Since the nature of Christ has come up in this topic and I found a quote speaking on it yesterday, I thought Id post it here. Its from CS Lewis "mere christianity, unfortionately I havent read it in the original book but as a quote. I hope it was fairly quoted in the first place.

quote:

---

No man knows how bad he is till he has tried very hard to be good. A silly idea is current that good people do not know what temptation means. This is an obvious lie. Only those who try to resist temptation know how strong it is. After all, you find out the strength... of a wind by trying to walk against it, not by lying down. A man who gives in to temptation after five minutes simply does not know what it would have been like an hour later.
That is why bad people, in one sence, know very little about badness. They have lived a sheltered life by always giving in. We never find out the strength of the evil impulse inside us until we try to fight it: and Christ, because He was the only man who never yielded to temptation, is also the only man who knows to the full what temptation means--the only complete realist.

---

What do you think about this?

/Thomas

Will let the Spirit of Prophecy speak for me:

"In the parable of the unjust judge, Christ has shown what we should do. "Shall not God avenge His own elect, which cry day and night unto Him?" Christ, our example, did nothing to vindicate or deliver Himself. He committed His case to God. So His followers are not to accuse or condemn, or to resort to force in order to deliver themselves. {COL 171.2}
When trials arise that seem unexplainable, we should not allow our peace to be spoiled. However unjustly we may be treated, let not passion arise. By indulging a spirit
172
of retaliation we injure ourselves. We destroy our own confidence in God, and grieve the Holy Spirit. There is by our side a witness, a heavenly messenger, who will lift up for us a standard against the enemy. He will shut us in with the bright beams of the Sun of Righteousness. Beyond this Satan cannot penetrate. He cannot pass this shield of holy light. {COL 171.3}
While the world is progressing in wickedness, none of us need flatter ourselves that we shall have no difficulties. But it is these very difficulties that bring us into the audience chamber of the Most High. We may seek counsel of One who is infinite in wisdom. {COL 172.1}
The Lord says, "Call upon Me in the day of trouble." Ps. 50:15. He invites us to present to Him our perplexities and necessities, and our need of divine help. He bids us be instant in prayer. As soon as difficulties arise, we are to offer to Him our sincere, earnest petitions. By our importunate prayers we give evidence of our strong confidence in God. The sense of our need leads us to pray earnestly, and our heavenly Father is moved by our supplications. {COL 172.2}
Often those who suffer reproach or persecution for their faith are tempted to think themselves forsaken by God. In the eyes of men they are in the minority. To all appearance their enemies triumph over them. But let them not violate their conscience. He who has suffered in their behalf, and has borne their sorrows and afflictions, has not forsaken them. {COL 172.3}

Liane, the Zoo Mama

I would like for us to try and keep on topic here.

Those side topics could become new topics though.

Daryl, sorry for intruding on the cultic topic with Christ You or another moderator could perhaps move it into a new topic.

Could anyone explain what Lianes quote had to do with mine, if it was an answere at all.

/Thomas

I can see it’s been awhile since anyone posted to this topic, but I think it is interesting and important enough to revive it.

What a cult is depends on who gets to define it. The term prior to the 1940’s was mostly a benign synonym of “sect”. Some Evangelicals began to apply the term to religious groups who used bibles that deviated from the KJV or whose beliefs were different from the teachings of the KJV as interpreted by—you guessed it—them.

By the 1950’s Evangelicals like Jan Karel van Baalen, J. Oswald Sanders and, of course, Walter Martin, were applying the term to a broader group. Martin’s definition from Rise of the Cults, in at least some form, has been used by Evangelicals ever since:

quote:

---

"By cultism we mean the adherence to doctrines which are pointedly contradictory to orthodox Christianity and which yet claim the distinction of either tracing their origin to orthodox sources or of being in essential harmony with those sources. Cultism, in short, is any major deviation from orthodox Christianity relative to the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith."

---

There are two major problems with this definition:

1. It is subjective. The RCC could easily have used the same definition to condemn the Reformation.
2. It does not establish the authority by which the term can apply.

What it amounts to is a modern equivalent to the term heresy which begs the question, who gets to decide what is “orthodox” and what gives them authority to decide? At least they don’t seem to include burning “cultists” at the stake….yet!

Perhaps another related topic should be, Are Christians called to designate “cults”?

Jeff

Christians are certainly called to define according to their best understanding what is and what is not a sound system of religious faith. The UPC does not teach the biblical view of the godhead but instead teaches an ancient heresy called modalism. Many would represent that then as a cult.

Nevertheless, the determination is an inevitable outcome of who is measuring against what.

OK, dumb question, but I'm new here so be easy on me. What is UPC? I know it's not the Universel Product Code.

Redfog

But here is where we have such authority. Remember, in 1844 heaven declared Babylon (there's name-calling and labelling) falle, We can, indeed, we must, be willing to sustain Heaven's declaration of what is and is not Babylon. I am comfortable in calling a spade a spade. I have no trouble identifying the UPC or the Catholic Church to be cults. LK