From: rpitts@darth.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: ARMSTRONGISM
Date: 22 Jan 93 08:39:06 GMT
Organization: Georgia Tech CERL/EE, Atlanta, Ga

In article <Jan.21.03.37.30.1993.17115@athos.rutgers.edu> markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen) writes:
>In article <Jan.20.00.03.40.1993.697@geneva.rutgers.edu> rpitts@darth.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>>In article <Jan.17.22.52.17.1993.3962@geneva.rutgers.edu> norris@mit.edu writes:
>>Christian Research Institute (CRI): They are very conservative
>
>Depends on your definition of conservative.  I recently (within last 6 mos.)

This is true.  The story you related could be a point of dispute,
but I still wouldn't say it is a mark of not being conservative.

>heard one of their shows on the radio (Bible answer man) in which they
>stated that it was the death of Christ, and NOT His shed blood that atoned
>for man's sin.  This is a view alledgedly held by John MacArthur and they

This seems strange, for the written information I have from CRI on
this (as they were discussing another's teachings) is that the death
and the resurrection are both part of our redemption - the Bible
does not separate the two, as some others attempt to do.  As far as
this point (death versus shed blood) goes, I'd have to hear them
speak on this in context.  

Give them a call on their show and ask them about this, others often 
call in and ask them to clarify what they thought heard said.

I agree with you that without the shedding of blood, in particular
Jesus the Christ's blood, there is no atonement for sins.  They
are human and certainly advocate that you test what you hear
from them or from others by the Word of God.

>were defending him against a host of letters from pastors and institutions
>around the country which labeled such a view a heresy.  I dare say that 

I haven't heard this argument against MacArthur, although I've heard
his Lordship only salvation criticized.  Is this something new
that has come up?

>a Christ who would have died without the shedding of any blood would not
>have sufficed under God's plan for atonement.  There are several scripture
>references (OT and NT) that state the without the shedding of blood, there
>is no remission of sin.

Agreed.

>> and have 
>>well read and strong arguments and guests, which promote traditional-
>>orthodox views.
>
>Again...not always as was the case above.  CRI is comprised of a staff from

Again, I hear you but disagree.  Differences are not necessarily liberal.

>various denominational backgrounds, but they are (I believe) mainly comprised
>of members from the charismatic background (Assemblies of God, Pentecostal...)
>I could be wrong about the exact composition.

They do consist of varied backgrounds, and not all charismatic ones
at that.  Dr. Martin was an ordained Baptist minister.  Some of them
are Reformed Lutheran and some Church of God.  Their guess have 
included Dr. D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Presbyterian. 

By the way, don't equate charimatics with liberal with such a broad
sweep of the pen.  If you have listened to the radio program for
very long, you will see that they come out strong and hard against
the Health and Wealth/Hyper-Faith Movement.  This includes Benny Hinn,
Fredrick K. C. Price, Kenneth Copeland, Marris Cereallo (sp?), Kenneth
Hagin, Earl Paulk, Trinity Broadcasting Network, and many others.

However, they do recommend charismatic and non-charismatic churches
to those who ask.  For example the ones in Atlanta the recommend
are First Baptist Atlanta (Dr. Charles Stanley) and Mount Paran
Church of God (Dr. Paul Walker).  Another church in CA they often
advocate is Calvary Chapel (Chuck Smith, I believe.)

>  They also have some periodicals and a list of good books.  
>>They focus on cults, but not exclusively.  CRI was founded by Dr. Walter 
>>Martin (author of Kingdom of the Cults, among others) and now CRI continues 
>>on, after Dr. Martin's death.  They  are not anti-charismatic nor anti-catholic
>
>They are, indeed, mostly charismatic and they are very delicate with all

Very rarely do you hear them advocating things that would be considered
charismatic, but don't fret charismatic gifts are Biblical, you know.

The are more conservative on the uses of tongues than any charismatic
church I've every been affliated with (e.g., independent charasmatic,
Vineyard Christian Fellowship, Assemblies of God.)

Do you consider them liberal, because they have some charasmatic
tendances???  

>who call, though they would deem Catholicism as incorrect in many matters.
>They do have some good articles.

I said they were not anti-Catholic, but that doesn't mean they don't
have a lot to say against many of their practices/teachings, as you
sort of point out.

>mc

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu  |    Love and Worship God the Father and His Son, 
                      --|--            the Creator of the Earth. 
Pro-Life!          -|-  |  -|-  Come bow down in worship, let us kneel
Pro-Responsibility! |   |   |   before the Lord Our Maker.  Psalm 95:6