What is a Cult? Christian Research Institute

[Socrates]

CRI Statement: CP0200
What is a Cult?
www.equip.org/free/CP0200.pdf

With such an overwhelming number of religious groups around these days, it is necessary to understand the difference between a legitimate religious group and a cult. What exactly is a cult?

There are two ways to define a cult. The first way to describe a cult is popular in the secular media. From this perspective, a cult is a religious or semi-religious sect whose members are controlled almost entirely by a single individual or by an organization.

This kind of cult is usually manipulative, demanding total commitment and loyalty from its followers. Converts are usually cut off from all former associations, including their own families.
The Hare Krishnas, the Family of Love led by Moses David Berg, and Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church are some examples of this kind of a cult.

The second way to define a cult is popular in evangelical Christian circles. From this perspective, a cult is any group that deviates from the orthodox teachings of the historic Christian faith being
derived from the Bible and confirmed through the ancient ecumenical creeds.

These groups deny or distort fundamental Christian doctrines such as the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and salvation by grace through faith alone. Some cults that would fall into this category
are the Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Science, The Way International, and the Unity School of Christianity.

Most of these cults claim to be Christian, and even consider the Bible to be authoritative. But they manipulate the Scriptures to fit their own beliefs. Although they may claim to serve Jesus Christ, and may even use the same terminology orthodox Christians use, their definitions are vastly different.

These groups do not lead to the Christ of the Bible, but to another Jesus and another gospel (2 Cor. 11:1–4; Gal. 1:8, 9). We must therefore reject these false teachings, and “earnestly contend for the faith which was once and for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). And, of course, remember the Bible also goes on to admonish us that we must do this with gentleness, and with
respect. Remember, you must present the message, but you need to recognize that it is only the Holy Spirit that changes the heart.

[Minnesota]

?

Minn, come on. This is a theist only area, and now after several slaps on the wrist for this stuff you know better.

[Thomas2003]

There are two ways to define a cult. The first way to describe a cult is popular in the secular media. From this perspective, a cult is a religious or semi-religious sect whose members are controlled almost entirely by a single individual or by an organization.


Hmmm....you mean like Section 501 c 3 of Internal Revenue Code?

I haven't seen one of these organizations yet that isn't controlled almost entirely by the IRS.

And their members blindly follow it too - they are cut off of from family, and most live in fear, if they dare question the ex cathedra commands of the IRS.

Interesting thought anyway.

[o2bwise]

CRI, just part of Babylon.

Not that I don't think they said some nice things!

[dizzle]

Good information Socrates!!!!!

[Reasonable]

[i]
These groups deny or distort fundamental Christian doctrines such as the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and salvation by grace through faith alone. Some cults that would fall into this category
are the Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Science, The Way International, and the Unity School of Christianity.



Hi Soc,
Do I understand by this definition that Freewill Baptist and Church of Christ members are cults? Also the Catholic Church too? These ones believe the teaching of "faith without works is dead" implies that we MUST have works to have faith. Or maybe I misunderstand what you mean by "salvation by grace through faith alone." Just want to make sure who the "cults" are.

[Belteshazzar]

:huh: It seems to me that labeling some group as a cult is just an indirect way of describing them as heretical, but it is such a loosely defined pejorative term, that its hard to nail down. Good examples are the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses, which have millions of members with their own intepretation of scripture. However, since it doesn't fall in line with some non-existant pseudo "historic Christian faith" then they are impuned by the article as cultists. Actually, I don't understand how any sola-scripturist can deny anyone's personal interpretation of scripture since it is precisely the personal interpretation of scripture upon which they base their decision. Why not allow everyone to have their interpretation of scripture without calling them cultists?

And I'm a little wary of using the word 'cult' because there are some that push this to the extreme in the evangelical world, including the Bob Jones crowd which claim the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are cults. In fact, they claim just about everyone in Christianity, except for themselves, are cultists.

Also, cults are usually only recognized as cults after they do something horrible, like David Koresh, Jim Jones, or the Heaven's Gate Hale-Bopp people. We can, with the benefit of hindsight, call them the Branch Davidian Cult, but before the Waco debacle they were probably largely seen as a hard-core group of pentacostal or fundamentalist Bible-believing Christians.

Lastly, if we apply the standards of the article to the the earliest Christians in the New Testament, we would have to conclude the earliest Christians, who practiced the faith as taught directly by Christ, his disciples, and Paul, were cultists. Some of them sold all of their belongings and lived communally. If someone were to espouse adherence to Christ's words in Mark 10:21 "Go, sell what you have, and give to (the) poor and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me." They would be a cultist according to the article because they are "demanding total commitment and loyalty."

Oh well, thats my $0.02.
Jerry

[spl_cadet]

I've always liked Dave Armstrong's definition of cult which is any group, claiming to be Christian, which rejects the Nicene Creed.

[Reasonable]

I always thought being a "cultist" is a good thing by definition of the word. Don't we really mean the occult?

[Thomas2003]

I always thought being a "cultist" is a good thing by definition of the word. Don't we really mean the occult?

The word is sometimes used like "extremists" is used against Islam. If you have any reason to be opposed to the political ideology of the left they will whip out "cult" to label you with. It's a poke in the eye with a sharp stick - :poke:

So, it wouldn't be wise to embrace the term - but one respondent was correct, early Christians were "cults" in comparison to the organized paganism of the day. The Roman social order declared Christians atheists! After all they openly denounced Caesar as god, they wouldn't bow down and do the "babbaloo's" so they killed them.

Cordially,

Thomas

[OldShepherd]

Yesterday @ 10:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=143111#post143111)
Thomas2003:

Hmmm....you mean like Section 501 c 3 of Internal Revenue Code?

I haven't seen one of these organizations yet that isn't controlled almost entirely by the IRS.

And their members blindly follow it too - they are cut off of from family, and most live in fear, if they dare question the ex cathedra commands of the IRS.

Interesting thought anyway.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, and black helicopters are flying all around and all of our phones are bugged. The Illuminati controlled government is distributing the AIDS virus through our drinking water, and a partridge in a pear tree.

[OldShepherd]

Yesterday @ 11:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=143113#post143113)
o2bwise:

CRI, just part of Babylon.

Not that I don't think they said some nice things!

Babylon, indeed! And you have the nerve to criticize the way I talk. Boys and girls can we say H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-C-Y? And OBTW I don't see any substantiation for this פרא ¹ accusation.

¹ Strong's number 06501.

[o2bwise]

Old Shepherd,

Yours is among the foulest, most unChristlike spirits I have ever seen in any forum, be it secular or Christian.

I am through casting pearls.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

[Socrates]

Today @ 05:42 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=143422#post143422)
Belteshazzar:

:huh: It seems to me that labeling some group as a cult is just an indirect way of describing them as heretical, but it is such a loosely defined pejorative term, that its hard to nail down.

That's why I posted that article, so there would be something to go on. E.g. some ignorant and vexatious anti-creationist, one a rabid atheist and another a professing Christian, have labled YECs as cultists. But they were using it in the irresponsible way that Bel describes.

Good examples are the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses, which have millions of members with their own intepretation of scripture.

An interpretation which is totally contrary to the text, and based on what their all-powerful organization teaches.

However, since it doesn't fall in line with some non-existant pseudo "historic Christian faith" then they are impuned by the article as cultists.

What nonsense. The historic Christian Faith is Trinitarian.

Actually, I don't understand how any sola-scripturist can deny anyone's personal interpretation of scripture since it is precisely the personal interpretation of scripture upon which they base their decision. Why not allow everyone to have their interpretation of scripture without calling them cultists?

One of these days an anti-Protestant might stop caricaturing Sola Scriptura as Sola Scriptura Extremis. Real Sola Scriptura teaches that Scripture has an objective meaning determined by the grammatical and historical context.

Also, cults are usually only recognized as cults after they do something horrible, like David Koresh, Jim Jones, or the Heaven's Gate Hale-Bopp people. We can, with the benefit of hindsight, call them the Branch Davidian Cult, but before the Waco debacle they were probably largely seen as a hard-core group of pentacostal or fundamentalist Bible-believing Christians.

What piffle. One Christian soldier who arrived in Jonestown was struck by the lack of Bibles there. And the Heaven's Gate Cult was totally evolutionary.

Lastly, if we apply the standards of the article to the the earliest Christians in the New Testament, we would have to conclude the earliest Christians, who practiced the faith as taught directly by Christ, his disciples, and Paul, were cultists.

Rubbish -- they believed in the authority of the Bible and the Trinity.

Oh well, thats my $0.02.

In my country, $0.02 is legally worthless -- hey, now that's a point :whack:

[Socrates]

Today @ 05:54 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=143431#post143431)
spl_cadet:

I've always liked Dave Armstrong's definition of cult which is any group, claiming to be Christian, which rejects the Nicene Creed.

:thumb: Indeed, any professing Christian group that rejects the Nicene Creed is cultic. :solly:

[Belteshazzar]

Socrates:

An interpretation which is totally contrary to the text, and based on what their all-powerful organization teaches.

Who says its totally contrary to the text? You? They certainly don't think it is. What authority do you have to declare them heretics?

What nonsense. The historic Christian Faith is Trinitarian.

Actually, there's a LOT more to it than just Trinitarianism, but if you want to define a set of dogma which specify trinitarian beliefs are necessary for salvation, then by all means go ahead. But please enlighten us to where you received this authority.


What piffle. One Christian soldier who arrived in Jonestown was struck by the lack of Bibles there. And the Heaven's Gate Cult was totally evolutionary.

Piffle :smile: Here's a challenge for you then, please use the guidelines in the article to identify a current cult, professing to be Christian, which was not named in the article.


Rubbish -- they believed in the authority of the Bible and the Trinity.

:lol: They didn't have the Bible. The Bible came a few hundred years later.

Jerry

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 08:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=144136#post144136)
o2bwise:

Old Shepherd,

Yours is among the foulest, most unChristlike spirits I have ever seen in any forum, be it secular or Christian.

I am through casting pearls.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

Good, get outta my face. You are the most self righteous, immature, posturing, unChristlike, hypocritical, little twit I have ever seen in a forum. You whine and cry about my so-called sarcasm while you refer to anyone who is not a member of your little sect as the "Whore of Babylon." You are enuff to make a maggot vomit.

[Socrates]

Today @ 12:14 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=144181#post144181)
Belteshazzar:

Who says its totally contrary to the text? You?

The laws of grammar and historical context determine the meaning, and the laws of logic decide that they are contrary.

They certainly don't think it is.

They are deluded.

What authority do you have to declare them heretics?

The authority of the Bible, which has an objective meaning.

Actually, there's a LOT more to it than just Trinitarianism, but if you want to define a set of dogma which specify trinitarian beliefs are necessary for salvation, then by all means go ahead.

I know that there is a lot more, but Trinitarianism is a watershed issue, and if a "Christian" group denies that, then it is a cult.

But please enlighten us to where you received this authority.

The Bible, as interpreted by grammatical and historical context

Piffle :smile:

Yes, for labeling anti-biblical groups as merely differing on interpretation, and for denying that Scripture has an objective meaning.

Here's a challenge for you then, please use the guidelines in the article to identify a current cult, professing to be Christian, which was not named in the article.

I don't have to know any cults, but this article would help me recognize them. That's far more important.

:lol: They didn't have the Bible. The Bible came a few hundred years later.

Nonsense. The Canon of Scripture was completed by AD 96, or possible even AD 70. The Church merely rubber stamped what had always been recognised as authoritative.

[John Reece]

The Nicene Creed

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

If that is the definition of orthodoxy, I am orthodox.

And if heresy is defined as not believing any of the Nicene Creed, I am not a heretic.

It’s nice to have a benchmark for belief.

:smile:

[Belteshazzar]

[Socrates:

The laws of grammar and historical context determine the meaning, and the laws of logic decide that they are contrary.

They use the same criteria to determine they have the correct interpretation. Should I believe them, or you?

The authority of the Bible, which has an objective meaning.

They also use the authority of the Bible which they also say has objective meaning. How can it be objective then if you both disagree?


I know that there is a lot more, but Trinitarianism is a watershed issue, and if a "Christian" group denies that, then it is a cult.

Then they would arguably not be a cult according to the article you posted. If anyone disagrees with Trinitarianism as defined in the Nicene Creed, then they are heretical, they're not a cult. Thats my whole point. Calling someone a cult is just a McCarthyesque technique to try and impugn someone with whom you disagree.

And if you want to examine 'grammatical and historical context' then you'll need to address the filioque clause of the Nicene Creed, and whether anyone disagreeing with the filioque is a cult. Are you ready to label the entirity of the Eastern Orthodox Churches a cult? Or do you want to make the filioque optional, and what authority would you have to do so?


Nonsense. The Canon of Scripture was completed by AD 96, or possible even AD 70. The Church merely rubber stamped what had always been recognised as authoritative.

Your knowledge of the formation of the Bible is either sadly inadequate, or at variance with the VAST MAJORITY of Biblical scholarship. Please, spend some time over on http://www.ntcanon.org/, its a non-denominational look at the formation of the New Testament. It will also point you to a lot of other references if you don't trust the site.

Most scholars would say the books comprising the Bible were not completed until later, probably 130-150 AD. However, the canon of the Bible didn't exist in its current form until around 400 AD. There was no "rubber stamping" of anything, it was a long difficult struggle to determine which books were inspired and which weren't. There were hundreds of writings many of which were considered inspired by various groups of Churches, including the Shepherd of Hermas, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Truth, etc....

There were disagreements, political struggles, fights and people died trying to bring us the Bible. To say it was a rubber stamp is an affront to the blood of the martyrs which brought us the Holy Bible.

Jerry

[bar Jonah]

I think it's worth pointing out that not all Christian cults deny the Trinity or the deity of Christ, yet they are cults just the same. I would argue that their overwhelmingly controlling nature, to the point of cutting people off from their family and other organizational ties, still qualifies them.

For example, the International Church of Christ (incl. Boston Church of Christ, Denver Church of Christ, etc.), and the Local Church (Watchman Nee's church) certainly qualify. I've encountered the former when I ran into their campus front organization - the Christian Student Association - which is a doorway into their cult. The CSA has been banned on a number of campuses across the U.S. and in England, with good reason.

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 02:16 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=144357#post144357)
Belteshazzar:

Your knowledge of the formation of the Bible is either sadly inadequate, or at variance with the VAST MAJORITY of Biblical scholarship. Please, spend some time over on http://http://www.ntcanon.org/, its a non-denominational look at the formation of the New Testament. It will also point you to a lot of other references if you don't trust the site.

Jerry

Your link doesn't work for me.

[Belteshazzar]

OldShepherd:

Your link doesn't work for me.

Thanks, I fixed the URL in the post, but here it is again if you want it - http://www.ntcanon.org/. Its a great site, it pretty much sticks to mainstream scholarly findings, and even if you don't agree with everything, there's a lot of references to check out.

Jerry

[Socrates]

Today @ 03:16 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=144357#post144357)
Belteshazzar:

They use the same criteria to determine they have the correct interpretation. Should I believe them, or you?

Me, because I do and they manifestly do not.

They also use the authority of the Bible which they also say has objective meaning. How can it be objective then if you both disagree?

Precisely because their interpretations are contrary to the grammar and historical context. Care to give some examples instead of flailing around with vague existentialist generalities?

Then they would arguably not be a cult according to the article you posted. If anyone disagrees with Trinitarianism as defined in the Nicene Creed, then they are heretical, they're not a cult.

The terms are not mutually exclusive.

Thats my whole point. Calling someone a cult is just a McCarthyesque technique to try and impugn someone with whom you disagree.

No, it's a statement of fact, and I don't care if WFJs like Beltie whinge.

Your knowledge of the formation of the Bible is either sadly inadequate, or at variance with the VAST MAJORITY of Biblical scholarship. Please, spend some time over on http://www.ntcanon.org/, its a non-denominational look at the formation of the New Testament. It will also point you to a lot of other references if you don't trust the site.

What a joke. You cite a self-confessed non scholar! :metro: I'll cite an unquestioned NT scholar, F.F. Bruce (The New Testament Documents: Are they reliable? IVP, Downers Gr, Ill., 1960).

‘The NT books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognising their innate worth and generally apostolic authority, direct or indirect…. [Church] councils [did] not impose something new upon the Christian communities but codif[ied] what was already the general practice of those communities.’

Leading NT textual scholar Bruce Metzger said much the same in his interview with Lee Strobel published in his book The Case for Christ. E.g. he gave the analogy of a committee of music experts deciding that Bach and Beethoven were great composers, and someone else claiming that it was the committee which made them great. No, they needed no such declaration; the committee recognized the greatness they already had.

Most scholars would say the books comprising the Bible were not completed until later, probably 130-150 AD.

:rofl: What 19th century liberal German higher critics have you been ingesting to come up with this absurd late-dating? :dunce:

However, the canon of the Bible didn't exist in its current form until around 400 AD.

Nonsense. Most of the books were accepted straight away, even before the NT was complete. E.g. Peter affirmed Paul as Scripture in 2 Peter 3:15–16, and Paul affirmed Luke as Scripture (1 Tim 5:18 cites both Deut. 25:4 and Luke 10:7). There were delays only for a handful of books

T There was no "rubber stamping" of anything, it was a long difficult struggle to determine which books were inspired and which weren't. There were hundreds of writings many of which were considered inspired by various groups of Churches, including the Shepherd of Hermas, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Truth, etc....

Which were readily dismissed, and rightly so, as inauthentic. Humph, it's mainly the Jesus Seminar crackpots who push the Gospel of Thomas, and Metzger was scathing about this.

There were disagreements, political struggles, fights and people died trying to bring us the Bible. To say it was a rubber stamp is an affront to the blood of the martyrs which brought us the Holy Bible.

What emotional claptrap. It's rather a statement of the fact that the Church recognised the authority of the Bible; it did not confer it. It was not a denial of the careful consideration the church applied.

For more information, see The Authority of Scripture (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4306apol_v3n21994.asp), The Christian and Authority (http://www.equip.org/free/DA310.htm
) and On the Formation of the NT Canon (http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_02_01_01.html).

[Belteshazzar]

Socrates:

What a joke. You cite a self-confessed non scholar! :metro: I'll cite an unquestioned NT scholar, F.F. Bruce (The New Testament Documents: Are they reliable? IVP, Downers Gr, Ill., 1960).

Did you bother to read any of the site (http://www.ntcanon.org), or did you rush in with the ad hominems? Because, if you would have read the site before criticizing it, you would have discovered that the primary source for the site is Metzger, the 'other' source you cited (remember?).

But back to Bruce, the last citadel for those clinging to the barest threads of scholarship, even he says: "The earliest list of New Testament books of which we have definite knowledge was drawn up at Rome by the heretic Marcion about 140 (AD)."

Huh? You mean the first list of books wasn't drawn up until 50 years after you said the Bible was universally accepted in its current form? And this list is from a heretic?

Either Bruce is wrong, or you're wrong when you said:
Nonsense. The Canon of Scripture was completed by AD 96, or possible even AD 70.

Then Bruce says: "The first steps in the formation of a canon of authoritative Christian books, worthy to stand beside the Old Testament canon, which was the Bible of our Lord and His apostles, appear to have been taken about the beginning of the second century..."

The FIRST STEPS didn't happen until the beginning of the second century? Again, either your selected source is completely wrong or you were wrong when you said:
Nonsense. The Canon of Scripture was completed by AD 96, or possible even AD 70.

Where Bruce stumbles is failing to understand when he says "the Church included them in her canon
because she already regarded them as divinely inspired" because there were Early Church Fathers who regarded the books as divinely inspired. The ECFs were an integral part of the early forming of the C/catholic Church, and coincide precisely with the first steps in determing the canon. It is through their authority and the authority of the Church that gives us the basis for determining the books which we now agree are canonical.

Otherwise, Bruce really can't explain the Nag Hammadi findings, or any of the other several groups of early Christians who had a completely different Bible than we have today. The Gnostics were heretics, but why? The Marcionites were heretics, but why? Who had the authority to determine heresy and orthodoxy? Bruce doesn't address these issues adequately. Nor does he even seem aware that the Ethiopian Church, outside the reach of the Roman Empire once the Church and State were combined, still has a different canon, to this day. Is Clement's Epistle canonical? The Ethiopians say yes.

But that is beside the point. Your own source contradicts you. And we don't have to rely on the conclusions of Metzger, Bruce, or Elliot, or Schneemelcher, we can go straight to the preserved writings of the earliest Christians. Ain't the information age wonderful?

Irenaeus ~ 180 AD
But the followers of Valentinus, putting away all fear, bring forward their own compositions and boast that they have more Gospels than really exist.

Huh? You said the Canon was closed by 96 AD. Irenaeus wasn't even born then, so how could Valentinus had more Gospels than really exist?

Irenaeus ~ 180 AD
"They produce a fictitious history of this kind, which they style the Gospel of Judas."

Again we can see that someone else had a completely different canon including the Gospel of Judas long after 96 AD.


Clement of Alexandria ~ 200 AD
"The Scripture says that the children exposed by parents are delivered to a protecting angel, by whom they are brought up and nourished. And they shall be, it says, as the faithful of a hundred years old here. Wherefore Peter also says in his Apocalypse, "and a flash of fire, coming from their children and smiting the eyes of the women".

This is a quote by Clement of Alexandria from the Apocalypse of Peter which he calls scripture, and Metzger recognizes that Clement of Alexandria thought the Epistles of Clement of Rome and of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Apocalypse of Peter were inspired canonical writings. But how can this be if the canon was closed in 96 AD?

There are as many quotes from scholars and the earliest Christians to support my view as you care to explore. But one of the most telling is from Augustine.

Augustine 397 AD
"I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so."


Who is right, Bruce or Augustine? I'll take Augustine, thanks...

Jerry

[o2bwise]

The whole world is Babylon. You've got the whore and all her harlot daughters return to her. If history parallels the endtimes, the only thing that isn't Babylon, is Israel, but Israel is in bondage to Babylon.

No one's better than anyone else.

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 04:16 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=145198#post145198)
Belteshazzar:

Did you bother to read any of the site (http://www.ntcanon.org), or did you rush in with the ad hominems? Because, if you would have read the site before criticizing it, you would have discovered that the primary source for the site is Metzger, the 'other' source you cited (remember?).

I know. And he said what he said!!

But back to Bruce, the last citadel for those clinging to the barest threads of scholarship, even he says: "The earliest list of New Testament books of which we have definite knowledge was drawn up at Rome by the heretic Marcion about 140 (AD)."

Huh? You mean the first list of books wasn't drawn up until 50 years after you said the Bible was universally accepted in its current form? And this list is from a heretic?

No, the canon was complete as soon as it was written. Its authority did not depend on any church body, pope or list. This is also Bruce's clear position. The canonical lists were steps in recognizing what was already canonical by virtue of being God's Word.

Where Bruce stumbles is failing to understand when he says "the Church included them in her canon
because she already regarded them as divinely inspired" because there were Early Church Fathers who regarded the books as divinely inspired. The ECFs were an integral part of the early forming of the C/catholic Church, and coincide precisely with the first steps in determing the canon. It is through their authority and the authority of the Church that gives us the basis for determining the books which we now agree are canonical.

No, in recognizing their authority.

Otherwise, Bruce really can't explain the Nag Hammadi findings, or any of the other several groups of early Christians who had a completely different Bible than we have today.

E.g. late 2nd and 3rd century forgeries like the Gospel of Thomas. They were rightly rejected as non-apostolic, which means recognizing that they never had apostolic authority.

The Gnostics were heretics, but why? The Marcionites were heretics, but why? Who had the authority to determine heresy and orthodoxy?

The New Testament, because they had apostolic authority.

Bruce doesn't address these issues adequately. Nor does he even seem aware that the Ethiopian Church, outside the reach of the Roman Empire once the Church and State were combined, still has a different canon, to this day. Is Clement's Epistle canonical? The Ethiopians say yes.

Wrongly. This popish propganda of listing all these counterfeits impresses me no more than skeptics listing all the gods people have believed in as

But that is beside the point. Your own source contradicts you.

In your dreams. You just swallow romish dogma and fail to understand that God's Word needs no human authentication.

And we don't have to rely on the conclusions of Metzger, Bruce, or Elliot, or Schneemelcher, we can go straight to the preserved writings of the earliest Christians. Ain't the information age wonderful?

Yes.

Irenaeus ~ 180 AD
But the followers of Valentinus, putting away all fear, bring forward their own compositions and boast that they have more Gospels than really exist.

Huh? You said the Canon was closed by 96 AD. Irenaeus wasn't even born then, so how could Valentinus had more Gospels than really exist?

It was. The whole point of Irenaeus's quote was that these gnostics had produced counterfeit gospels.

Irenaeus ~ 180 AD
"They produce a fictitious history of this kind, which they style the Gospel of Judas."

Again we can see that someone else had a completely different canon including the Gospel of Judas long after 96 AD.

So what? The existence of counterfeit money doesn't mean that real money is not an objective reality.

This is a quote by Clement of Alexandria from the Apocalypse of Peter which he calls scripture, and Metzger recognizes that Clement of Alexandria thought the Epistles of Clement of Rome and of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Apocalypse of Peter were inspired canonical writings. But how can this be if the canon was closed in 96 AD?

The canon was closed when the last book was written, just as Beethoven's greatness as a composer was assured as soon as he finished his composition, not when a committee of music connoiseurs decided he was great.

There are as many quotes from scholars and the earliest Christians to support my view as you care to explore. But one of the most telling is from Augustine.

Augustine 397 AD
"I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so."


Who is right, Bruce or Augustine? I'll take Augustine, thanks...

I'll take Bruce myself, rather than popish superstition.

[Belteshazzar]

Belteshazzar:

But that is beside the point. Your own source contradicts you.

To which you replied:

Socrates:

In your dreams. You just swallow romish dogma and fail to understand that God's Word needs no human authentication.

Then you are denying that you said
in this post (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=144189#post144189)
Nonsense. The Canon of Scripture was completed by AD 96, or possible even AD 70.

Both of the sources you provided contradict your statement, and you respond by throwing out more ad hominems.

Metzger even puts the dates of some of the books later than 96. Which leaves you with no period of time for the books to be circulated, lists of the books to be compiled and discussed by the various church fathers, and a period of time for consensus to be reached on both
the books we now consider canonical, some of which weren't considered inspired until after 200 AD, e.g. Jude
the books which were rejected as non-canonical, e.g. Shephered of Hermas which wasn't even written until 150 AD


But continue ranting about romish dogma if it makes you feel better.
Jerry

[Thomas2003]

“


Yesterday @ 10:48 PM post located here
Thomas2003:

Hmmm....you mean like Section 501 c 3 of Internal Revenue Code?

I haven't seen one of these organizations yet that isn't controlled almost entirely by the IRS.

And their members blindly follow it too - they are cut off of from family, and most live in fear, if they dare question the ex cathedra commands of the IRS.

Interesting thought anyway.

”





Yeah, yeah, yeah, and black helicopters are flying all around and all of our phones are bugged. The Illuminati controlled government is distributing the AIDS virus through our drinking water, and a partridge in a pear tree


Well, no, I was serious. Independence of Church and State is the very bedrock of both religious and political liberty. Both institutions exist independently but interdepent upon the moral law of God as the foundation of ethics. Since this jurisdictional "separation of church and state" has been re-defined as an ideological separation, the commercialized religion that results inherits the ideology of it's organization. It is impossible to dismiss or not to have an effect.

Who are you worshipping when you tithe in a "tax exempt" church? God demands First Fruits in Scripture, the government is funding those organizations - they derive their existence, organization and law from government. Christ is no longer the head of those Churches, they are Pelagian to the core.

It is a very serious issue and doesn't have anything to do with black helicopters but fidelity to Jesus Christ.

Is the Communion of Saints real or is it just a commercial contract regulated by government and that exists as a beneficial privilege of government? The 501 c 3 cult unanimously agrees that it is a beneficial privilege of government, and they've sworn to it under penalty of perjury.

Caesar demanded incorporation and license as well, the Apostles refused and suffered persecution instead. No law requires it here, but the concept of the Church as the CHURCH and not a business enterprise that exists and functions with federal funding is unheard of today.

If you don't want to underwrite the tax obligations of one of these social pirannah's, you'll find yourself cast out of the "House of God" quicker than you can imagine.

Cult is definately a good definition, just question their legitamacy and you'll find out for yourself.

Cordially,

Thomas

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 08:00 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=145893#post145893)
Thomas2003:

Well, no, I was serious. Independence of Church and State is the very bedrock of both religious and political liberty. Both institutions exist independently but interdepent upon the moral law of God as the foundation of ethics. Since this jurisdictional "separation of church and state" has been re-defined as an ideological separation, the commercialized religion that results inherits the ideology of it's organization. It is impossible to dismiss or not to have an effect.

Who are you worshipping when you tithe in a "tax exempt" church? God demands First Fruits in Scripture, the government is funding those organizations - they derive their existence, organization and law from government. Christ is no longer the head of those Churches, they are Pelagian to the core.

It is a very serious issue and doesn't have anything to do with black helicopters but fidelity to Jesus Christ.

Is the Communion of Saints real or is it just a commercial contract regulated by government and that exists as a beneficial privilege of government? The 501 c 3 cult unanimously agrees that it is a beneficial privilege of government, and they've sworn to it under penalty of perjury.

Caesar demanded incorporation and license as well, the Apostles refused and suffered persecution instead. No law requires it here, but the concept of the Church as the CHURCH and not a business enterprise that exists and functions with federal funding is unheard of today.

If you don't want to underwrite the tax obligations of one of these social pirannah's, you'll find yourself cast out of the "House of God" quicker than you can imagine.

Cult is definately a good definition, just question their legitamacy and you'll find out for yourself.

Cordially,

Thomas

Dog puke! What in the world are you talking about? The church does not support the government with taxes and the government does not support the church, except with basic health, and safety functions. Which blows away your assertion.

The police will investigate criminal acts at a church, a fire department will respond to a fire at a church, but the church is not paying for any of these services. Do you know what "tax exempt" means?
2Pet 2:22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit [dog puke] again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.
When I pay tithes, etc. it goes to support my church, not one penny goes to the government, or anyone or anything else except my church.

"Caesar demanded incorporation and license as well, the Apostles refused and suffered persecution instead." And Jesus said bring me the tribute money, whose inscription is on it? And then He said render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

If Jesus was here today He would say bring me a dollar and a quarter and He would look at them and say, render unto Washington what is Washington's.

And OBTW you are referring to the wrong section of the Internal Revenue Code. The section which applies to churches is IRC Section 501(d). Link to IRS (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf)

[Justme]

Hi John,

You printed out the Creed back there and said:

If that is the definition of orthodoxy, I am orthodox.

And if heresy is defined as not believing any of the Nicene Creed, I am not a heretic.
********************

I'm orthodox, too.

Justme

[mickiel]

no one can rightly explain why christianity can be excluded from the list of modernday cults. I see nothing in christianity that is NOT in other cults. But the most common thing christianity shares with others cults, is the ability to BRAND others-- a cult themselves.

[Thomas2003]

Dear Sir,

Do you know what "tax exempt" means?

Yes, I'm very familiar with the term. In relation to 501 c 3 non-profit organizations the Supreme Court holds that it means a direct government subsidy for the organization, the corresponding "tax deduction" is a direct government subsidy for the individual.

It is "welfare."

When I pay tithes, etc. it goes to support my church, not one penny goes to the government, or anyone or anything else except my church.

Your church, if it is a 501 c 3 organization, may retain custody - but the legal reality is very different. The government considers that their money, in the amount of the tax owed, they are in turn giving it to the church - not you. The church holds that too in it's application to keep the money. It's impossible to obey the Scripture as a "first fruit" in those instances.

This is because the primary function of the tax exempt organization is to carry out the public policy of the United States. And that makes sense to me, I'm not opposed to 501 c 3 organizations, I think they should carry out government policy.

I just don't like being forced to subsidize religions that I don't agree with. The Supreme Court holds that when a church receives a tax exemption or an individual a tax deduction from 501 c 3 that all taxpayers are vicarious donors. I just don't think that is right. At present it is just a custody issue - but that's just for right now, that can change.

"Caesar demanded incorporation and license as well, the Apostles refused and suffered persecution instead." And Jesus said bring me the tribute money, whose inscription is on it? And then He said render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

If Jesus was here today He would say bring me a dollar and a quarter and He would look at them and say, render unto Washington what is Washington's.

In Christ's "render' discourse He completely obliterated Caesar's taxing authority. I believe that to properly interpret that verse you have to know what the Tiberian denarius says - otherwise a person will attempt to interpet it without a full comprehension of the statement, especially in the light of Acts 4:12, 7:17 &c.

I disagree with the remainder of your conclusion.

And OBTW you are referring to the wrong section of the Internal Revenue Code. The section which applies to churches is IRC Section 501(d). Link to IRS

No, I'm refering to section 501 c 3, most all churches organize under 501 c 3. There is 508 c 1 which is the IRS's mandatory exemption from having jurisdiction over real Christian Churches - thus they are not taxable. But most all of them will waive their non-taxable status and voluntary come under regulation of 501 c 3. 501 d is about pole rental for telecommunications and the like.

There is a huge legal difference between non-taxable and tax exempt, the former the government doesn't have jurisdiction, the latter is a government subsidy.

That is why I call it a cult - 508 c 1 provides a MANDATORY EXEMPTION applied to the IRS from having any jurisdiction over the church. There is no requirement for a church to incorporate, to seek tax exempt status or any of this nonsense. They all, like in a cult like stupor, all volunteer. Furthermore, even if a church felt it needed a corporation to own property or what not, they all incorporate the church itself. Why they can't have a "church property managemetn company, Inc" is beyond me, then the law requires the members of the church to be members of the corporation. I simply will not do that. Hence, those individuals are underwriting those tax obligations - if they lose their tax exempt status - then the government can come after the individual members.

I am of the opinion that a "church" organized like this really isn't a church in the Scriptural definition. It's a commercial business entity that practices certain tenets of the Christian Faith. The more I study it I'm coming down on the opinion that they don't have authority to preach, teach, baptize, administer the Lords Supper or do any of the official actions of a church. I'm thinking they are "para-church" organizations, maybe something like the Boy Scouts - "Christian Scouts" LOL Not exactly, but that is the analogy I think best describes it.

Cordially,


Thomas

[John Reece]

Today @ 04:08 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=146119#post146119)
Justme:

Hi John,

You printed out the Creed back there and said:

If that is the definition of orthodoxy, I am orthodox.

And if heresy is defined as not believing any of the Nicene Creed, I am not a heretic.
********************

I'm orthodox, too.

Justme

Hi Justme,

It is good to have a creed that does not exclude as heretical what is not really heretical in terms of what the scriptures actually say and do not say. Problems arise when interpretations of scripture become the defining criteria for excluding those who do not subscribe to those interpretations: hence the fragmentation of the Body of Christ along the lines of doctrinal interpretation, instead of the unity that is the ultimate goal destined by God.

Peace and blessings,

John

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 02:53 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=146223#post146223)
Thomas2003:

Dear Sir,

Yes, I'm very familiar with the term. In relation to 501 c 3 non-profit organizations the Supreme Court holds that it means a direct government subsidy for the organization, the corresponding "tax deduction" is a direct government subsidy for the individual.

It is "welfare."

Thomas

If you will refer to my previous post, I posted a link to the appropriate IRS directives to back up what I have been saying. All I see from you is a lot of smoke blowing and nothing, to back it up. If you have something but what you think, what you suppose, what you heard jaw jacking with your buddies, I'll listen until then, you haven't done anything but make a lot of noise.

If the govt. does not take a tax that is NOT a subsidy. They have to have it first for it to be a subsidy.

[o2bwise]

The whole 501c3 issue is interesting. I am pretty sure that a 501c3 cannot speak against government or other bodies. For exampled, Texe Maars (sp?) had his ministry raided by the IRS. Why? Because of things he SAID.

A 501c3 is a type of incorporation. I believe corporations are inherently evil. They are creations of men and have been used, in part, to coerce man to serve them, be in bondage to them. The concept of being in servitude to the object of one's creation rather than one's own Creator, is an absolute perversion.

It is possible to be a church without being a 501c3.

501c3 no good, imo.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

[Belteshazzar]

mickiel:

I see nothing in christianity that is NOT in other cults. But the most common thing christianity shares with others cults, is the ability to BRAND others-- a cult themselves.

Mickiel, yes I agree with you (for once). :smile: Especially since some in this thread wanted to brand you a cultist because you do not believe in the trinity. Thats not a cult, thats your belief. I don't agree with you, but I don't think you are a cultist for believing it.

Cult had a perfectly good meaning, and not necessarily bad, before it was hijacked by the "historic Christian faith" crowd who tried to setup a system of doctrine to determine who was a cult. But what happens so often in the "historic Christian faith" crowd, is that they can never really agree on anything, so the guidelines are set so vaguely that it can be applied to anyone with whom they disagree.

Jerry

[Justme]

Hi John,

It is good to have a creed that does not exclude as heretical what is not really heretical in terms of what the scriptures actually say and do not say. Problems arise when interpretations of scripture become the defining criteria for excluding those who do not subscribe to those interpretations: hence the fragmentation of the Body of Christ along the lines of doctrinal interpretation, instead of the unity that is the ultimate goal destined by God.

That paragraph really says a lot of important stuff, all of it true.

Thanks

Justme

[OldShepherd]

Yesterday @ 11:14 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=146475#post146475)
o2bwise:

The whole 501c3 issue is interesting. I am pretty sure that a 501c3 cannot speak against government or other bodies. For exampled, Texe Maars (sp?) had his ministry raided by the IRS. Why? Because of things he SAID.

A 501c3 is a type of incorporation. I believe corporations are inherently evil. They are creations of men and have been used, in part, to coerce man to serve them, be in bondage to them. The concept of being in servitude to the object of one's creation rather than one's own Creator, is an absolute perversion.

It is possible to be a church without being a 501c3.

501c3 no good, imo.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

♩ ♪ Where have all the flowers gone long time passing? The answer my friend is blowing in the wind, the answer is blowing in the wind. ♬

I know I posted a link to the IRS and the appropriate directives but all I can get in response is a lot of, "I know this." and "I know that." and not one bit of substantiation.

According to the IRS documents I linked to, unlike any other tax exempt organization, recognized churches are entitled to the tax exempt status without doing anything. No corporation. No servitude. No bondage. I'm really not interested in what a bunch of paranoid government conspiracy dweebs concoct in their basements. Ya got any facts?

[Thomas2003]

If you will refer to my previous post, I posted a link to the appropriate IRS directives to back up what I have been saying. All I see from you is a lot of smoke blowing and nothing, to back it up. If you have something but what you think, what you suppose, what you heard jaw jacking with your buddies, I'll listen until then, you haven't done anything but make a lot of noise.

If the govt. does not take a tax that is NOT a subsidy. They have to have it first for it to be a subsidy

Dear Sir,

I went through the link you gave, I've read it before. I presumed your reference to 501 d is a reference to the code, the link for the code is 26 USC 501 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/501.html)

As to the remainder of your comment, actually I'm very well versed and have read about every Supreme Court case there is on the subject, as well as those concerning the First Amendment. I have considered litigating the matter, but determined it wasn't winable - Churches voluntarily change their legal status, so the government holds it is not funding a "religion." It's selective definition - the Ten Commandments on a court house wall is "establishing religion"; the funding of churches is not! LOL Since 501 c 3 requires incorporation the government looks at it and says, oh that's a business, that's not a church - the "church" is a DBA, a fiction to the government. And I concluded they were correct, to qualify for section 501 c 3 you essentially have to agree you will not obey the Great Commission. Form 1023 is the Application you have to file and Section A is where you file your religious tenets, sermons samples and explain your beliefs - if a Church said they were opposed to abortion, beleived the Churches job was to advance the Great Commission and teach the nation to obey the Ten Commandments - they would never be approved.

Here is what the Supreme Court says regarding your disagreement,

"Both tax exemptions and tax deductibility are a form of subsidy that is administered through the tax system. A tax exemption has much the same effect as a cash grant to the organization of the amount of tax it would have to pay on its income. Deductible contributions are similar to cash grants of the amount of a portion of the individuals contributions." Regan v Taxation with Representation, 461 US 540 at 544, 1983, US Supreme Court

"When the Government grants exemptions or allows deductions all taxpayers are affected; the very fact of the exemption or deduction for the donor means that other taxpayers can be said to be indirect and vicarious "donors." Bob Jones Univ v US, 461 US 574, 1983, US Supreme Court

There are hundreds more cases, all the same conclusions. It is a legal reality in "truth and substance", not form. Congress cannot define what "income" is, each person does that in truth and substance when you testify under penalty of perjury. If you have "income" you are receiving a government privilege someplace, most American's are subject to social security, so they receive the privilege of those 118 benefits. But the Church is not subject to social security until it signs up for social security. The question is should they be signing up? Is the "Independence of Church and State" a Christian doctrine, or just a liberal doctrine? The Founding Fathers held it to be a big basis of the political and religious thought from the founding of the country - they were escaping the "divine right of kings."

If the subject is something that interests you I can give some insight on several good books to read on the subject.

My point on bringing it up was in regards to the "cult" issue and the definition given. Essentially people that utilize no critical thought, mindlessly follow orders of a pretended superior, generally to their own harm and to that superior's good and contrary to the essential principles of the particular religion, such as Christianity - form that definition of a cult.

The 501 c 3 organizations fits this "cult" profile, in my opinion. There isn't any legal requirement to do it, and section 508 c 1 is a mandatory exception to 501 c 3 for Christian Churches:

Sec. 508. - Special rules with respect to section 501c3 organizations
(a) New organizations must notify Secretary that they are applying for recognition of section 501(c)(3) status

Except as provided in subsection (c), an organization organized after October 9, 1969, shall not be treated as an organization described in section 501(c)(3) -

<snip>

(c) Exceptions
(1) Mandatory exceptions
Subsections (a) and (b) shall not apply to

(A) churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches

They just blinding and mindlessly follow the other church that did the same thing and sign these documents under penalty of perjury!

These Church sign that they agree tithes and offerings are beneficially received as a privilege of government - not the First Fruits of Almighty God - without any legal requirement, without any threat, any duress.

Here is the application a Church must file, Form 1023 (http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:cjh9oFlumgIJ:www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/k1023.pdf+k1023&hl=en&ie=UTF-8) (if the link doesn't work, search on google for k1023.pdf

Scroll down to Section A, and read it's instructions it is quite enlightening. There are court cases that explain this same thing - you have to be in compliance with public policy to qualify.

My Christian beliefs are opposed to a great many things of public policy, and I'm not wishing to make my worship a political issue. That is off limits.

Cordially,


Thomas

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 01:37 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=146535#post146535)
Thomas2003:

Dear Sir,

I went through the link you gave, I've read it before. I presumed your reference to 501 d is a reference to the code, the link for the code is http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/501.html” (“26 USC 501

Yes and just as I said 501(d) applies to churches.

Churches voluntarily change their legal status, so the government holds it is not funding a “religion.”

Since 501 c 3 requires incorporation the government looks at it and says, oh that's a business, that's not a church - the “church” is a DBA, a fiction to the government.

Dog puke! 501(c) does not require churches to incorporate if they file the IRS form 1023. And filing a 1023 does not change a churches status in any way. Read your own link.

www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/k1023.pdf
2 Pet 2:22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit [dog puke] again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.
And I concluded they were correct, to qualify for section 501 c 3 you essentially have to agree you will not obey the Great Commission. Form 1023 is the Application you have to file and Section A is where you file your religious tenets, sermons samples and explain your beliefs - if a Church said they were opposed to abortion, beleived the Churches job was to advance the Great Commission and teach the nation to obey the Ten Commandments - they would never be approved.

Dog puke, dog puke, and more dog puke. None of this is stated or implied in the instructions for form 1023.

Here is what the Supreme Court says regarding your disagreement,

“Both tax exemptions and tax deductibility are a form of subsidy that is administered through the tax system. A tax exemption has much the same effect as a cash grant to the organization of the amount of tax it would have to pay on its income. Deductible contributions are similar to cash grants of the amount of a portion of the individuals contributions.” Regan v Taxation with Representation, 461 US 540 at 544, 1983, US Supreme Court

”A tax exemption has much the same effect. . .” My problem is I read English quite fluently and I have done extensive legal research, representing myself, “in pro persona,” in litigation, against a military department, in the 9th circuit court in San Francisco and I know how to read case law. First, “Regan” is NOT a church, therefore this case is of questionable relevance. And probably most important of all, “has much the same effect” is NOT the same as being the thing in question.

“When the Government grants exemptions or allows deductions all taxpayers are affected; the very fact of the exemption or deduction for the donor means that other taxpayers can be said to be indirect and vicarious “donors.” Bob Jones Univ v US, 461 US 574, 1983, US Supreme Court

Same observation. Bob Jones U. is NOT a church. And there is much more to that decision which I'm sure affect the meaning of that sentence. Do you have any decided case law involving churches? Maybe try Jay Seculo at ACLJ.

The 501 c 3 organizations fits this “cult” profile, in my opinion. There isn't any legal requirement to do it, and section 508 c 1 is a mandatory exception to 501 c 3 for Christian Churches:

Only churches could be cults, and nothing in 501(c) makes a church a cult. What other nonprofit organizations do and do not do is irrelevant.

These Church sign that they agree tithes and offerings are beneficially received as a privilege of government - not the First Fruits of Almighty God - without any legal requirement, without any threat, any duress.

Dog puke. No such requirement is stated or implied in form 1023 instructions.

Here is the application a Church must file, IRS Form 1023 (www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/k1023.pdf ) (if the link doesn't work, search on google for k1023.pdf

Scroll down to Section A, and read it's instructions it is quite enlightening. There are court cases that explain this same thing - you have to be in compliance with public policy to qualify.

Filing of the form is voluntary Not mandatory. And filing the form entails no requirement to incorporate or otherwise be in compliance with public policy.

I scrolled down to section A. Here are the pertinent sections.It doesn't say what you claim it does.
Line 2.—Include amounts received from members for the purpose of providing support to the organization. These are considered as contributions. Do not include payments to purchase admissions, merchandise, services, or use of facilities.

Line 9.—Include income generated by the organization’s exempt function activities (charitable, educational, etc.) and its nontaxable fundraising events (excluding any contributions received). An organization should consider the advance ruling option if it has not received significant public support during its first tax year or during its first and second tax years, but it reasonably expects to receive such support by the end of its fifth tax year. An organization that receives an advance ruling is treated, during the 5-year advance ruling period, as a public charity (rather than a private foundation) for certain purposes, including those relating to the deductibility of contributions by the general public. Examples of such income include the income derived by a symphony orchestra from the sale of tickets to its performances; and raffles, bingo, or other fundraising-event income that is not taxable as unrelated business income because the income-producing activities are not regularly carried on or because they are conducted with substantially all (at least 85%) volunteer labor. Record related cost of sales on line 22, Other.

My Christian beliefs are opposed to a great many things of public policy, and I'm not wishing to make my worship a political issue. That is off limits.

And what does the IRS and 501(c) have to do with this?

♩ ♪ And the answer my friend is blowing in the wind. The answer is blowing in the wind. ♪ ♬

[Thomas2003]

Today @ 01:37 AM post located here Thomas2003:
Dear Sir,
I went through the link you gave, I've read it before. I presumed your reference to 501 d is a reference to the code, the link for the code is http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/501.html”]26 USC 501[/url]
Yes and just as I said 501(d) applies to churches.

Hi,

501 d is just a definition of the organizations availble for coverage in 501 c 3. It does not separate them from that section, just defines them if they are a religious organization.

Dog puke! 501(c) does not require churches to incorporate if they file the IRS form 1023. And filing a 1023 does not change a churches status in any way. Read your own link.

First, do you have torrets syndrome or something?

Section, 501 c 3 does require a corporate status, an association can file, but they cannot be approved unless they qualify in a "quasi-corporate" status.

It is impossible for the Church as the Church to qualify for 501 c 3, approval of the 1023 application does change a churches legal status to that of a "religious organization." A Christian Church, at that point is on the same level as every other religion.

The only way one can qualify for the 16th Amendment, in which you need an exemption from, is via the Commerce Clause, Article 1 Section 8, thus the only way a Church can get to that status is through the 14th Amendment.

It's your typical "First Amendment applied against the States via the 14th" routine that establishes the legal status from whence tax exemption can even be sought.

Dog puke, dog puke, and more dog puke. None of this is stated or implied in the instructions for form 1023.

It is explicit, one cannot be approved if one is not in compliance with public policy. You can try it for yourself if you like.

I really don't care if you beleive any thing I'm saying or not, I'm not here to prove anything to you, nor do I need your approval. So, you can "dog puke" all you want it is meaningless nonsense that only expresses a low character.

”A tax exemption has much the same effect. . .” My problem is I read English quite fluently and I have done extensive legal research, representing myself, “in pro persona,” in litigation, against a military department, in the 9th circuit court in San Francisco and I know how to read case law. First, “Regan” is NOT a church, therefore this case is of questionable relevance. And probably most important of all, “has much the same effect” is NOT the same as being the thing in question.

Yeah, well, so have I. The part you are picking apart is just an explanation of the qualifying statement, which is:

"Both tax exemptions and tax deductibility are a form of subsidy that is administered through the tax system."

How that subsidy is adminstered is irrelevant to the legal fact it is a subsidy, which is the primary issue at hand.

Regan was the secretary of the Treasury, Taxation with Representation was an organization to promote it's view on public interest in regards to federal taxation. It was denied because it would have attempted to influence legislation in contradiction to 501 c 3.

This is important as it applies to Churches because the Great Commission mandates that we, as the Church, teach the nations to obey God's Laws.

Same observation. Bob Jones U. is NOT a church. And there is much more to that decision which I'm sure affect the meaning of that sentence. Do you have any decided case law involving churches? Maybe try Jay Seculo at ACLJ.

The public school is not the federal government either, but a precendent regarding the funding of that affected every area of life. The issue is the government subsidies.

Everything is being reversed, prior to these decisions the Court held that an "exemption" was a failure of the government to exercise jurisdiction. This was Walz v Tax Commissioner, this is now changed - it is no longer a failure of the governmetn to exercise jurisdiction, but the exercise of jurisdiction in a direct subsidy.

Only churches could be cults, and nothing in 501(c) makes a church a cult. What other nonprofit organizations do and do not do is irrelevant.

Of course, my statement was intended to be interpreted as 501 c 3 "religious" organizations in direct reference to the thread.

Dog puke. No such requirement is stated or implied in form 1023 instructions.

Well, it is in the law - otherwise the privilege tax would not apply for which they are seeking an exemption. But that's ok, I really don't care about your opinion.

Filing of the form is voluntary Not mandatory. And filing the form entails no requirement to incorporate or otherwise be in compliance with public policy.

My oh my, is Balaam's ass speaking? You act like your mind is what is holding molecules together attacking insignificant issues that are unrelated to the importance of the subject matter, and yet you speak from what is apparent ignorance. Being rude and discourteous just exemplifies very poor character, it certainly doesn't elevate your stature with me.

The purpose for filing the form is to be approved, you are correct it is voluntary - that is the ENTIRE POINT. No law requires the filing of the form or being approved for the filing.

They are seeking an exemption of the "income tax" for which they are not liable. They cannot obtain an exemption until they prove they are liable - that is the POINT.

A Church as a Church cannot have income unless it is organized to where it is revenue that is beneficially received from corporate or quasi-corporate organization.

This is basic knowledge, Sir, regarding the income tax law, it's been this way since the 16th Amendment was added, the whole purpose of the Amendment is to insure that the tax is not taken out of it's indirect nature of it's intent as an excise tax and placed into a direct tax without apportionment in violation of Article 1 Section 2.

After all, everybody understands that the 16th Amendment did not impose any new taxing authority.

Without any new taxing authority there is no legal status change of Churches before 1913 or after 1913, until they file to prove they liable for a tax they are not liable for.

And what does the IRS and 501(c) have to do with this?


I believe it is Molech worship and a capital crime under God's Laws.

I believe the Communion of Saints exists in the Holy Spirit, not in contract law.

Thanks,

Thomas

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 04:14 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=147829#post147829)
Thomas2003:

My oh my, is Balaam's ass speaking? You act like your mind is what is holding molecules together attacking insignificant issues that are unrelated to the importance of the subject matter, and yet you speak from what is apparent ignorance. Being rude and discourteous just exemplifies very poor character, it certainly doesn't elevate your stature with me.
Thanks,

Thomas

The difference my פרא friend is I was referring to the material you were posting, as dog puke. But you have taken to making direct insulting remarks to me, calling me an ass, and ignorant and I guess the other means I have no brain. I usually find this happening with people who only claim to be Christian. If you were what you are claiming to be you would know the difference. And you quite evidently do not.

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 04:14 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=147829#post147829)
Thomas2003:

First, do you have torrets syndrome or something?

Never heard of it. Are you sure you don't mean "Tourettes's Syndrome."? And it does not apply that pertains only to spoken sounds.

Section, 501 c 3 does require a corporate status, an association can file, but they cannot be approved unless they qualify in a "quasi-corporate" status.

It is impossible for the Church as the Church to qualify for 501 c 3, approval of the 1023 application does change a churches legal status to that of a "religious organization." A Christian Church, at that point is on the same level as every other religion. * * *

It's your typical "First Amendment applied against the States via the 14th" routine that establishes the legal status from whence tax exemption can even be sought.

It is explicit, one cannot be approved if one is not in compliance with public policy. You can try it for yourself if you like.

Instead of presenting more of the same argument, the reasonable thing to do, if you keep insisting that I am wrong, is quote the appropriate sections of the statute/directive. I already told you I read through the complete 1023 link and nothing you have said, nor are now saying, is stated at that link. I read the complete 26 USC 501, nothing you have said is stated there. So where is all this unsupported dog puke coming from?

I really don't care if you beleive any thing I'm saying or not, I'm not here to prove anything to you, nor do I need your approval. So, you can "dog puke" all you want it is meaningless nonsense that only expresses a low character.

I don't believe what you are saying because you have NOT backed it up from IRS sources. I was talking about the material you posted being dog puke. Wouldn't a person's character be even lower who actually calls someone ignorant and an ass?

This is important as it applies to Churches because the Great Commission mandates that we, as the Church, teach the nations to obey God's Laws.

And nothing you have posted or linked prevents any church or any Christian from doing that, whether they file a 1023 or not. Read you own link.

Everything is being reversed, prior to these decisions the Court held that an &quot;exemption&quot; was a failure of the government to exercise jurisdiction. This was Walz v Tax Commissioner, this is now changed - it is no longer a failure of the governmetn to exercise jurisdiction, but the exercise of jurisdiction in a direct subsidy.

Of course, my statement was intended to be interpreted as 501 c 3 &quot;religious&quot; organizations in direct reference to the thread.

Well, it is in the law - otherwise the privilege tax would not apply for which they are seeking an exemption. But that's ok, I really don't care about your opinion.

The purpose for filing the form is to be approved, you are correct it is voluntary - that is the ENTIRE POINT. No law requires the filing of the form or being approved for the filing.

They are seeking an exemption of the &quot;income tax&quot; for which they are not liable. They cannot obtain an exemption until they prove they are liable - that is the POINT.

A Church as a Church cannot have income unless it is organized to where it is revenue that is beneficially received from corporate or quasi-corporate organization.

This is basic knowledge, Sir, regarding the income tax law, it's been this way since the 16th Amendment was added, the whole purpose of the Amendment is to insure that the tax is not taken out of it's indirect nature of it's intent as an excise tax and placed into a direct tax without apportionment in violation of Article 1 Section 2.

After all, everybody understands that the 16th Amendment did not impose any new taxing authority.

Without any new taxing authority there is no legal status change of Churches before 1913 or after 1913, until they file to prove they liable for a tax they are not liable for.

One last time. Everything you have posted is just a bunch of hot air. I have asked you to prove it and you have not been able to do so. Here are the pertinent sections of "Application for Recognition of Exemption", IRS Form 1023. It supports nothing of what you said.
Application for Recognition of Exemption
Under Section 501(c)(3) of the

Purpose of Form

1. Completed Form 1023 required for section 501(c)(3)

exemption. - Unless it meets one of the exceptions in 2 below, any organization formed after October 9, 1969, must file a Form 1023 to qualify as a section 501(c)(3) organization.

2. Organizations not required to file Form 1023.-- The following types of organizations may be considered tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) even if they do not file Form 1023:

1. Churches,

2. Integrated auxiliaries of churches, and conventions or associations of churches, or

3. Any organization that:

(a) Is not a private foundation (as defined in section 509(a)), and

(b) Has gross receipts in each taxable year of normally not more than $5,000.

Even if the above organizations are not required to file Form 1023 to be tax-exempt, these organizations may choose to file Form 1023 in order to receive a determination letter that recognizes their section 501(c)(3) status.

Section 501(c)(3) status provides certain incidental benefits such as:

• Public recognition of tax-exempt status.
• Advance assurance to donors of deductibility of contributions.
• Exemption from certain state taxes.
• Exemption from certain Federal excise taxes.
• Nonprofit mailing privileges, etc.

Instructions – Schedule A

Although a church, its integrated auxiliaries, or a convention or association of churches is not required to file Form 1023 to be exempt from Federal income tax or to receive tax-deductible contributions, such an organization may find it advantageous to obtain recognition of exemption. In this event, you should submit information showing that your organization is a church, synagogue, association or convention of
churches, religious order or religious organization that is an integral part of a church, and that it is carrying out the functions of a church.

In order for the IRS to properly evaluate your organization’s activities and religious purposes, it is important that all questions in Schedule A be answered. The information submitted with Schedule A will be a determining factor in granting the “church” status requested by your organization. In completing the schedule, consider the following points: In determining whether an admittedly religious organization is also a church, the IRS does not accept any and every assertion that such an organization is a church. Because beliefs and practices vary so widely, there is no single definition of the word “church” for tax purposes. The IRS considers the facts and circumstances of each organization applying for church status.

1. The organization’s activities in furtherance of its beliefs must be exclusively religious, and

2. An organization will not qualify for exemption if it has a substantial nonexempt purpose of serving the private interests of its founder or the founder’s family. The IRS maintains two basic guidelines in determining that an organization meets the religious purposes test:

1. That the particular religious beliefs of the organization are truly and sincerely held, and

2. An organization will not qualify for exemption if it has a substantial nonexempt purpose of serving the private interests of its founder or the founder’s family.

[Thomas2003]

The difference my ??? friend is I was referring to the material you were posting, as dog puke. But you have taken to making direct insulting remarks to me, calling me an ass, and ignorant and I guess the other means I have no brain. I usually find this happening with people who only claim to be Christian. If you were what you are claiming to be you would know the difference. And you quite evidently do not.

Dear Sir,

I asked a question, I didn't make a statement. And Scripture indicates that the Holy Spirit spake through Balaam's ass.

In contrast, your continual presentation of low character and off statement remarks of "dog puke" insinuates that I am a dog as the Scripture reference you gave indicates. You began that attack with your very first post.

There is no justification for your continual rhetoric. If you cannot behave as a gentlemen then I do not have the time to waste with correcting the behavior of someone that is probably my senior, but most certainly not my elder.

Cordially,

Thomas

[Thomas2003]

Instead of presenting more of the same argument, the reasonable thing to do, if you keep insisting that I am wrong, is quote the appropriate sections of the statute/directive. I already told you I read through the complete 1023 link and nothing you have said, nor are now saying, is stated at that link. I read the complete 26 USC 501, nothing you have said is stated there. So where is all this unsupported dog puke coming from?

As I've stated there are hundreds of legal cases covering this. You are all knowing, why would I need to show you anything?

I don't believe what you are saying because you have NOT backed it up from IRS sources. I was talking about the material you posted being dog puke. Wouldn't a person's character be even lower who actually calls someone ignorant and an ass?

The IRS is an administrative agency, I backed up what I said with Judicial authority.

And nothing you have posted or linked prevents any church or any Christian from doing that, whether they file a 1023 or not. Read you own link.

Whatever you say, thank you.

One last time. Everything you have posted is just a bunch of hot air. I have asked you to prove it and you have not been able to do so. Here are the pertinent sections of "Application for Recognition of Exemption", IRS Form 1023. It supports nothing of what you said.

I would suggest you review the First Amendment. I presume that when discussing this matter with another Christian I am going to be dealing with someone who believes that God is Sovereign, that Jesus Christ is head of the Church, and many other like Christian doctrines.

You seem to demand proof from a presupposition that all these things are false, thus I must provide evidence as to why Jesus Christ is head of His Church from the Application for Tax Exemption, to satisfy your false premise that it cannot be true otherwise. Hence, since it doesn't say "Jesus Christ is not sovereign" then it cannot possibly mean that in the law by long settled judicial authority. You already know all things, so there is no point in trying to educate you as I cannot edify you.

A person has to be on the same playing field and you seem to be very unhappy and angry and I don't have the patience to be able to deal with your rhetoric anymore.

Thanks anyway.

Thomas

[Socrates]

Thomas2003 and OldShepherd, as thread starter, I have a right to ask that you keep the thread on topic. I can't see that bickering about arcane American tax laws has any bearing on this, especially as I'm Australian. I want to stick to the definitions of a cult as proposed by the CRI, please.

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 01:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=148108#post148108)
Socrates:

Thomas2003 and OldShepherd, as thread starter, I have a right to ask that you keep the thread on topic. I can't see that bickering about arcane American tax laws has any bearing on this, especially as I'm Australian. I want to stick to the definitions of a cult as proposed by the CRI, please.

Done. I was only responding to arguments posted which seemed to classify all churches as cults because of tax laws.

[Steef]

I am a trinitarian for sure but I have seen the Spirit poured out on Chrisitans who were Oneness, too. I can witness that it is the same Spirit that is poured out in the Trinitarian churches. The Holy Spirit will NOT pour itself out on a cult. They are just decieved about one doctrine and they need our love and encouragement to see their errors in the Word.

[Jude3b]

Hi Soc,
Do I understand by this definition that Freewill Baptist and Church of Christ members are cults? Also the Catholic Church too? These ones believe the teaching of "faith without works is dead" implies that we MUST have works to have faith. Or maybe I misunderstand what you mean by "salvation by grace through faith alone." Just want to make sure who the "cults" are.

Freewill Baptists believe that salvation is by grace through faith, so therefore it would not be included in the Evangelical Cult list.

Roman Catholicism would be considered a cult because of their salvation by fatih plus WORKS. The works that Romanism claim are necessary are the seven sacraments which they claim are necessary for salvation.

It could be debated whether the Church of Christ has cultic leanings because of their baptismal regeneration doctrine.

One thing to consider in all Christian (so-called) groups - it would still be the individual believer and God who will be the one to determine who is saved and who is not. We cannot fully know anothers heart and if they are trusting Christ alone for their salvation. It is possible and very probable that there are some saved people in Mormonism, Jehovah Witnesses, Roman Catholics, etc. Only God fully knows the thoughts and intents of the heart of the individual member of those groups. That is also true of any Christian group. There are no doubt lost people in most if not all of the Christian groups that do teach a clear gospel message. Only God knows for sure. The only one that I can say for sure that I know is saved is me. That is only because I know that I can never earn salvation or be good enough - so I have to fully trust Jesus Christ - He is the only hope I have. Amen.

[Maimonides]

:huh: It seems to me that labeling some group as a cult is just an indirect way of describing them as heretical, but it is such a loosely defined pejorative term, that its hard to nail down. Good examples are the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses, which have millions of members with their own intepretation of scripture. However, since it doesn't fall in line with some non-existant pseudo "historic Christian faith" then they are impuned by the article as cultists. Actually, I don't understand how any sola-scripturist can deny anyone's personal interpretation of scripture since it is precisely the personal interpretation of scripture upon which they base their decision. Why not allow everyone to have their interpretation of scripture without calling them cultists?

And I'm a little wary of using the word 'cult' because there are some that push this to the extreme in the evangelical world, including the Bob Jones crowd which claim the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are cults. In fact, they claim just about everyone in Christianity, except for themselves, are cultists.

Also, cults are usually only recognized as cults after they do something horrible, like David Koresh, Jim Jones, or the Heaven's Gate Hale-Bopp people. We can, with the benefit of hindsight, call them the Branch Davidian Cult, but before the Waco debacle they were probably largely seen as a hard-core group of pentacostal or fundamentalist Bible-believing Christians.

Lastly, if we apply the standards of the article to the the earliest Christians in the New Testament, we would have to conclude the earliest Christians, who practiced the faith as taught directly by Christ, his disciples, and Paul, were cultists. Some of them sold all of their belongings and lived communally. If someone were to espouse adherence to Christ's words in Mark 10:21 "Go, sell what you have, and give to (the) poor and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me." They would be a cultist according to the article because they are "demanding total commitment and loyalty."

Oh well, thats my $0.02.
Jerry
Worth far more to a heretic such as myself. It is a good point that squares well with my own convictions: what gives certain groups the right to vindicate themselves and point the finger at others? Oh, that's right: faith.

And of course all those other groups believe in their truth and are willing to tell you so. I've talked to some very wonderful Catholics and Mormons.

[Maimonides]

I am a trinitarian for sure but I have seen the Spirit poured out on Chrisitans who were Oneness, too. I can witness that it is the same Spirit that is poured out in the Trinitarian churches. The Holy Spirit will NOT pour itself out on a cult. They are just decieved about one doctrine and they need our love and encouragement to see their errors in the Word.
Assuming we can agree on what those are. See my thread, "The Gospel According to Maimonides." I realize I sound very anti-Evangelical at times, and more than a little world-weary; as a historian I trend toward the pessimistic and even the cynical at times. Actually I know quite a few great Evangelical Protestant Christians although I do not describe myself as such.