying was self-produced righteousness in his own eyes or in the eyes of other but "not before God."
That "works" refers to self-righteousness as a moral basis for self-glorying is proved in Romans 4:5 as it is the "ungodly" rather than the "godly" that is justified by faith without works. "Without works" defines the personal moral condition of the justified as "ungodly" rather than defining a person outside a cultural and social covenant expression. Moreover, Wright's view of justification by faith is progressive and not final until judgment day when that person is shown to be "godly." Whereas, Paul's view of justification is instantaneous at the point of faith when Abraham was "in uncircumcision" but not "in circumcision" (Rom. 4:9-11). Therefore, Wright's view of justified by faith is really justified by faithfulness that is inclusive of both the uncircumcised and circumcised aspects of Abraham's life.
Wright has simply redefined "works" to mean something else in contexts where justification by faith without works are found, while redefining justification to not only include personal obedience but a progressive act of God that only is expressed in full finality when that person is proved to be "godly" in their own person.
Wright is skillfully and demonically teaching "another gospel" and falls under Paul's curse in Galatians 1:8-9 and so do all who embrace his redefined doctrine which is nothing but justification by works repackaged.
The worst kind of heretic is not the one who simply denies the truth, but it is the one who takes the carefully crafted inspired definitive lines that are put in place to separate truth from error and redefine them so that error is defined as truth.
Whether a person is saved or lost, they are enemies of the Gospel of Christ when they redefine the Pauline doctrine of justification in Romans 3-5 to be inclusive of personal obedience redefined as something other than "works."
Whether a person is saved or lost, they are the enemies of the Gospel of Christ when they redefine the Pauline doctrine of justification in Romans 3-5 to be an uncompleted progressive action that does not find completion until a person is found in a "godly" personal condition at the judgement seat. - Rom. 4:9-11.
Whether a person is saved or lost, they are the enemies of the gospel of Christ when they deny that justification in Romans 3-5 is inclusive of a foreign external righteousness to the person of the "ungodly" and/or is without complete remission of sins - Rom. 4:6-8
Whether a person is saved or lost, they are the enemies of the gospel of Christ when they redefine the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith in Romans 3-5 to be justification by "faithfulness."
Whether a person is saved or lost, they are acting as the enemies of the gospel of Christ whenever they deny that Abraham is "the father of all who are of faith" in the sense that his own model of justification by faith as set forth in Romans 4 is not the pattern for all who are "of faith" as they are denying a single standard but demanding some other standard for justification other than Abraham's pattern specifically outlined in Romans 4:1-22.
Whether a person is saved or lost, they are the enemies of the Gospel of Christ when they redefine the Pauline doctrine of justification in Romans 3-5 to be an uncompleted progressive action that does not find completion until a person is found in a "godly" personal condition at the judgement seat. - Rom. 4:9-11.
Whether a person is saved or lost, they are the enemies of the gospel of Christ when they deny that justification in Romans 3-5 is inclusive of a foreign external righteousness to the person of the "ungodly" and/or is without complete remission of sins - Rom. 4:6-8
Whether a person is saved or lost, they are the enemies of the gospel of Christ when they redefine the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith in Romans 3-5 to be justification by "faithfulness."
Whether a person is saved or lost, they are acting as the enemies of the gospel of Christ whenever they deny that Abraham is "the father of all who are of faith" in the sense that his own model of justification by faith as set forth in Romans 4 is not the pattern for all who are "of faith" as they are denying a single standard but demanding some other standard for justification other than Abraham's pattern specifically outlined in Romans 4:1-22.
My father-in-law is a 5 point Arminian(maybe he doesn't believe in original sin, I haven't asked him as our doctrine is waaaaay apart from each others). He thinks every day we get up, we have to make a choice to walk with God or risk being eternally lost. I'd venture to guess his walk with God is closer than mine.
The majority of denominations do not deserve to be called cults, even if they differ on core doctrines. Also, from what I can tell, the vast majority of denominations believe in salvation by grace through faith alone. And, the vast majority of denominations believe Jesus is God.
We have finite minds with limited knowledge and therefore, when we study God's word, we are approaching the infinite One who has all knowledge with limited thought processes. To say those who oppose eternal security are cults is rather harsh. They just have come to those conclusions the same way we have, via studying. We will have a lot of things shown to us that we believed as truth that were actually false, yet God will grant us entrance anyways.
I know relationships can cloud our judgement because we love people. However, are you really thinking about what you have said? Shouldn't it be obvious that the person who believes devoutly they are justified by their works will be doing their dead level best to walk as close to God as they can, because they really believe if they don't they will go to hell. However, that person has no "rest" with God because they don't believe that Christ completely satisfied the righteousness needed to be at "rest" with God. Really, what do you expect from those who are devout in this belief????? I am sorry if I sound insenstive, but you are describing the typical religious person who sincerely believes in justification by works which is a complete rejection of Christ's finished works in their behalf. Fear is a great motivator!
What world do you live in? 60% of professed Christians on earth are Catholic! I don't know of any Christian denomination that does not say they believe in salvation by grace through faith alone including the Roman Catholic Church. They just redefine "faith alone" to mean "faithfulness."
And what in the world do you mean by "core doctrines"? You cannot possibly be referring to doctrines like the Trinity, the deity of Christ, justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone without works, the virgin birth, etc.???? Because if they deny these core doctrines they are "Christian Cults" whether you want to live in reality or not.
Why don't you just become an agnostic then and let it go? Are you serious? Is the Word of God so unclear, uncertain, ambiguous on the most important doctrines in scripture and especially the most important doctrine, which is called the truth of the gospel? That is how Paul describes justification by grace through faith without works - the "truth of the gospel." If what you say is the case then someone had better tell that to Paul who said that all who preach justification by works are preaching "another gospel" and are to be regarded as "accursed". However, if our poor finite brains are insufficient to clearly understand what Paul calls "the truth" of the gospel, and those who deny that truth are simply trying the best they can to ascertain the truth and walk in it just like Paul, then Paul better cut back on his rhetoric as he is being too harsh against sincere people who differ with him.
The Trinity is a hard doctrine too? So is the virgin birth? So is the doctrine of Christ's person and there are sincere devout professed Christians that oppose them and have opposed such teachings throughout history. Do you really understand what you are saying???
When a person denies (not talking about being ignorant and neutral on the issue) eternal security they are claiming in the clearest possible sense that Jesus Christ and his own personal obedience to God was insufficient to justify them on judgement day APART FROM works of obedience performed in and through their own bodies. It makes no difference if they attribute their faithfulness to God's grace or not, as they are repudiating the obedience of Christ as sufficient in and of itself to justify them. It does not matter if they explain that their own works were empowered by the Spirit or the products of grace as they are repudiating the sufficiency of Christ's works in his own body to satisfy God's complete demands against them. It does not matter if they explain that their own works performed in their own bodies by the Spirit of God is simply the necessary consequence of regeneration if they are including it as the grounds for justification before God. It does not matter how they sugar coat it, explain it, defend it, because it boils down to the same conclusion and that is the complete repudiation that the personal obedience of Christ in his own body alone is sufficient for ultimate justification. It is the denial that we are justified before God by "imputed" or alien righteousness, but rather we are justified by imparted righteousness in and through our own person. It is a denial that God justifies the "ungodly" but only the "godly." It is the assertion that justification is sanctification and that is the whole basis of Roman Catholic soteriology and the essence of "another gospel."
If our experience matches our belief in justification by faithfulness to Christ we are lost and going to hell - period! If we are saved and have been led astray on this doctrine we are acting as enemies of Christ whenever we deny this truth - period! There is no middle ground.
Certainly no Christian knows all truth, but they must know the essentials of the gospel to be a true Christian. If God has not REVEALED Christ in their heart as the all sufficient Savior then they are still lost as the very essence of regeneration is the revelation of "the light of KNOWLEDGE of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ" within the heart (2 Cor. 4:6) as "this is eternal life to know the only true God and Jesus Christ (Jn. 17:3).
We are living in the greatest period of apostasy and confusion the world has ever seen and that is precisely what Christ predicted before his coming (Lk. 18:8).
If we followed your thinking it would lead to further apostasy as you are willing to tolerate any doctrinal falsehood as long as that person sincerely believes their error and professes Christ as their savior, simply because we are all finite and attempting to defend our position by the scriptures the best way we can.
Last edited:
There is room for disagreement between sincere Christians on many Biblical subjects, but there is no room for disagreement on those issues the Scriptures declare to be absolute essentials and which the scriptures intentionally provide definitive lines to clearly reveal truth from error.
Romans 3:24-5:2 and Galatians 1-5 are such clear definitive lines with regard to the Biblical doctrine of justification before God. Regardless of how sincere a professing Christian may be, if they pervert, redefine, or ignore those definitive lines with regard to what the Scriptures declare are absolute essentials of the faith, they have departed from "the faith" doctrinally and are no longer to be considered "orthodox" Christianity IF the scriptures are the standard for defining Christian orthodoxy.
Unorthodox Christian cults have provided their own standards of orthodoxy in order to include in the meaning of "orthodox" what the Scriptures condemn as unorthodox.
However, the mindset of many on this forum and in this world is to include what the Scriptures exclude simply because the person is a sincere heartfelt professed believer and is doing the best he can to discover from the scriptures the truth and practice it. Therefore, such a mindset has changed the standard of orthodoxy from an objective Biblical based standard to a personal subjective standard, and from an absolute standard to a relative standard. Sincerity becomes the new standard of orthodoxy because there is so much confusion and division in the world of Christendom in which true Christians can be found in nearly all divisions (Rev.18:4), so that it is impossible to define orthodoxy without excluding a great number of sincere professing Christians. Therefore, many want to enlarge the borders of orthodoxy as a gesture of Christian love to include the majority of sincere professed Christians at the expense of the true objective Biblical standard of orthodoxy. However, such a gesture is not Christian "love" as true Biblical love rejoiceth not in inquity but rejoiceth in truth, and such a gesture promotes more apostasy and division rather than true Biblical unity.
Romans 3:24-5:2 and Galatians 1-5 are such clear definitive lines with regard to the Biblical doctrine of justification before God. Regardless of how sincere a professing Christian may be, if they pervert, redefine, or ignore those definitive lines with regard to what the Scriptures declare are absolute essentials of the faith, they have departed from "the faith" doctrinally and are no longer to be considered "orthodox" Christianity IF the scriptures are the standard for defining Christian orthodoxy.
Unorthodox Christian cults have provided their own standards of orthodoxy in order to include in the meaning of "orthodox" what the Scriptures condemn as unorthodox.
However, the mindset of many on this forum and in this world is to include what the Scriptures exclude simply because the person is a sincere heartfelt professed believer and is doing the best he can to discover from the scriptures the truth and practice it. Therefore, such a mindset has changed the standard of orthodoxy from an objective Biblical based standard to a personal subjective standard, and from an absolute standard to a relative standard. Sincerity becomes the new standard of orthodoxy because there is so much confusion and division in the world of Christendom in which true Christians can be found in nearly all divisions (Rev.18:4), so that it is impossible to define orthodoxy without excluding a great number of sincere professing Christians. Therefore, many want to enlarge the borders of orthodoxy as a gesture of Christian love to include the majority of sincere professed Christians at the expense of the true objective Biblical standard of orthodoxy. However, such a gesture is not Christian "love" as true Biblical love rejoiceth not in inquity but rejoiceth in truth, and such a gesture promotes more apostasy and division rather than true Biblical unity.
THE DEFINITIVE LINE
The definitive line between the biblical doctrine of justification by grace and the unbiblical doctrine of justification by works, which Paul calls "another gospel" is that Biblical justification is based solely and only upon the works performed in and through the physical body of Christ when he lived upon this earth as completely sufficient to satisfy all of God's demands IN BEHALF OF his people, whereas the false doctrine always includes the works performed in and through the physical body of the believer IN ADDITION to Christ's obedience thus denying the sufficiency of Christ's obedience alone to satisfy all of God's demands in behalf of his people.
The unbiblical doctrine includes imparted righteousness as essential for ultimate justification before God.
The unbiblical doctrine is in reality to justification of the "godly" rather than the "ungodly."
The unbiblical doctrine is the inclusion of regeneration and progressive sanctification.
The unbiblical doctrine is manifested by denial of eternal security and the assertion that true believers may and some actual do die and go to hell.
The unbiblical doctrine defines justifcation by "faith" to mean by "faithfulness"
The unbiblical doctrine redefines "works" to mean something other than personal obedience to God's commandments as the basis for or inclusive in justification.
The unbibilcal doctrine denies "imputed" righteousness as an alien or external righteousness to the person of the justified.
The unbiblical doctrine denies imputed righteousness and remission of sins are inclusive of justification.
CONCLUSION: Those who pervert the doctrine of justification put great effort into redefining the definitive lines drawn by Scripture in order to make those lines ambiguous, fuzzy and transitional instead of clear, definitive and absolute. All who preach/teach/define Justification according to any of the above stated errors preach and teach "another gospel" and the Bible regards them as "accursed" regardless if you do or not.
The definitive line between the biblical doctrine of justification by grace and the unbiblical doctrine of justification by works, which Paul calls "another gospel" is that Biblical justification is based solely and only upon the works performed in and through the physical body of Christ when he lived upon this earth as completely sufficient to satisfy all of God's demands IN BEHALF OF his people, whereas the false doctrine always includes the works performed in and through the physical body of the believer IN ADDITION to Christ's obedience thus denying the sufficiency of Christ's obedience alone to satisfy all of God's demands in behalf of his people.
The unbiblical doctrine includes imparted righteousness as essential for ultimate justification before God.
The unbiblical doctrine is in reality to justification of the "godly" rather than the "ungodly."
The unbiblical doctrine is the inclusion of regeneration and progressive sanctification.
The unbiblical doctrine is manifested by denial of eternal security and the assertion that true believers may and some actual do die and go to hell.
The unbiblical doctrine defines justifcation by "faith" to mean by "faithfulness"
The unbiblical doctrine redefines "works" to mean something other than personal obedience to God's commandments as the basis for or inclusive in justification.
The unbibilcal doctrine denies "imputed" righteousness as an alien or external righteousness to the person of the justified.
The unbiblical doctrine denies imputed righteousness and remission of sins are inclusive of justification.
CONCLUSION: Those who pervert the doctrine of justification put great effort into redefining the definitive lines drawn by Scripture in order to make those lines ambiguous, fuzzy and transitional instead of clear, definitive and absolute. All who preach/teach/define Justification according to any of the above stated errors preach and teach "another gospel" and the Bible regards them as "accursed" regardless if you do or not.
Last edited:
Agree. But consider the source of the OP; Landmarkism.
Can you find in the OP where the source of the position is stated to be "Landmarkism" rather than scripture? Have I quoted any Landmarker or have I been quoting scripture?
I can understand your frustration and why you would make this false accusation since you can't deal with the Biblical basis presented in the OP.
If we define a "Christian cult" by personal opinions then of course most of Christian denominations would not be called a "cult." However, if "Christian" cult is defined by Scripture it is any denomination or church or group of professing Christians who have repudiated any doctrine the Bible regards as absolutely essential to "the faith."
How can any reasonable Child of God deny that "the truth of the gospel" as applied by Paul to the doctrine of justification by grace without works is not such an essential, especially when Paul says those who deny this truth are to be regarded by Christians as "accursed" and that such a doctrine is "another gospel"??? This is not "Landmarkism" but this is explicit scripture.
Are you going to suggest that Paul makes such a radical condemnation but his doctrine is so fuzzy and undefinable that nobody can really know "the truth of the gospel" sufficiently to apply it to anyone?
Last edited:
Lol, Dr Walter admitted to being a Landmarker. The Biblicist isn't likewise a Landmarker?
My "Biblical basis" is passages such as:
34 And Peter opened his mouth and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to him. Acts 10
Does one have to belong to your denomination to fill that bill? Peter was shocked when it dawned on him here that one didn't have to be a Jew to be acceptable to Him.
Are you implying that SBs are a cult?
No he isn't. Audience relevance should prevail here and recognize the words of The Prophet to that generation he was sent. The 'few' are 'the remnant' of Jews that escaped the wrath that came upon them before that very generation passed away:
23 And it shall be, that every soul that shall not hearken to that prophet, shall be utterly destroyed from among the people. Acts 3
You stoop to personal attacks because you can't respond to the Biblical evidence. You make a false accusation that the OP is based upon Landmarkism when you cannot cite a single word or statement where the OP makes that claim or provides any "Landmark" concept to sustain the OP.
You have simply quoted a scripture as though YOUR INTERPRETATION and application of it must be true. A Jehovah's witness could apply this to himself as much as a Mormon or any other group you do recognize as a "cult." They claim to fear God and nobody excels in doing good works as they do.
Another blatant false accusation. Where did I ever say that a particular denomination has an exlusivitivity to fear God and do righteousness? Also, you are confusing the state of salvation with false doctrines. Revelation 18:4 and 2 Thessalonians 3:6; Acts 20:28-30 and 1 Cor. 5:11 clearly teach that born again people can be cultic in their theology and removed outside of church membership for such doctrine and actions.
I am not implying anything! I am clearly stating that any lost or saved professor of Christ, any church or any denomination can become "cultic" when they repudiate what the Scriptures clearly and explicitly state to be essentials to the faith once delivered. When they repudiate "the truth of the Gospel" which is the precise phrase Paul uses to describe the doctrine of justification by grace opposed to the doctrine of justification by works, then that person, church or denomination is to be regarded as preaching "another gospel" and is to be regarded as "accursed" and those epitaphs characterize "Christian cults."
First, you have departed from the immediate context which has the ultimate day of judgement in view (Mt. 7:21-24) rather than a temporal Jewish movement.
Second, in light of the days previous to the coming of Christ such widespread apostasy is clearly predicted among those identifying with apostolic Christianity (Mt. 24:25; Lk. 18:8).
Third, you are changing the subject which is the doctrine of justification by grace through faith as the primary acid test of a "christian cult" status.
RECOGNIZED CHRISTIAN CULTS
A large portion of Christendom recognizes the JW's and used to recognize the SDA and MORMON's as Christian "cults." However, SDA are no longer recognized as a cult (Walter Martin removes them from this classification) and Mormons are being more accepted as a Christian group. But why were they regarded as "cults" in the first place? Because they reject the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity or eternal punishment in hell?
But there are no explicit statements of condemnation in Scripture for denying either doctrine that can be quoted without making interpretational inferences based upon a correlation of other scriptures forumulated into a systematic doctrine. True, they are necessary inferences but nevertheless inferences which require interpretation. For example, people are condemned for denying Christ came in the flesh but none of these groups deny that. For example, people are condemned for denying the "doctrine of Christ" but what that doctrine is or is not, is not spelled out in the immediate context or within this condemnational text but must be inferred from teachings found in other books of the Bible by bringing all relevant passages together and form a systematic doctrine.
However, "the truth of the gospel" is clearly defined in the immediate context and those who reject are clearly condemned in explicit terms as "preaching another gospel" and are clearly are to be regarded by those who believe in "the truth of the gospel" as "accursed." There is no stronger explicit condemnation to be found in scriptures.
Yet, we have those on this forum who would categorize groups as cults based on texts that require inferences and correlating various texts throughout the Bible to form a systematic doctrine while the very same people refuse to condemn as "christian cults" those persons, churches, or denominations that openly repudiate the Biblical doctrine of justification by faith without works when it is carefully defined what it is and what it is not!
Why? The answer is simple. To condemn such people, churches or denominations as "Christian cults" they must condemn the vast majority ("many") of Christendom as cultic and that would leave them in a minority ("few") who would be ridiculed by the majority of professed Christendom.
Second, because the majority has put a great deal of effort into redefining the the Biblical definitions and challenging the clear Biblical lines in order to make the Biblical lines fuzzy and transitional.
A large portion of Christendom recognizes the JW's and used to recognize the SDA and MORMON's as Christian "cults." However, SDA are no longer recognized as a cult (Walter Martin removes them from this classification) and Mormons are being more accepted as a Christian group. But why were they regarded as "cults" in the first place? Because they reject the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity or eternal punishment in hell?
But there are no explicit statements of condemnation in Scripture for denying either doctrine that can be quoted without making interpretational inferences based upon a correlation of other scriptures forumulated into a systematic doctrine. True, they are necessary inferences but nevertheless inferences which require interpretation. For example, people are condemned for denying Christ came in the flesh but none of these groups deny that. For example, people are condemned for denying the "doctrine of Christ" but what that doctrine is or is not, is not spelled out in the immediate context or within this condemnational text but must be inferred from teachings found in other books of the Bible by bringing all relevant passages together and form a systematic doctrine.
However, "the truth of the gospel" is clearly defined in the immediate context and those who reject are clearly condemned in explicit terms as "preaching another gospel" and are clearly are to be regarded by those who believe in "the truth of the gospel" as "accursed." There is no stronger explicit condemnation to be found in scriptures.
Yet, we have those on this forum who would categorize groups as cults based on texts that require inferences and correlating various texts throughout the Bible to form a systematic doctrine while the very same people refuse to condemn as "christian cults" those persons, churches, or denominations that openly repudiate the Biblical doctrine of justification by faith without works when it is carefully defined what it is and what it is not!
Why? The answer is simple. To condemn such people, churches or denominations as "Christian cults" they must condemn the vast majority ("many") of Christendom as cultic and that would leave them in a minority ("few") who would be ridiculed by the majority of professed Christendom.
Second, because the majority has put a great deal of effort into redefining the the Biblical definitions and challenging the clear Biblical lines in order to make the Biblical lines fuzzy and transitional.
"The Vast Majority of Christian Denominations are Christian "cults""; and you hold true to form with your assaults on Christianity in general.
I didn't intend it to be a personal attack, at all. Simple logic to me. A change of monikers doesn't necessitate a change of previous beliefs.
Lol, and you're not doing the same? Here's another of my "Biblical basis" passages that melds well with Peter's declaration and gives credence to Wright's views on justification:
13 for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified:
14 (for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves;
15 in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them); Ro 2
How'd that law get written in their hearts? They never even had the law, so it definitely wasn't from 'correct doctrine' from a 'correct religious institution'. You don't believe that God supernaturally equips each of His own with a circumcised heart apart from the law or the gospel?
Though I don't agree with your application of some of these passages I do agree that God's children can fall into great error.
...and that's YOUR interpretation of "in that day".
A temporal Jewish movement?:
23 And it shall be, that every soul that shall not hearken to that prophet, shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.
24 Yea and all the prophets from Samuel and them that followed after, as many as have spoken, they also told of these days. Acts 3
A temporal Jewish movement? You've fallen into the error of cultic dispensationalism by negating/ignoring the immense significance the scriptures place upon 'THAT GENERATION'.
Please look at the wording carefully. The text does not say the law was written in their heart. It says that only "THE WORK" of the law was written in their heart. What is "THE WORK" of the Law? What did God design the Law to do? It was to reveal or educate one in what sin is. That is what the conscience does as he goes on to say in very specific words "the conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thougths one with another accusing or else excusing them." The Law is not written in their hearts, but the "work of the Law" is written in the sense that the conscience provides the very same function that the Law provides - it defines righteousness or sin.
So this text does not support Wright or his view.
- Status