X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL17a]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 3111
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 16:23:55 -0600
Reply-To:     bradk@isdgsm.rtsg.mot.com
From:         Brad Kaiser <bradk%isdgsm@RTSG.MOT.COM>
Subject:      Re: My definition of a "cult"
              93 01:57:00 pm

According to Steven Klepzig:
>
> My personal definition of a "cult":
>
> Any modern day religion that claims to be Christian while explicitly denying
> one or more of the essential doctrines of the historic Christian faith such
> as The Trinity or the unique diety of Jesus Christ.
>
> Steven

Ah!  Hank Hannegraaf would be proud! ;-) (For those of you who don't read
CRJ or listen to "the Bible Answer Man", this is the CRI definition of a
"cult".)

But, IMHO, this is begging the question, to a certain extent.  For example,
I regard (with substantial historical precedent) the Papacy, the apostolic
succession of bishops, and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist as
"essential doctrines of the historic Christian faith" (essential, in the
sense that they cannot be simply discarded, not in the sense that they are
essential for a faith to be called "Christian").

Does it follow, that, from my perspective, the vast majority of Christia
members are "cultists"?  No, not unless I want to use the term as shorthand
for "persons with whose religious beliefs I disagree".  Which I don't.

What the folks at CRI have done is to take a set of groups which call
themselves Christian, put their (CRI's) stamp of approval them, take the
intersection of their common beliefs, and called that "the essentials of the
historic Christian faith", and declared groups who disagree with one or more
of those essentials "cults".

(Even there, they're on shaky ground: one of their essentials is "salvation
by grace through faith", but while Catholics/Orthodox certainly believe
they're "saved by grace through faith", the meaning they apply to those
terms differs rather dramatically from the meaning used by Protestants.  Yet
CRI is happy to call Catholics "Christians", not "cultists", though they have
recently taken to bashing us over Mariology.)

My point (yes, there is one!) is that "cult" ends up being a very mushy
concept; merely a synonym for "people with whom I disagree".  Where do we
draw the line?  Worse, what happens when we draw different lines?  It's
probably more productive to say that group X believes/denies the following
doctrines, whereas the orthodox Christianity professed by (insert set of
churches/confessions here) denies/affirms the following contrary doctrines.

>
> P.S. I do believe that the LDS church denies at least these two doctrines.
>

The LDS don't believe in the Trinity as enunciated by the early Councils of
the Church, the Athanasian Creed, etc.  They believe in three separate gods,
essentially.  (For this reason, the RCC regards Mormon baptisms as invalid.)
They also believe that God the Father once walked the earth in a human body,
and has a wife.  Their most controversial belief is that particularly holy
Mormons literally become gods themselves after death.  (Or something like
that.)

In Christ's Love,

Brad Kaiser
(bradk%isdgsm@rtsg.mot.com)

          Those who trust in Him shall understand truth,
          and the faithful shall abide with Him in love;
          Because grace and mercy are with His holy ones,
          and His care is with His elect.
                    -- Wis 3:9 [NAB]
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU