Martin Defines cultism in his own terms. If you read the opening chapter of Kingdom of the Cults, you'll find his approach to dealing with the subject. The one failing of his definition is stark in that it fails to include a definition that addresses the Apostacy of Revelation. It fails to address a cult that looks, smells, sounds and breathes so much like Christianity as to be nearly indistinguishable in it's appearance from Christianity and yet follows 'anti-christos' anti meaning In the place of Christ, another Christ, etc. So if the terms all look the same and the names all look the same while having an appearance of "classic theology" as he puts it, they would get a pass on appearance. Catholicism fits this framing.
Catholcism says it believes in Christ; but, it doesn't believe in the Christ of Hebrews that sacrificed once for all time and sat down. Hebrews 9:12 "Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption [for us]." ..having obtained for us That is past tense ownership. There is nothing more to obtain. There is nothing more to offer the Father in heaven in purchase of anything - Hebrews says he already owns it. Catholicism doesn't believe or teach that. Hebrews is full of these things that together show us that while having the same terminology, the definitions for the terms differ and the doctrines built around them are opposites. Catholicism believes in a system of grace built upon works. Hebrews rejects this flatly. But rejecting Hebrews, compounds the errors of Catholic understanding of salvation. Catholicism has all the appearances; but, it is quite a different religion apart from Christianity. It is a cult. And I properly label it so because the bottom line for a cult is having an appearance of Christianity while denying Christianity in large part by virtue of irreconcileables.. be it doctrine, terms, pagan practices, etc. Catholicism rejects Biblical salvation and crafts it's own form, following another Christ and another path to heaven that it has defined for itself. That is no small rejection.
I read your last post with interest...so far on FR, in the few months that I have actually read some of the religious threads, and the crevo threads, I have heard several different religions, which make the claim that they are Christian, called either 'cults', or 'Non-Christian' by other people...these would be Catholicism, Jehovahs Witnesses, Mormons, and Christian Scientists....I am quite sure, that somewhere along the line, other religions have been put into this class as well..
Now I am not a member of any of these religions, so what anyone else says about them does not affect me personally...I guess what I am wondering, is why people have to use the 'cult' term, or 'Non-Christian' term...I guess I would prefer to see others say, well ok, they claim to be a Christian religion, but I have issues with parts of their doctrine, so I will just say, that I dont agree with much of what they preach... I guess, I personally take them at their word, that if they claim to believe that their salvation is through Jesus Christ, they are indeed Christian...
I guess my viewpoint, is just different from yours...anyway, your post was interesting...
AMEN!
NIV 2 Corinthians 9:8
And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work.
NIV Philemon 1:6
I pray that you may be active in sharing your faith, so that you will have a full understanding of every good thing we have in Christ.
I think you're going beyond Hebrews to based on your own philosophical interpretation of it. how do you define faith that leaves Catholic Christians as not having it? Does faith work alongside knowledge or as an alternative to it? If salvation is by faith alone, can faith live alone, unaccompanied by works of love and obedience? I guess your answer is yes, which is fine by me--- but I don't see how you can exclude other Christians on that basis.
You say that, in
Hebrews 9:12 "Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption [for us]."
Okay, good so far, obviously!
You interpret that as meaning "..having obtained for us That is past tense ownership. There is nothing more to obtain. There is nothing more to offer the Father in heaven in purchase of anything - Hebrews says he already owns it."
That's an interpretation, although an orthodox one. That Jesus eternally redeemed us does not imply that we have nothing to offer him. For instance, God hates sin and one loves when we do the right thing. Does doing the right thing constitute offering God anything? I don't know.... But I wouldn't take God to have cast someone out of the body of Christ based upon their answer. That seems somewhat Pharisee-like.
Remember the Epistle to James:
2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
2:15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
2:16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
2:22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
2:25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
My point is not that works trump faith. My point is that you claim because of theological differences Catholics are not referring to the same God as you, or you them.
But I don't see how you can definitively claim that.
Abraham prayed to God the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit. But as far I know, he only knew himself to be praying to God the Father.
It does not follow from "Catholic Sam and Protestant Jane disagree over the relationship between faith and works" that "Sam and Jane are each referrring to a different God".
Suppose Lois Lane believes Clark Kent is physically weak. Bruce Wayne believes Clark Kent is physically strong. But they are both referring to the same person, one Clark Kent.
You can stretch this point too far and say that every theistic religion refers to the same God.... But the point is, God knows who refers to Him and I don't see how we can put ourselves in His place.
Catholics accept Christ as Savior--- I'll guess that's why Martin didn't say the Catholic Church was a cult.