Marks of a Cult

D28Guy -- quoted from "(Link...www.carm.org)".

[Please - no personal attacks allowed]

In Christ,

Bob

[ June 03, 2004, 01:50 PM: Message edited by: Dan Todd ]

 

Yes, the Jewish religious leaders considered the Christians a sect. The difference between that and how Christians today evaluate cults is that we are using God's word.

The Jewish leaders were not using God's word because even Jesus said that he was spoken of by Moses and he made claims that he fulfilled the law and the prophets. He claimed to exist before Abraham. It's just that the Jewish religious leaders did not believe him or that he fulfilled the OT prophecies of the Messiah. They rejected the truth.

So the Jewish claim that Christianity was a sect (meaning what we would call a cult today) is not based on God's revealed truth, whereas when we call groups like the Mormons, JW's, the Way, the UPC, etc. cults, we are basing it on God's revealed truth.

 

Bob, I see why you don't like CARM. You list yourself as an Seventh Day Adventist. You don't like the info CARM has on their site about the SDA church. I also see why you posted a cult friendly message about the Jews and the early Christians.

The SDA church has joined in lawsuits with cults on many occasions. In fact, they have joined in with the Church of Scientology on lawsuits.

I have a website and I can say that I would not allow occultists to use my website as a platform to spread their false teachings.

 

Major B
"you must acknowledge that there is no more evidence for Menno Simons being the father of the Baptists than there is for some form of baptist perpetuity, maybe less. "
I did not claim here that Simons is the father of the baptists, I only claimed that baptist Christianity (assuming it would have survived to the present day without his influence) would be rather different without his influence.

EVERYBODY
The RCC is simply to large to be a cult, it contains however (among many other factions) a number of cults.

 

The church of Christ does not believe in meriting salvation by works. This is a falsehood perpetuated by those who fail to understand the concept of faith. Jesus said in John 6:29 that belief, the verb form of faith, is active that secures the grace that saves. (Romans 5:1,2).
It is a misunderstanding of the scriptures that places an active, obedient faith as one that merits salvation. (Hebrews 11:6).

 

It's beneath any of us to use the BB to slam the moderators of another Christian board. I'd suggest taking any problems with people there to that board.
Let's stay on the topic of marks of a cult please.
Gina

 

That is overly simplistic. I have started threads here on this board that directly relate to my beliefs as have others. Seldom are those threads complimentary to every view that I hold.

Participating on a thread where everyone is not in full agreement with my views - is par for the course. There is no lack of difference with my views on this board nor on Carm.

That is not the point.

The problem is as stated.

In Christ,

Bob

 

My point is not that there is "no such thing as a cult". My point is that we need to embrace enough objectivity to get us beyond the same tactics that the Jews were using against Christians in the first century.

The Jews did not claim "we are not using scripture to support our views" when they attacked Christians. However they DID claim that "their views" were the "orthodox views" of the People of God.

This is the same claim that the RCC made against the "heretics". Both groups claimed to be using scripture AND to represent the orthodoxy.

I agree that in hindsight we can "see clearly" that they were rejecting truth.

The members of the RCC could also see that flaw in the Jewish treatment of Christians - even AS they continued to torture heretics in their own day.

Christ made this same complaint against the leaders of the "One True Church started by God at Sinai" in His day - when He observed that they complained about the faithless actions of Israel at certain points in history AND YET they were themselves blindly guilty of the same things.

The point of my post is to argue for a model that goes beyond that.

Indeed - standing on the outside looking in we see that "they" were in error.

This is very different from being one of the people of God in that day - a member of the One True Church started by God at Sinai with forever promises of His teaching Word and Holy Spirit (as seen in Isaiah 59) and STILL seeing that your own church leadership is in error as it condemns the carpenter from Nazareth.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob Ryan,

My goodness....I didnt even know they had a discussion board!

God bless,

Mike

 

Frank,

Of course not. We christians understand justification through faith alone. We werent speaking of christianity, but rather the Roman Catholic church.

God bless,

Mike

 

Posted by Bob Ryan:

We have the objective word of God to measure these things by. And we are told to reject false teachers and teachings; therefore, we have to use some criteria to judge teachings. And so we use the Bible for that. I don't think we are using the same tactics as the Jews did. They said what they did based on rejecting God's truth; we are using God's truth to judge teachings.

 

But does an "orthodox" christian religion deny justification through faith alone, have extrabiblcal truth sources(like the book of morman, the watchtower and the "teaching majesterium"), and hold one man to be an earthly Christ like figure(like Jim Jones, David Koresh, or the Pope)?
[/QB][/quote]This and the other statements were/are utterly ridiculous! The Orthodox churches, the Roman Catholic, and many Anglicans do NOT hold to sola fide. Since the early church did NOT hold to 'sola fide', just what IS orthodox Christianity? All would say that we are saved by 'grace alone'. They also all have extra-biblical sources, namely what they would call "Holy Tradition". Comparing Jim Jones to the Pope is really an insult. The Pope is one of many Bishops. Bishops are heads of churches. It is they who have 'authority' over (in Christ's Name and authority)their particular churches. Bishops have been a part of the Church for 2,000 years!

 

Jude,

I know that of the RCC and EOC, and didnt about the "Anglicans", but its very sad that they too deny that truth.

We do not base doctrine on what "the early church" believed, but rather on what the scriptures alone tell us is true. And obviously some in the "early church" believed in justification through faith alone, or do you not consider Paul to be part of the early church?

Regarding those who followed in the decades and centuries immedietly after that, you personally have knowledge of the personal beliefs and heart attitude of every single christian who lived during those times? If not, then you have no buisiness proclaimg that nobody in the early church believed in justification through faith alone.

If you are referring to the source material that might be available from that period of time, of course we are to reject it out of hand completly, because even as the scriptures were being complied by God "savage wolfs" and false teachers and prophets were already infiltrating the body of Christ seeking to decieve.

Thats true, but we do not earn it by "doing". We access it through faith alone in Christ alone.

What the RCC proclaims about the pope is an insult.

God bless,

Mike

 

They had the same scriptures as you find in 2Tim 3 - where Paul says these are perfectly able to lead one to salvation.

They used the same scriptures as you find in Acts 17:11 that are used to "judge" the teachings of Paul.

They used the same scriptures as Acts 17:1-4 used by Paul - only instead of finding "for Jesus as the Messiah" they found him lacking.

Obviously as Christians today - we find fault with their methods and motives and the fact that they rejected the carpenter from Nazareth - not recognizing in Him the true Messiah. Standing on the outside looking in - it is easy.

But the Jews "were not a cult" - they rejected the Messiah - and were not a cult. They were the One true church (in fact a Nation Church) started by God at Sinai with "forever promises" of His teaching word and His Spirit (in Isaiah 59 for example).

They were in doctrinal error. They misused the Bible. But they did not "claim" to be in doctrinal error or to be misusing the Word of God.

In Mark 7 Christ said of them that they were "teaching as doctrine the traditions of man" and "nullified the commandment of God with the traditions of man".

Plenty of blame in that case. But today almost EVERY Christian denomination differs with another on the basis of doctrinal difference and the claim to hold to a better understanding of the Word. This does not make all Christian denominations "cults".

The disciples following Christ pre-cross did not understand his mission or the trinity - nor did they have a NT text. Yet John the Baptist does not "die as a cult member". Simply being in the dark on some doctrinal point - as important as these are - did not make him a cult member.

But of course - he also did not advocate praying to the dead, nor did he invent purgatory, nor did he claim the power to forgive sins, nor did he promote images in the divine worship service, no claim infallibility, nor sanction and promote the torture and murder of the saints nor institute the dark ages... etc.

(The list goes on).

Yet I do not EVEN say of those who did all of that - they were not Christian (or at least Christians were among that group).

In Christ,

Bob

 

Posted by Bob Ryan:

There is a historic faith based on the Bible with the essentials that Christians unite on: the nature of God, the deity of Christ, and salvation by faith. Yes, there are differences on how to baptize, how to do communion, women pastors, etc. but the essentials unite all believers in many denominations if those essentials are part of their confession of faith.

When a group denies the essentials, such as the deity of Christ, or the nature of God as in asserting modalism, then we have to divide on that doctrine. Most people call groups who reject the essentials as taught in Scripture as cults.

But cults are more than that -- they are authoritarian and you are not allowed to question or criticize (as the JW's). In some, you can question or criticize but there is a line you cannot cross (like in the Mormon church). Some cults elevate people to the level of scripture and hold those writings equal to the Bible -- as with The Book of Mormon (actually they hold it higher than the Bible).

I am not in love with the word "cult, it is a term of convenience;" rather, I think what it is signifying is more important - that doctrine does divide and that criteria of beliefs is based on the Bible.

I am also very aware that people differ on what a cult is and which groups are cults and which aren't.

 

I have no problem with that but the Jews of Christ's day would - so also would the Jews of post-cross days. Among these are those whom Christ declared to be saved.

Again - fine "for me" but what about others? What is the "line" of essentials that is to divide? Should Paul have been worsipping in synagogues after the cross?

As opposed to the RCC? AS opposed to the Presbyterian Church of America?

Do you not see "limits" set in many established denominations on the extent to which debate is allowed?

Surely you will not trash these groups as "cults".

Can't argue with that one.

The RCC does not allow for open Communion with other faiths. Neither does the Orthodox church and I think there are some others that have that same "divisive" view.

Each group is circling its own "essentials" and breaking communion based on whatever list it comes up with.

The fact that I believe that set in "your list" does not make people outside of that list "non Christians".

Surely you admit that the Jews of Christ's day considered Christians Jews to be a "cult" a "sect of Judaism".

Were they free to question the authority of the Apostles? To introduce varying doctrines from that of the Apostles? Did they have the Gifts of the Spirit?

Ahhh - a cult! (And this is what the Jews concluded).

In Christ,

Bob

 

Having said that - I am very opposed to doctrinal error and don't approve of it any more than you do.

However this term "cult" gets bantied about as "if" it was solving something.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Originally posted by Bob Ryan:

The essentials are pretty clear in the Bible-- it is what is taught regarding the nature of God, Christ, and salvation. Believers agree on this; the only ones who disagree or want to argue essentials are usually in cults. That is the irony. But I don't bother arguing this with cultists as it has no point. What I try to discuss with them are the essentials -- that is much more productive. I consider the use of the term "cult" to be best used in-house among believers when possible.

Restricting communion is not cultic, either. After all, the Bible condemns the Corinthians for being careless about the communion and says we are to examine ourselves before taking communion. My pastor would not baptize someone he did not think was a believer -- so he is restricting baptism. That is not cultic and I think you know it. I don't want to get into silly arguments.

 

The argument is not "silly" just because it becomes difficult and challenging.

As long as we all agree that "The other guys are bad" then we can make up whatever we like as "essentials" - but that is not "objective" nor even "true". Claiming that an arbitrary list is "popular" does not make it true. Finding a way to "label all who object" does not make them "wrong".

I say "again" - consider the errors of praying to the dead, inventing the torments of purgatory to control the flock, claiming the power to forgive sins, claiming to stand between the sinner and God, telling the saints that it is a poor idea to pray directly to God, Claiming Mary is sinless like Christ and co-redeemer, claiming infallability even to the point of infallably tormenting the saints in the dark ages etc etc.

Contrast that with the error of not believing that Christ is "God the Son" out of some mistaken understanding of a text like Romans 1:7-8

All doctrinal error results in some damage. But the error of taking the above to mean "Jesus is not God" has caused less damage than the list given before that.

Claiming that "it is essential" that the people of God claim to understand the Trinity - wipes out a good deal of the OT saints, even the saints listed in Heb 11. This is a case of straining out the gnat and swallowing the camel.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I know that of the RCC and EOC, and didnt about the "Anglicans", but its very sad that they too deny that truth.

</font>[/QUOTE]Wherefore that we are justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort; as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.
The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of the Anglican Church

[ June 09, 2004, 06:28 AM: Message edited by: John Gilmore ]