<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: CRI Statement regarding its support for the Local Church</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.apologeticsindex.org/377-cri-statement-regarding-its-support-for-the-local-church/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.apologeticsindex.org/377-cri-statement-regarding-its-support-for-the-local-church</link>
	<description>Apologetics Research Resources on religious movements, cults, sects, world religions and related issues</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Oct 2009 22:25:31 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Midwest Christian Outreach: The Crux &#187; What was CRI Thinking?</title>
		<link>http://www.apologeticsindex.org/377-cri-statement-regarding-its-support-for-the-local-church/comment-page-1#comment-613</link>
		<dc:creator>Midwest Christian Outreach: The Crux &#187; What was CRI Thinking?</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Oct 2006 03:11:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.apologeticsindex.org/377-cri-statement-regarding-its-support-for-the-local-church#comment-613</guid>
		<description>[...] These questions still remain unanswered. On Tuesday October 17, 2006, CRI posted their Position Statement: PSL001 titled, &#8220;Statement From Christian Research Institute And Answers In Action: Re: Our Amicus Filings On Behalf Of The Local Churches.&#8221; There are a number of problems with this document but, as Anton Hein from Apologetics Index points out: The most glaring problem in CRI’s statement is that both Hank Hanegraaff and Gretchen Passantino appear to have bought in to the very issue the court has so thoroughly rejected: it appears they believe that an excerpt from the introduction of the Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions could be construed by - as the court’s ruling puts it - “a person of ordinary intelligence,” to apply equally to all the groups listed in the main part of the book - the Local Church included. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] These questions still remain unanswered. On Tuesday October 17, 2006, CRI posted their Position Statement: PSL001 titled, &#8220;Statement From Christian Research Institute And Answers In Action: Re: Our Amicus Filings On Behalf Of The Local Churches.&#8221; There are a number of problems with this document but, as Anton Hein from Apologetics Index points out: The most glaring problem in CRI’s statement is that both Hank Hanegraaff and Gretchen Passantino appear to have bought in to the very issue the court has so thoroughly rejected: it appears they believe that an excerpt from the introduction of the Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions could be construed by &#8211; as the court’s ruling puts it &#8211; “a person of ordinary intelligence,” to apply equally to all the groups listed in the main part of the book &#8211; the Local Church included. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
