Marks of a Cult

Hmmm...I've never heard it expressed in such a way.

Let me get this straight! You are saying that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit were separate, in heaven, and God sent Jesus, which was conceived in the womb of Mary, by the Holy Ghost, but that Jesus calls God His Father, but the Holy Ghost is the one who actually caused His birth, so that He could die for our sins? Is this what consists of the Trinity?

If so, then maybe I'm getting closer to understanding what you all are talking about.

MEE

 

The Holy Spirit was the begetting agent, not the actual "father". The one who sent the Spirit was "the Father"

 

Hmmm...I've never heard it expressed in such a way.

Let me get this straight! You are saying that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit were separate, in heaven, and God sent Jesus, which was conceived in the womb of Mary, by the Holy Ghost, but that Jesus calls God His Father, but the Holy Ghost is the one who actually caused His birth, so that He could die for our sins? Is this what consists of the Trinity?

If so, then maybe I'm getting closer to understanding what you all are talking about.

MEE </font>[/QUOTE]God, Jesus and the HS are not separate; they are distinct. I would not say the HS was alone in causing Jesus' birth; the HS overshadowed Mary and she conceived. But many passages say God sent Jesus. God was in the process as well because God is the Father. We do not know the process of "overshadowing" Mary except that it was supernatural.

 

Bob Ryan,

Bob,

I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me, and being a bit sarcastic, or disagreeing with me. Your next statement indicates that maybe you are in agreement with me...but I'm not sure.

(sometimes it hard since we cant hear tone of voice)

Speaking of your next statment, here it is...

Actually, you might be confusing me with someone else, or maybe you misunderstood me.

I am a Trinitarian. One God, 3 persons. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.

My point is that I am am not willing to go beyond scripture and condemn people who clearly believe in the triune nature of God, but they believe that it works itself out differently than we do.

I cant find in scripture where we are told that the way in which we Trinitarians understand and articulate Gods triune nature is the way everyone else must understand and articulate it. The scriptures clearly tell us if one denies the Son, they do not have the Father. The scriptures clearly tell us if one cannot "confess" that "Christ is Lord" they do not have the Holy Spirit.(Not born again) And clearly, if someone denies that any of the beings that God identifies are God(Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit) they cant know the God of the scriptures.

But that is as far as the scriptures go. I cant find anywhere where we are instructed in precise detail exactly how that mystery must be understood and articulated.

It is the councils of men, at various times during the last 2000 years, that have decided that they know who to condemn and who not to condemn, and the precise words that must be used regarding the triune nature of God or someone is doomed.

I want nothing to do with that. I want to only "draw a line in the sand" regarding those who God Himself identifies as worthy of condemnation, rather than who fallible men decide to condemn.

God says...

If one denies the Son, they dont have the Father.

If one denies that Jesus is Lord, they dont have the Holy Spirit.

If they deny justification through faith alone, they are trusting a gospel that God condemns.

Nothing about how one understands or articulates the triune nature of god. Personally, I dont believe the oneness folks are accurate in all of their interpretations regarding the triune nature of God. I believe we are. But thats their buisiness. They do not deny Gods triune nature. They do not deny that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. They do not "deny the Son", and they confess Christ as Lord.

Now, if they deny justification through faith alone there is a big problem, and some of the information that has been posted says they do.

God bless,

Mike

 

Bob Ryan,

I missed this...

Ha ha! Your probably right about that.

You ought to hear some of the things Catholics say about me.

Grace and peace,

Mike

 

Claudia,

But regarding doctrine, the scriptures...and the scriptures alone...are our unchanging standard of truth to test all things by. We must have an unchanging standard, and that standard is the scriptures.

I agree with that, but generally prophecies that are given are not doctrine. They can adress many areas...personal words to individuals, the direction God might be wanting a particular fellowship move in, words of encouragement or warning...but not as an avenue of christian doctrine.

Thats all I am referring to...doctrine.

God bless,

Mike

 

Marcia,

Well, I went to that site, and found their "60 Questions about God" section.

Here are several from that section that do not sound all that different to what you or I might say...

Does the Bible speak of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? Yes.

5. Does the Bible use the word three in reference to God? Only one verse in the entire Bible does so-I John 5:7. It speaks of the Father, the Word (instead of Son), and the Holy Ghost, and it concludes by saying, "These three are one."

(I would say that the "3 in 1" are seen many more than just that one place, of course)

Where was God the Father while Jesus was on earth? The Father was in Christ. John 14:10; II Corinthians 5:19. He was also in heaven, for God is omnipresent.

If Jesus is the first and the last, why did God say in Isaiah 44:6 that He was the first and the last? Because Jesus is the God of the Old Testament incarnate.

Does the Bible say that God, who is the Word, was made flesh? Yes John 1:1, 14.

For what purpose was God manifested in the flesh? To save sinners. Hebrews 2:9, 14.

Was Jesus God manifested in the flesh? Yes. I Timothy 3:16.

Does the Bible say that there is but one Lord? Yes. Isaiah 45:18; Ephesians 4:5.

Does the Bible say that Christ is the Lord? Yes. Luke 2:11.

Does the Bible say that the Lord is God? Yes. I kings 18:39; Zechariah 14:5; Acts 2:39; Revelation 19:1.

How could the church belong to Jesus (Matthew 16:18) and yet be the church of God (I Corinthians 10:32)? Because Jesus is God in the flesh.

Will God give His glory to another? No. Isaiah 42:8.

Was there a God formed before Jehovah, or will there be one formed after? No. Isaiah 43:10.

Why, then, was Jesus able to walk upon the Sea of Galilee (Matthew 14:25)? Because He is God the Creator. Colossians 1:16.

Is Jesus the true God? Yes. I John 5:20.

How could Jesus be the Savior, when God the Father said in Isaiah 43:11, "Beside me there is no Savior?" Because "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself." II Corinthians 5:19.

Does the Bible say that Jesus was God with us? Yes. Matthew 1:23.

Did Jesus ever say, "I and my Father are one?" Yes. John 10:30.

Does the Bible say that God shed His blood and that God laid down His life for us? Yes. Acts 20:28 I John 3:16. God was able to do this because He had taken upon Himself a human body.

The problem seems to come from some of the other statements, such as...

Do these titles as used in Matthew 28:19 mean that there are three separate and distinct persons in the Godhead? No, they refer to three offices, roles, or relationship to humanity.

Where was God the Father while Jesus was on earth? The Father was in Christ. John 14:10; II Corinthians 5:19. He was also in heaven, for God is omnipresent.

It seems obvious to me from all of this that they understand that there is some kind of "triune" something or other going on, but that they simply see it different than we do.

Of course you will say "No! They are "modalists" and dont you know that "modalists" are heretics who are condemned for that?"

And I say...where does God give us this "condemnation of those modalists" warning in the scriptures?

I see a condemnation of people who deny that "Jesus is Lord"

I see a condemnation of people who "Deny the Son"

I see condemnation of people who "deny justification by faith alone".

The "condemnation of those modalists" comes from fallible men sitting as a "council" somewhere long ago. Not from scripture.

I believe the oneness groups are wrong in their views in some areas regarding the triune nature of God, but I am not going to condemn for an understading that men have condemned, but not that God has specifically warned about.

Now, if you want to take a look at what they have to say about "repentance" in there...thats the closest thing to a "how to be saved" section that I could find...than you might find me to be a "comrade in arms" to your cause.

That section greatly troubles me, and I sincerely hope that this group allows some freedom of conviction regarding the truth of justification through faith alone...because it is the only way that God is justifying anyone.

God bless,

Mike

 

I came in way too late to really take part in this discussion... Perhaps another thread, 'Cults by the Numbers'?

Can we agree that the list from Josh McDowells book is incomplete without the book?

There are many groups, even among Baptists, that tend to be rather exclusionistic in thier attitudes and teachings.

By itself it *must* be a warning flag.

This ought to make the KJV Only crowd really happy... This too is a 'Red Flag'..

I have been in Baptist Circles where only the Scofield was an acceptable Bible...

And, sadly, there are far too many 'Independent' Paraphrases posing as True Translations. And, yes I am seeing it in Charismatic Cicles.

Another Jesus is the !RUN! for your soul warning. If all of Jesus isn't a part of the doctrine... !RUN!

The Icthus kind of sums it up: "Jesus Christ God's Son Saviour" All that needs to be added is the willing sacrificial offering of His own pure Blood for our sins.

Haven't seen much of that.

What I've seen more of is church isn't important. Need to spend time with family and relax.

The Children of God were known for that...

And, there are other groups that come to mind that are *very* secretive about their 'true' modes of worship.

Not a good sign to be sure!

Most revivals are led by Strong Men Proclaiming a New Message...

But, that message is always Repent & Return. And, lifts Jesus higher.

There is salvation in no other Name but Jesus! For by Grace are you saved...

Unfortunately, our Armenianism tends to cloud this part of our message making people think 'all' Pentecostals are works based.

I notice that Charismatics were included as 'cultic'. But. Penetcostal weren't? Hmmmmmmmm.

Not sure what to make of that?

I mean it is good news that *I* am not included...

But, not all Charismatics are 'Cultic', the brush is too broad.

And, I'd be the first to admit that not all Pentecostals are free of 'cultic' tendencies.

In fact I am not sure where to put Copeland and Price, et al...

I guess sometimes I get a meal that's really easy to chew around the bones... and sometimes I don't...

 

quote: Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Now having said all that - I do take issue with your statement about the Trinity not being true. It's just that I suspect that if I toss a label at you - you will just let it bounce off and hit the ground."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In that case - we agree more than I was thinking.

I was simply saying that the tactic of calling you names - or labeling your beliefs is not a good way to "prove something about you".

Keep up the good work!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Back to Mioque's statement that a cult ceases to be a cult once it's membership gets beyond a certain number (cult-by-the-numbers) -- what number is that?

In Christ,

Bob

 

SpiritualMadMan,

Number 4 on your list above sounds a lot like Freemasonry, although it's not a new organization. I suppose it could also fall under a few of the others on your list too.

As for Copeland and Price, et al, I'd put them in the "counterfeit revival" category, which is cultic by definition. So, avoid them like a plague.

BobRyan,

Regarding the size issue, I don't think it matters. IMHO, a cult is a cult by definition, regardless of it's size of membership.

There are two ways to define a cult. The first way to describe a cult is popular in the secular media. From this perspective, a cult is a religious or semi-religious sect whose members are controlled almost entirely by a single individual or by an organization.

This kind of cult is usually manipulative, demanding total commitment and loyalty from its followers. Converts are usually cut off from all former associations, including their own families. Examples include, the Jim Jones Group, Branch Davidians, and more recently the Heaven’s Gates.

The second way to define a cult is popular in evangelical Christian circles. From this perspective, a cult is any group that deviates from the orthodox teachings of the historic Christian faith being derived from the Bible and confirmed through the ancient ecumenical creeds.
These groups deny or distort fundamental Christian doctrine such as the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and salvation by grace through faith alone. Some cults that would fall into this category are the Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Science, The Way International, and the Unity School of Christianity, Freemasonry, and arguably the Roman Catholic Church.

Most of these cults claim to be Christian, and even consider the Bible to be authoritative. But they manipulate the Scriptures to fit their own beliefs. Although they may claim to serve Jesus Christ, and may even use the same terminology orthodox Christians use, their definitions are vastly different.

Mike

[ June 16, 2004, 06:04 AM: Message edited by: O.F.F. ]

 

The words Cult and Sect.

"Mioque is correct that "size" is the only that prevents the attachment of "cult" to the RCC. (As lite and shallow as that kind of criteria is). Using such a simple model "
''
The word cult refers to a group whose members are devoted followers of a specific religious phenomenon. One might say that the word refers to the religious equivalent of a fanclub.
Huge multinationals like the Catholic Church simply have to many lukewarm members and to great a diverity of ideas to be a cult. The pope may aspire to turn the CC into a cult but he will never succeed and he knows it. There are numerous cults within the CC however.


" the Jewish church in doctrinal error was "orthodox" and the SMALL NT church was "a cult"."
''
The word you are looking for is sect (from the Latin secare meaning to cut). A sect is a seperate religious movement that has relatively recently come out of another (presumably larger) religious movement. Early Lutheranism was a sect originating from Roman Catholicism.
Early Christianity was Jewish sect.
Both these definitions sounds strange because people who use the words sect&cult usually mean:"religious group I perceive as evil".

 

The definitions I posted previously were the ones we used in university.
The 2 definitions posted by Mike are normally avoided by serious scholars. He is quite right about their widespread use. They are avoided because in practice both of those definitions turn out to be extremely subjective.

Bob Ryan wrote.
"Mioque is consistent in framing opinions in a RC biased model - (while claiming to be non-RC)"
''
Mmm... yes, I have a valid excuse however, I'm a churchhistorian and Catholicism happens to be my field. Call it professional deformation if you will.
Churchwise I'm IFB. And I have been that basically forever.
Bob Ryan on the other hand is a member of a genuine EVIL(tm) cult.

 

Actually, "sect" and "cult" have interchangeable meanings, only "cult" has taken on a more negative connotation. But the way it was used in the NT "Sect of the Nazarene", was basically the way we used "cult", and it certaionly fit both definitions from the viewpoint of "orthdox" Judaism.
In Spanish, "cult" is usually "secta", and "worship" is "culto".

 

D28, what you are saying is so true. See the PM I sent you several days ago now.
The first part of that quote to be honest, we would have to admit falls within biblical orthodoxy (though maybe not creedal "orthodoxy"), and the second part, as you showed, is where they meld the Three too close together, to where there seems to be no real distinction at all.
But once again, if I have to say that is a false god, then once again, the popular "three beings" (there is only ONE "I AM", —i.e. "BEing" who is divine), "one WHAT; three who's"; etc. are WORSE, and should be regarded as false godS as well. So more grace is definitely needed here. The main problem with the UPC is the legalism, not saying "manifestation" instead of "person".

Another problem that sometimes does come up with their theology, is that when pressed on the distinction of the Father and Son (e.g prayer), sometimes at least some of them will separate the human nature from the divine nature, and basically end up with the position of the Way or Christadelphians: a divine nature uniting itself with a purely human Jesus. This is called "adoptionism", "psilanthropism" or "dynamic monarchianism". This does cross the line into incompatible heresy. So they shuld beware of this, ans stick with the first part of ththe statement quoted above.

 

""sect" and "cult" have interchangeable meanings"
''
That depends purely on what group is using the term, within the American branch of the RCC cult is often used regularly as a neutral descriptive.
For example:"Mr. Curtis belongs to the cult of saint Francis." this simply means that Mr. Curtis is a fan of the person&theology of that great saint of Assisi.
The sentence:"Mr. Curtis belongs to the sect of saint Francis." would most likely produce some headscratching instead. It might be a way to describe that he is a Franciscan monk.
And no being into saint Francis and being a monk of his order do not mean the same thing, I've met a number of monastics that did not particularly care for the ideas&persona of the founder of their religious order.

'"only "cult" has taken on a more negative connotation."
''
That depends on the individual language, in Dutch 'sekte' has far stronger negative connotations than 'cultus'.

 

Eric B,

I sent a PM back to you. Sorry bout that, I tend to forget about that little PM thing up there.

Mike

 

It is not a matter of you or me condemning, it's what God says. The Bible teaches what we call the Trinity; the Oneness groups reject that and deny it.

Their God is a different God. Therefore, that must be rejected. The Bible tells us to reject false teachings. I could no more worship in a Oneness church than in a Mormon one or in a Kingdom Hall. All their statements that you quoted must be taken in context of their belief in a wrong God.

 

I don't think size has anything to do with the definition of a cult. The LDS church, which is quite large, is a cult.

In Europe, the word "sect" is used to mean cult. In the U.S., "sect" does not normally mean cult.

 

Marcia,

I agree with you.

But do the oneness folks say "Yes, it does. But we dont like that, so we are choosing something else"?

No. They say "The bible teaches what we say". And they quote just as many scriptures to support their veiw as we do to support ours.

I dont agree with them, I believe they are wrong, but they are quoting just as many scriptures as we do.

We say...

"The scriptures teach that the Father is God, Jesus Christ is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and they are the 3 divine persons who are the one eternal God."

...and then we quote tons of scriptures to back it up.

They say...

"The scriptures teach that the Father is God, Jesus Christ is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and they are 3 divine manifestations who are the one God".

...and then they quote tons of scriptures to back it up.

I believe we are right and they are wrong.

But I just cant find any scriptural justification to be condemnatory towards then regarding this view. I mean, there is only one of difference between us an them, and I cant find anywhere where God tells us "If any man denies we are persons, and says we are manifestations, let him be accursed."

I am a sola scriptura guy, and God specifically says...

If anyone denies the Son, he does not have the Father, and is not born of God.

If anyone cannot say "Jesus is Lord" he is not in posession of the Holy Spirit and is not born of God.

If anyone adds any works of any kind to "faith alone" regarding justification, that supposed gospel is "cursed", and they are not born of God.

But regarding people who believe Gods triune nature works itself out differently than we do, we have to turn to fallible men who decided at some point in time after the closing of the scripture to call things "sabbalianism" or "modulism" and to condemn people for them.

They might be 100% correct about those views being wrong, they could very well be correct, but if I am going to be condemnatory towards people, I want "book chapter verse" before I do.

Thats why when I see what appears to me to be very clear "works theology" going on, I am much more concerned about that because I can go to Romans and Galaciens and Ephesians and Titus and many other places and find "book chapter verse" from Almighty God coincenrning those things.

And the same thing with the Jehovahs Wittnesses. Same thing there. I've got "book chapter verse" regarding those who deny "Jesus is Lord"(He is God)

Regarding Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. "book chapter verse" regarding those who "deny the Son". They dont have God.

God bless,

Mike