In a message dated Mon, 4 Mar 2002 9:08:59 AM Eastern Standard Time, "Jim Eisele" <jeisele@starpower.net> writes:
> Um, I have no idea how to approach this subject respectfully.
> But I can barely bring myself to look at the ICR home page.
>
> If there is a way to interpret Gen 1 as a prophetic
> narrative, does the ICR become a cult?
>
> No disrespect intended, but I am becoming more and more
> concerned with each passing day.
I'm sure anybody who tries to answer Jim's question will give appropriate caveats about how the term "cult" is used in different ways, so it would need to be carefully defined in a discussion of labeling any group.
I only want to say that it is not just a matter of "if there is a way to interpret Gen. 1 as a prophetic narrative." Much of the concern about the ICR would be the case if Gen. 1 is a prophetic narrative, a figurative rendering of theological truth, an old-Earth scientific description a la Hugh Ross, or even the ICR's interpretation of special creation in 144 hours.
The specific interpretation is not so much the problem as their insistence that the 144-hour interpretation is the *only* valid view for a Christian (some have claimed they are getting less hardline on this; I don't know). If they want to take the 144-hour view that's not such a big deal, but to the extent they make it an *essential* of the Gospel, then they border on "preaching another gospel" and building a foundation on something other than Jesus. While I would avoid the loaded word "cult" for this, it is a grievous error that harms the cause of the Gospel.
It would be the identical error if somebody insisted that one had to hold an evolutionary creation view in order to be a Christian (though I know of nobody who takes that position).
Allan Harvey, steamdoc@aol.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Mar 04 2002 - 15:05:44 EST