I’m still not clear on how to explain what a cult is. The documentary Cultish is really good. It should be noted that Mormons and JWs claim their writings have divine inspiration. Example is the Book of Mormon. JWs however don’t get enough attention as they are more dangerous in how they justify their teaching. They will tell you their literature isn’t inspired of Holy Spirit but then explain that it is Holy Spirit directed 🤔. This one of many examples of their double speak. They are very good at.
@@grayman7208 The Mormons don’t teach the Bible. They teach the Book of Mormon. The JW do not teach the Bible. They teach the publications of the Watchtower Society. I’m only interested in the Bible. The Bible itself presents enough to examine and critique. It’s an old book and it’s authentic. We can debate the truth of the Bible but as for all other books there is no debate that they are false
@@geoffn1530 "The Mormons don’t teach the Bible. They teach the Book of Mormon." 100% false. every year mormons teach scripture in their sunday school classroom. 1st year is devoted to the old testament. 2nd year is devoted to the new testament. 3rd year is devoted to the book of mormon. 4th year is devoted to the doctrine of covenants and the founding of the church doctrine. 5th years starts over. news flash ... mormons are more biblically knowledgeable that 90% of any of the other so-called "christians" i have ever met. one thing i've noticed over the years of debating other "christians" is most don't actually read their bible cover to cover ... mormons do.
@@geoffn1530 "The Mormons don’t teach the Bible." we have a saying in the ranger battalion. "you are talking out of your ass ... because your mouth knows better" mormons study scripture on a four year cycle. 1st year = old testament. 2nd year = new testament. 3rd year = book of mormon. 4th year = doctrine of covenants and church history. 5th year - start over with old testament. every mormon i have ever met knows the bible better than any non-mormon i have ever met. one thing i've noticed about so many so called "christians" like you ... you don't really read the whole bible. mormons do.
@@Cinnamonbuns13 yikes is right my church just built an new sanctuary and they got a new pulpit(greatful they didn’t get rid of it) and it has the star on it.
I would say no. Emphatically. That symbol is used routinely in esoteric philosophy to denote, basically, the ying-yang ideation. It's also used on the flag of one of the US allies in the Middle-East, which is fine. But it doesn't belong in the worship service. I'd apply the same rule to any county's national flag, though. Symbols have different meanings to lots of different humans. It's best not to invoke the sinful meanings in anyone's mind while an assembly is before Christ's Throne in worship. It's about honoring Christ, after all, not man. Christians have the Word of God, after all, and the Word is infinitely more powerful. We don't need symbols. Who needs symbols, after all, when we have real-life covenant promises?
When I hear that, it makes me think they are insinuating that the star is directing the people to Jesus…. Aka the man at the pulpit is “Jesus”. That’s where my head goes initially at least, with what it’s insinuating. Have u gone privately to your pastor or elders yet?
@@jaquirox6579 I have been praying about how to approach the leadership. Think I’m gonna ask why it’s there first.i don’t like it but maybe there’s a good reason that I can’t think of
No, Christian Hedonism is just a label Piper uses to describe joy in the Lord. I'd suggest reading his book Desiring God to learn more, it's a great on book
I’ve observed that, as is the case in many other areas of life like politics, those who call a lot of names and point the finger (ad hominem attacks), it usually says more about them (negatively) than the numerous people they attack.
Are there people who read the Bible, claim to be Christian(s), and are still not sheep/saved/believers/disciples? If so, then is it worthless to do some taxonomy?
I'm likely not looking for fellowship at your church. It'd be a problem for some of the congregation taking pleasure in the years of suffering and humiliation I've been through. But God bless, anyway.
WHAT DOES CHRIST THAT CONSUMING FIRE DO TO HIRRELINGS WHO CARRE NOT FOR SHEEP NOR KNOW GOOD SHEPARDS VOICE AND WHEN HE COMES WILL ABANDON SHEEP IN DITCH TO FIND ROCKS TO HIDE IN BEFORE 7 DEAD SEAS COME?
Church refers to people. Because people's bodies are the temples of the Holy Spirit. The original "church" was the local collection of believers in an area. There was no such thing as a specific church. There was only good and bad doctrine/ the beliefs people lived by. Denominations didn't exist at that point. So in that sense, no. The Catholic church has no higher precedence than any beleiver in Christ, who is the "church" themselves. By that definition, you could say that the disciples, Paul, and the arou,d 500 witnesses who saw Christ after he had been raised from the dead, were the original church.
of course ... Christ's church as he tells us in scripture, in spite of the fact that most on this thread will go to great lengths with all manner of contorted exegesis to deny it
@@MrBlakeleyden um, wrong ... the early church and scripture itself denies this modern gnostic "I am church" belief youre espousing. The Catholic Church traces it history to Christ himself and his charge to the apostles
True. Calvinism historically is a theological nightmare. But so is sectarian/legalism as personified in certain, but not all, non-instrumental Churches of Christ! Read on below: Putting church abuse into perspective To Klamath Falls Herald and News: Letters To The Editor Friday’s June 11th Herald and New article: page A-4 addressing sexual and spiritual abuse in churches and was very disturbing! Our churches have both the best and worst of people. Controlling churches are usually the guiltiest oppressive perpetrators. In 1982-83 I formerly attended a Church of Christ (non-instrumental) in Klamath Falls. This congregation once stood along Arthur Street and fortunately no longer exists today. Naturally I sharply disagreed and dissented with these *Judaizers, including their sectarian/legalistic, dogmatic attitude of, "We are the only church and everyone else but us is wrong!" After leaving that congregation I was the target of judgmental gossip and slander! And get this: This judgmental overbearing self-righteous condescending jerk told me, “it would be damnable if I left the church," which I eventually did anyway. Later, this same jerk was arrested for sexual abuse of a girl under 12 years of age! Yes, he was a predatory pedophile, a real creep! This is a blatant example of sexual abuse that was covered up, hidden and suppressed. And that is downright criminal! Another disturbing trend in our churches today is taking ^1 Corinthians Chapter 7 out of context and using it to hammer (oppress, subjugate, and control) Christian singles. The dogmatic parroted, "It's better to remain single than marry," as preferred by the Apostle Paul, is an oppressive doctrine indeed! Most people who parrot that are religious elitists who are married anyway and have a significant other in their lives. "Churches That Abuse," by Ronald Enroth (1992) confronts and exposes church abuse. The Bible states: "For the time has come that judgment must begin in the house of God: and if it begins with us first, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God.” ----- 1 Peter 4:17 James A. Farmer P.O. Box 425 Merrill, Oregon 97633 E-Mail: farmerjames56@gmail.com Cell Phone No. 541-851-1168 Note *: Romans 16:17 states: "Now I beseech you brethren, mark those who cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them." In addition to ^1 Corinthians Chapter 7 which is taken out of context to abuse Christian singles into submission is Hebrews 10:25 on church attendance. Both 1 Corinthians Chapter 7 and Hebrews 10:25 have been abused, weaponized, and misused by the religious self righteous in our churches to condemn, judge, and lay a damning guilt trip onto other Christians! ---Jim Farmer
Yes, they believe in it so they can say the devil made them do something. But they will add that the holy spirit lives in them. That way they are still saved yet do not have to take responsibility for sins committed after salvation. Plus the belief can only mean one thing. Either you are saved and have the holy spirit or your demon possessed. Sad sad group of people.
Cult = The messiah or god figure is alive Church = The messiah or god figure is dead Sect = Believes the church's messiah or god-figure is not the real god-figure but believes most of the same.
Except the historic orthodox Christian confession is that Jesus is alive and at the right side of his father in heaven. Reddit tier definitions are inadequate for defining terms.
"Cult", "Sect", and "Church' are all just secular sociological terms with no reference to scriptural interpretations or any preconceived orthodoxy... a "Cult" is a new religion, marginalized and always intensely counter-cultural, with proselytizing zeal, these groups tend to be exclusivist and non ecumenical...and contrary to popular opinion here is no negative connotation to this term...example: Hari Krishnas, or the original and fast growing Christian Church in the heathen Roman Empire is the classic example of a "Cult"... a "Sect" is an older minority religion in any culture, over time it has become less counter cultural, and being more ecumenical they are not particularly zealous for converts...almost all mainline,, independent, and evangelical protestant denominations fit into this category, and all the more so certainly in America (which has no "established" state church)... a "Church" is the majority or near majority normative established religion in a culture, and generally there is a some union or cooperation between church and state ...examples: Roman Catholic in Western Europe, Eastern Orthodox in Eastern Europe, Judaism in Israel, Shia' Islam in Iran, Sunni Islam in Saudi Arabia, Anglican in England, and Lutheranism in some parts Germany and Scandinavia, and LDS Mormonism in Utah (and Idaho?)...
"Church" comes-from the Celtic "kirk," which means "circle." Eklesia is the Greek word for "church," and its most accurate English translation means "assembly." King James is the one who requested that "eklesia" be translated as "kirk," or "church." But God's people aren't necessarily a "circle." They're an assembly. A congregation. Congregation/assembly is the idea that carries-over from the Old Testament, and is consistent in the New. It's also not a little troubling that a Celtic witch's coven was/is called a "circle." Just a thought. I'm not opposed to using the word "church," of course. It's just a distinction that's an important one. Anyway...
@@possumhunter1179 ...Not so Fast...true the Scot's word "Kirk" is where we get the word "Church"...but Church as a word in common use is much older than the 1611 King James Version...Much older English Bible versions (Wycliffe, Geneva, Coverdale, even the Douay Rheims) of the also translated Gk. "eklesia" as eng. "church"...simply put the word "Church" is (and has always been)...simply just another multi-meaning English Word...as any dictionary will prove ...one definition of "church" is a Christian Meeting House...a second definition an assembly of congregants...and yet a third meaning..a organized set of congregations into a single united larger group or denomination... Somehow we instinctively understand other common English multi meaning words like "Right", "arm" or "Trunk" in their context ...and without theological conspiracy theories...further in languages wherein "eklesia" is a word transliterated from the original Greek- i.e. "église" in France and "Iglesia" in Spanish, and most notably "Ekklisía" in modern Greek, these foreign words likewise are context multi-meaning words for 1. the Meeting House...2. individual congregation or assembly..3. and the Larger organization...
@@anarchorepublican5954 Eklesia isn't the problem. Yes, most dictionaries will define 'church' as an assembly or meeting house. Sure. I'm talking about the root if the word, though. The etymological origin in English of 'church' is 'circle.' There are other words, like 'circus,' etc. I'm talking specifically about the origin of words in the English language. Those three English words have the same essential etymology. I find it interesting that other languages use a variation of 'eklesia' (Iglesias,, etc.), while English does not. It kinda proves my point.
@@possumhunter1179 ...the particular "Sect" ( for explanation see above) I belong to...just happens to be kinda hung up on this whole meaning of the word "Church" thing...I've must have heard a lifetime of lame sermons on why "Church" doesn't mean the building (...even if the Dictionary says it does)..so one should never say "I'm going to Church"...this wrong on so many levels...I suppose it never dawned on them one might just as well say "I'm going to Assembly"... English is so rich a language we have 3 meaning for the word "Church" , and an additional half dozen or so different words for "assembly"- all of which are adequate translations of "eklesia" ... Again keep in mind all those variations of "Ekkelsia" in those other languages (including Modern Greek) have multi-meanings, including the church building itself...just exactly the as does our word "Church"...they are linguistic equivalents the Keltic "Kirk" , "Kirkle" (Irish "ciorcal") or "circle", like "eklessia" also originally referred to the place of political meeting or assembly and or the assembly itself usually a ring of stones on a prominent hilltop...
@@anarchorepublican5954 You're right-on correct. Sure. We're in agreement. It's the original purpose of the circle of stones that gives me pause. I'm not saying using the English word 'church' is necessarily an issue. But it is something to consider. I don't think we should be in the business of defending any particular extra-Biblical language for the sake of the language itself. I'm concerned for the original languages of the Word, and think we do well to be as accurate as possible in translation. All translation is interpretation, after all. I think it's clear that a word like "congregation" is likely better. But, I concede that it's just a theory.
Roman Catholic is not Christianity. Calling a man in a dress father is a grievous sin. Father means source. There is only one true Father. Shame on you.
@@kate60 how about the fact they have been deemed above the laws of all countries in regards to the abominations against children... Matthew 18:6 “But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a huge millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the open sea.
@@danielsvision You refer to the pedophile priests? That is part of the satanic church of Rome. Let us look to Christ and think on those things that are lovely, pure and true.
This is typical Wilson legerdemain. Applying this truth-table of doctrine and practice assumes that the group is or might be a true church. But the 2x2 table could also categorize clubs, corporations, families, or any other body. Unless you start with what the Church is, none of these distinctions apply. For starters, the (true) Church has apostolic succession. Wilson's McKirk does not have it, nor does he, as a self-proclaimed McBishop. It doesn't matter how much he proclaims that he/it is full of either love or orthodoxy.
Have you read Calvin's Institutes? It's only 1,000 pages. Do you not believe that God is Holy? What about the Free Will of God? Read The Bondage Of The Will by Luther. You are the creature subject to the creator. Never forget how little you know
@@kate60 I was trying to charitably solicit a reply. If the answer were to have been "all," then the next question is: How have all misinterpreted? The Bible doesn't need defending. It is perfectly consistent in all its parts. It is the humans that, without the Spirit, fail to see God's incommunicable attributes displayed therein. Whether or not I get a reply is up to Almighty Providence. But, I would add that, over the centuries, there have been a great number of people who misrepresent (either intentionally or not), the items outlined by the magisterial reformers, including, but not limited to, the Pauline epistles. 😎 It's really okay to be ready to give an answer for the faith. The Councils of Ephesus and Orange and the Synod of Dort have all already dealt-with the matter. Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism have been Biblically proven heterodox for thousands of years, now by hundreds of biblical scholars. What we can't know in this instance is if the subject matter relates-to a misunderstanding of Dr. Calvin, or a disagreement with the Word. Ergo, my original question.
So, there was a commercial that it made me watch part of before this and i hit skip. Immediately Doug says, "Amen"!
Really appreciated the counterfeit characteristics of the cults contrasted with the true marks of a holy church.
Thank You Very Much ADONAI for Douglas Wilson 🙏 ✝️ 🕊 🛐 🤲
Thank you Doug for structuring my thinking.
Thanks for the definition of Church, Sect, and Cult. Really appreciate it.
God bless.
Great video! Thank you. ♥️🙏🏽
really love these talks
Thank you!
Soli Deo Gloria
I prefer Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
No reason to create a dichotomy.
Yes, I see this term thrown around by people who just hate religion. Everything is a cult to them.
Yes because Christians that act like cult members.
@@bobbyraejohnson Same could be said about a lot of atheist doniminations.
Everything's a cult to them...
except statism or scientism.
@@bobbyraejohnson FYI "Yes because Christians that act like cult members." is an incomplete thought.
I’m still not clear on how to explain what a cult is. The documentary Cultish is really good. It should be noted that Mormons and JWs claim their writings have divine inspiration. Example is the Book of Mormon. JWs however don’t get enough attention as they are more dangerous in how they justify their teaching. They will tell you their literature isn’t inspired of Holy Spirit but then explain that it is Holy Spirit directed 🤔. This one of many examples of their double speak. They are very good at.
Well all religions are dangerous.
mormons also use the bible.
which all christians claim is divine inspiration.
@@grayman7208 The Mormons don’t teach the Bible. They teach the Book of Mormon. The JW do not teach the Bible. They teach the publications of the Watchtower Society. I’m only interested in the Bible. The Bible itself presents enough to examine and critique. It’s an old book and it’s authentic. We can debate the truth of the Bible but as for all other books there is no debate that they are false
@@geoffn1530
"The Mormons don’t teach the Bible. They teach the Book of Mormon."
100% false.
every year mormons teach scripture in their sunday school classroom.
1st year is devoted to the old testament.
2nd year is devoted to the new testament.
3rd year is devoted to the book of mormon.
4th year is devoted to the doctrine of covenants and the founding of the church doctrine.
5th years starts over.
news flash ... mormons are more biblically knowledgeable that 90% of any of the other so-called "christians" i have ever met.
one thing i've noticed over the years of debating other "christians" is most don't actually read their bible cover to cover ... mormons do.
@@geoffn1530
"The Mormons don’t teach the Bible."
we have a saying in the ranger battalion.
"you are talking out of your ass ... because your mouth knows better"
mormons study scripture on a four year cycle.
1st year = old testament.
2nd year = new testament.
3rd year = book of mormon.
4th year = doctrine of covenants and church history.
5th year - start over with old testament.
every mormon i have ever met knows the bible better than any non-mormon i have ever met.
one thing i've noticed about so many so called "christians" like you ... you don't really read the whole bible.
mormons do.
Insert Seventh Day Adventism into that cult category >
Even the Lutherans used to call the Calvinists a sect: “Adversus sectam calvinistarum….”
My bad. He mentioned the one cult. However I think they are far worse than a heterodox.
Is it ok to display a permanent Star of David on a pulpit?
Yikes
@@Cinnamonbuns13 yikes is right my church just built an new sanctuary and they got a new pulpit(greatful they didn’t get rid of it) and it has the star on it.
I would say no. Emphatically. That symbol is used routinely in esoteric philosophy to denote, basically, the ying-yang ideation. It's also used on the flag of one of the US allies in the Middle-East, which is fine. But it doesn't belong in the worship service. I'd apply the same rule to any county's national flag, though. Symbols have different meanings to lots of different humans. It's best not to invoke the sinful meanings in anyone's mind while an assembly is before Christ's Throne in worship. It's about honoring Christ, after all, not man. Christians have the Word of God, after all, and the Word is infinitely more powerful. We don't need symbols. Who needs symbols, after all, when we have real-life covenant promises?
When I hear that, it makes me think they are insinuating that the star is directing the people to Jesus…. Aka the man at the pulpit is “Jesus”. That’s where my head goes initially at least, with what it’s insinuating. Have u gone privately to your pastor or elders yet?
@@jaquirox6579 I have been praying about how to approach the leadership. Think I’m gonna ask why it’s there first.i don’t like it but maybe there’s a good reason that I can’t think of
Is that what John Piper was doing with Christian Hedonism?
Good question. I think Doug is able to see what Piper means by 'Christian Hedonism,' but it would be cool to hear Doug's take...
No. Just a weird rebrand of joy in the Lord. Not a distinctive, separating doctrine.
No, Christian Hedonism is just a label Piper uses to describe joy in the Lord. I'd suggest reading his book Desiring God to learn more, it's a great on book
Yummy stuff
If the Holy Father showed up in Moscow, he'd rip Pastor Wilson a new one.
I’ve observed that, as is the case in many other areas of life like politics, those who call a lot of names and point the finger (ad hominem attacks), it usually says more about them (negatively) than the numerous people they attack.
Are there people who read the Bible, claim to be Christian(s), and are still not sheep/saved/believers/disciples?
If so, then is it worthless to do some taxonomy?
Seems like a width one could drive a semi truck between what you said and what I said.
What's first love?
Christ Jesus.
Good question
God. The first commandment. Every time we sin we leave our first love.
I'm likely not looking for fellowship at your church. It'd be a problem for some of the congregation taking pleasure in the years of suffering and humiliation I've been through. But God bless, anyway.
????
@@Nolongeraslave there are people at your church that want me dead for political reasons. Tip your uber drivers, please. Thank you. God bless.
@@chriszablocki2460
What are you talking about?
@@Nolongeraslave why are you concerned with what I'm talking about?
@@chriszablocki2460
???🤔🤔
WHAT DOES CHRIST THAT CONSUMING FIRE DO TO HIRRELINGS WHO CARRE NOT FOR SHEEP NOR KNOW GOOD SHEPARDS VOICE AND WHEN HE COMES WILL ABANDON SHEEP IN DITCH TO FIND ROCKS TO HIDE IN BEFORE 7 DEAD SEAS COME?
To WAKE UP ZOMBIES IN WWZ!! smell coffee of kingdom coming soon?
Antinomian
You guys must be really worried about Olivia Moses becoming mayor..
If she's calling them a cult, then they should be.
"Olivia"
@@Cinnamonbuns13 you’re on first name terms?
Catholic church being the oldest church should be the real church.....right?
Church refers to people. Because people's bodies are the temples of the Holy Spirit. The original "church" was the local collection of believers in an area. There was no such thing as a specific church. There was only good and bad doctrine/ the beliefs people lived by. Denominations didn't exist at that point. So in that sense, no. The Catholic church has no higher precedence than any beleiver in Christ, who is the "church" themselves. By that definition, you could say that the disciples, Paul, and the arou,d 500 witnesses who saw Christ after he had been raised from the dead, were the original church.
of course ... Christ's church as he tells us in scripture, in spite of the fact that most on this thread will go to great lengths with all manner of contorted exegesis to deny it
@@MrBlakeleyden um, wrong ... the early church and scripture itself denies this modern gnostic "I am church" belief youre espousing. The Catholic Church traces it history to Christ himself and his charge to the apostles
calvinism comes to mind when I think of cults
True. Calvinism historically is a theological nightmare. But so is sectarian/legalism as personified in certain, but not all, non-instrumental Churches of Christ! Read on below:
Putting church abuse into perspective
To Klamath Falls Herald and News: Letters To The Editor
Friday’s June 11th Herald and New article: page A-4 addressing sexual and spiritual abuse in churches and was very disturbing! Our churches have both the best and worst of people. Controlling churches are usually the guiltiest oppressive perpetrators. In 1982-83 I formerly attended a Church of Christ (non-instrumental) in Klamath Falls. This congregation once stood along Arthur Street and fortunately no longer exists today. Naturally I sharply disagreed and dissented with these *Judaizers, including their sectarian/legalistic, dogmatic
attitude of, "We are the only church and everyone else but us is wrong!" After leaving that congregation I was the target of judgmental gossip and slander! And get this: This judgmental overbearing self-righteous condescending jerk told me, “it would be damnable if I left the church," which I eventually did anyway. Later, this same jerk was arrested for sexual abuse of a girl under 12 years of age! Yes, he was a predatory pedophile, a real creep! This is a blatant example of sexual abuse that was covered up, hidden and suppressed. And that is downright criminal!
Another disturbing trend in our churches today is taking ^1 Corinthians Chapter 7 out of context and using it to hammer (oppress, subjugate, and control) Christian singles. The dogmatic parroted, "It's better to remain single than marry," as preferred by the Apostle Paul, is an oppressive doctrine indeed! Most people who parrot that are religious elitists who are married anyway and have a significant other in their lives. "Churches That Abuse," by Ronald Enroth (1992) confronts and exposes church abuse. The Bible states: "For the time has come that judgment must begin in the house of God: and if it begins with us first, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God.” ----- 1 Peter 4:17
James A. Farmer
P.O. Box 425
Merrill, Oregon 97633
E-Mail: farmerjames56@gmail.com
Cell Phone No. 541-851-1168
Note *: Romans 16:17 states: "Now I beseech you brethren, mark those who cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them." In addition to ^1 Corinthians Chapter 7 which is taken out of context to abuse Christian singles into submission is Hebrews 10:25 on church attendance. Both 1 Corinthians Chapter 7 and Hebrews 10:25 have been abused, weaponized, and misused by the religious self righteous in our churches to condemn, judge, and lay a damning guilt trip onto other Christians! ---Jim Farmer
Calvin focused on the doctrines of grace. Why saved people hate the idea of the free will of God is beyond me.
Yes, they believe in it so they can say the devil made them do something. But they will add that the holy spirit lives in them. That way they are still saved yet do not have to take responsibility for sins committed after salvation. Plus the belief can only mean one thing. Either you are saved and have the holy spirit or your demon possessed. Sad sad group of people.
@@jamesfarmer6004 mate don’t share all your personal details in comments!! Edit and delete that bit!
@@aallen5256 Who are you to censor what I post? You aren't God, so stop acting like it!
Cult = The messiah or god figure is alive
Church = The messiah or god figure is dead
Sect = Believes the church's messiah or god-figure is not the real god-figure but believes most of the same.
Except the historic orthodox Christian confession is that Jesus is alive and at the right side of his father in heaven. Reddit tier definitions are inadequate for defining terms.
Nah
"Cult", "Sect", and "Church' are all just secular sociological terms with no reference to scriptural interpretations or any preconceived orthodoxy...
a "Cult" is a new religion, marginalized and always intensely counter-cultural, with proselytizing zeal, these groups tend to be exclusivist and non ecumenical...and contrary to popular opinion here is no negative connotation to this term...example: Hari Krishnas, or the original and fast growing Christian Church in the heathen Roman Empire is the classic example of a "Cult"...
a "Sect" is an older minority religion in any culture, over time it has become less counter cultural, and being more ecumenical they are not particularly zealous for converts...almost all mainline,, independent, and evangelical protestant denominations fit into this category, and all the more so certainly in America (which has no "established" state church)...
a "Church" is the majority or near majority normative established religion in a culture, and generally there is a some union or cooperation between church and state ...examples: Roman Catholic in Western Europe, Eastern Orthodox in Eastern Europe, Judaism in Israel, Shia' Islam in Iran, Sunni Islam in Saudi Arabia, Anglican in England, and Lutheranism in some parts Germany and Scandinavia, and LDS Mormonism in Utah (and Idaho?)...
"Church" comes-from the Celtic "kirk," which means "circle." Eklesia is the Greek word for "church," and its most accurate English translation means "assembly." King James is the one who requested that "eklesia" be translated as "kirk," or "church." But God's people aren't necessarily a "circle." They're an assembly. A congregation. Congregation/assembly is the idea that carries-over from the Old Testament, and is consistent in the New. It's also not a little troubling that a Celtic witch's coven was/is called a "circle." Just a thought. I'm not opposed to using the word "church," of course. It's just a distinction that's an important one. Anyway...
@@possumhunter1179 ...Not so Fast...true the Scot's word "Kirk" is where we get the word "Church"...but Church as a word in common use is much older than the 1611 King James Version...Much older English Bible versions (Wycliffe, Geneva, Coverdale, even the Douay Rheims) of the also translated Gk. "eklesia" as eng. "church"...simply put the word "Church" is (and has always been)...simply just another multi-meaning English Word...as any dictionary will prove ...one definition of "church" is a Christian Meeting House...a second definition an assembly of congregants...and yet a third meaning..a organized set of congregations into a single united larger group or denomination...
Somehow we instinctively understand other common English multi meaning words like "Right", "arm" or "Trunk" in their context ...and without theological conspiracy theories...further in languages wherein "eklesia" is a word transliterated from the original Greek- i.e. "église" in France and "Iglesia" in Spanish, and most notably "Ekklisía" in modern Greek, these foreign words likewise are context multi-meaning words for 1. the Meeting House...2. individual congregation or assembly..3. and the Larger organization...
@@anarchorepublican5954 Eklesia isn't the problem. Yes, most dictionaries will define 'church' as an assembly or meeting house. Sure. I'm talking about the root if the word, though. The etymological origin in English of 'church' is 'circle.' There are other words, like 'circus,' etc. I'm talking specifically about the origin of words in the English language. Those three English words have the same essential etymology. I find it interesting that other languages use a variation of 'eklesia' (Iglesias,, etc.), while English does not. It kinda proves my point.
@@possumhunter1179 ...the particular "Sect" ( for explanation see above) I belong to...just happens to be kinda hung up on this whole meaning of the word "Church" thing...I've must have heard a lifetime of lame sermons on why "Church" doesn't mean the building (...even if the Dictionary says it does)..so one should never say "I'm going to Church"...this wrong on so many levels...I suppose it never dawned on them one might just as well say "I'm going to Assembly"...
English is so rich a language we have 3 meaning for the word "Church" , and an additional half dozen or so different words for "assembly"- all of which are adequate translations of "eklesia" ...
Again keep in mind all those variations of "Ekkelsia" in those other languages (including Modern Greek) have multi-meanings, including the church building itself...just exactly the as does our word "Church"...they are linguistic equivalents
the Keltic "Kirk" , "Kirkle" (Irish "ciorcal") or "circle", like "eklessia" also originally referred to the place of political meeting or assembly and or the assembly itself usually a ring of stones on a prominent hilltop...
@@anarchorepublican5954 You're right-on correct. Sure. We're in agreement. It's the original purpose of the circle of stones that gives me pause. I'm not saying using the English word 'church' is necessarily an issue. But it is something to consider. I don't think we should be in the business of defending any particular extra-Biblical language for the sake of the language itself. I'm concerned for the original languages of the Word, and think we do well to be as accurate as possible in translation. All translation is interpretation, after all. I think it's clear that a word like "congregation" is likely better. But, I concede that it's just a theory.
😂 😂 a clergy"thing"
Ironically when he describes cults as imitating something, it describes the Lutheran imitation and distortion of true Catholic Christianity
True catholic christianity? Huh no, this is a Tier 1 Antonym.
Cannot cults imitate other cults?
Roman Catholic is not Christianity. Calling a man in a dress father is a grievous sin. Father means source. There is only one true Father. Shame on you.
@@kate60 how about the fact they have been deemed above the laws of all countries in regards to the abominations against children...
Matthew 18:6
“But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a huge millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the open sea.
@@danielsvision You refer to the pedophile priests? That is part of the satanic church of Rome. Let us look to Christ and think on those things that are lovely, pure and true.
A church in the formal sense, requires apostolic succession.
Huh?
Based TH-cam commenter
No, it does not. It requires Scriptural Authority and Preservation-both of which we have.
@@mresab1997
How do you know that?
Nope. But, even if it were, Doug has that.
This is typical Wilson legerdemain. Applying this truth-table of doctrine and practice assumes that the group is or might be a true church. But the 2x2 table could also categorize clubs, corporations, families, or any other body. Unless you start with what the Church is, none of these distinctions apply. For starters, the (true) Church has apostolic succession. Wilson's McKirk does not have it, nor does he, as a self-proclaimed McBishop. It doesn't matter how much he proclaims that he/it is full of either love or orthodoxy.
Unless you are misinterpreting the scriptures to read what you want them to say like the calvinists do.
Our sin allows misinterpretations of everything and anything
Which Calvinists do that?
@@possumhunter1179 None
Have you read Calvin's Institutes? It's only 1,000 pages. Do you not believe that God is Holy? What about the Free Will of God? Read The Bondage Of The Will by Luther. You are the creature subject to the creator. Never forget how little you know
@@kate60 I was trying to charitably solicit a reply. If the answer were to have been "all," then the next question is: How have all misinterpreted? The Bible doesn't need defending. It is perfectly consistent in all its parts. It is the humans that, without the Spirit, fail to see God's incommunicable attributes displayed therein. Whether or not I get a reply is up to Almighty Providence. But, I would add that, over the centuries, there have been a great number of people who misrepresent (either intentionally or not), the items outlined by the magisterial reformers, including, but not limited to, the Pauline epistles. 😎 It's really okay to be ready to give an answer for the faith. The Councils of Ephesus and Orange and the Synod of Dort have all already dealt-with the matter. Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism have been Biblically proven heterodox for thousands of years, now by hundreds of biblical scholars. What we can't know in this instance is if the subject matter relates-to a misunderstanding of Dr. Calvin, or a disagreement with the Word. Ergo, my original question.