Marks of a Cult

Baptists say Lutherans are wrong. But Lutherans (in the early days) followed Luther very closely. A key figure, unique doctrines, called out of the doctrinally corrupt "cult" of the RCC. ("Cult" used here as some have used it on this thread)

The same can be said between Methodists (following Wesley in the early days) and Baptists and between Methodist and other groups.

This does not mean they are a cult. But simply labeling them for size (as Mioques admittedly deformed methods would do) or labeling their early followers because they are called out, separated or following Wesley or Luther "closely" as a single key religious figuure - is silly.

Neither can you point to their doctrinal errors and say "yes but Lutherans err in regard to infant baptism or the mass ... etc" so they are a cult. Even the atrocious case of the RCC and praying to the dead, inventing purgatory, slaughtering Christians in the dark ages, venerating Mary as the Mother of God - as co-redeemer with Christ, as sinless like Christ -- you still can not label them as a "cult" no matter how devotedly they pray to Mary or venerate the Pope.

Doctrinal "differences" show doctrinal error - but the existence of error does not make the group unchristian.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Doctrinal "differences" show doctrinal error - but the existence of error does not make the group unchristian.

Doctrinal error alone does not make a group a cult. The group must deny Christ. But false teachings often evolves into cultism. For example, false teachings regarding the status of Mary often evolve into cults.

Immaculate Conception, although a false teaching, does not deny the person and work of Jesus Christ. However, Marian Cultists use the doctrine to prove that Mary is Saviour of the World and not Christ alone.

In like manner, the denial of Mary as Mother of God, although a false teaching, does not deny Christ if you still believe that Jesus is true God begotten of the Father from eternity and true man born of the woman in the Incarnation. However, the Nestorian, Socinian, Oneness, etc. cultists use the denial of Mary as Mother of God to deny the Trinity and thereby deny Christ.

 

I haven't a clue where you get the idea that 'Oneness' deny the fact that Mary is the Mother of God. Oneness saints *do not deny* the "Deity of Christ!" John, read this and remember..."Jesus is GOD!"

God is a Spirit, which dwelled in the Son/Flesh, and the same Spirit that dwells in humanity! One God, three manifestations; not three persons!

MEE

 

MEE,

I haven't a clue where you get the idea that 'Oneness' deny the fact that Mary is the Mother of God.

I thought the Oneness groups believe that God was only temporarily robed in flesh. Do Oneness groups believe that God in the person of Christ Jesus is forever man in every way like unto us except without sin? How can you say Mary is the mother of God if she did not give birth to a real person who was and still is both God and man?

[ June 17, 2004, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: John Gilmore ]

 

God was only temporarily robed in flesh, which was for approximately thirty-three plus years.

After His resurrection, I'm not sure what type of being He consisted of. I know that He appeared to His disciples without evidently coming through the doors.

John 20:19) Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

Mary did give birth to the Son/Flesh of God. This is the only "Person" that is in the Godhead. God, in the beginning was a Spirit. In order for Him to be able to shed His blood, for our sins, He took upon a fleshly body, through Mary, to die for the sins of humanity. As a Spirit, He had 'NO BLOOD.' Sins are not remitted without the shedding of blood. The birth of Jesus was for the purpose of our salvation.

MEE

 

MEE,

God was only temporarily robed in flesh, which was for approximately thirty-three plus years.

So motherhood lasted for lasted for 33 years while God was robed in the flesh of Mary? If Jesus no longer has a body, why does scripture say, "Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself." Phil 3:21?

 

Actually IMneness do deny the deity of Christ.
Is Christ the second person of the triune Godhead?
If He is not the second person of the triune Godhead then you deny that He is the God of the Bible, in essence denying His deity. When we refer to deity, we refer to the one and only deity referred to in the Bible--not the deity as defined by the parameters of the Oneness theology.
DHK

 

Just because they quote scripture does not make their view an alternative, or another acceptable view, D28. They quote but they are also taking things out of context and ignoring clear texts that teach, for example, distinction of 3 Persons in the Godhead.

If you believe the Bible teaches the Trinity, it cannot also teach the Oneness God. For example, since they believe, as Mee has said above, that God the Father was "enrobed" in flesh, we know that is not right. It is NOT God the Father who came to earth.

Trinitarians believe that Jesus is in his resurrected body. If Oneness people believe this, then where is God the Father? It can't be God the Father because he does not have a body. If Jesus is not in his resurrected body but has gone back into his "original" oneness form, then we have no Christ at the right hand of the father interceding for the saints. You can't have God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the HS all the same being and have the scenario presented in the Bible.

This also means when Jesus said, "I do not my own will but the will of the Father who sent me," that he was speaking doubletalk or else misleading people, since there is no one to send him - he sent himself!

It means that when Jesus prayed to the Father, he was pretending or else praying to himself. It means when Jesus said on the cross that he was commending his spirit to the Father, he was not really doing so.

This is just the tip of the iceberg of the implications of Oneness belief. This is not Biblical Trinitarian Christianity. You cannot have both views as acceptable.


Mee said:

This does not mean he did not have a body. He could have simply transported himself there; there is nothing in the text to indicate that he walked through the doors or walls, though even if He did that, He did it with the resurrected body. Thomas felt the nail imprints. A spiritual body does not mean an immaterial one.

 

Marcia,

I have never said I agree with their view. Actually, I have said several times I disagree with their view.

Yes, they do deny that. Of course they are not denying that God the Father exists, God the Son exists, and God the Holy Spirit exists. But they do deny that they are 3 distinct persons, but rather they are 3 distinct manifestations.

Now...could you please show me "book chapter verse" where God says something to the effect that "If anyone denies that we are 3 distict persons, and rather says that we are 3 manifestations, let him be accursed"?

I believe they are wrong, just as you do. The only differnece is that I am not going to condemn them for it, since God doesnt seem to.

He clearly and specifically condemns those who...

Deny the Son....1 John 2:23.

Deny that Jesus is Lord.(that He is God)....1 Cor 12:3

Teach a works based justification system, rather than faith alone....Gal 1:6-9

(of course it is later in Galatians that the false gospel, specifically, is identified)

Why does God not give us a clear a statement of condemnation for those who say manifestations rather then persons?

You will have to ask all of those questions of "mee", or some other Oneness person. I dont know all of their answers to those questions, since I am not one of them. Maybe some of those "60 Questions" of theirs will give their take on it.

I am not a "Oneness" christian.

God bless,

Mike

 

Bob said -- Doctrinal "differences" show doctrinal error - but the existence of error does not make the group unchristian.

Which one?

Sinless like Christ?
Co-redeemer with Christ?
Mother of God?
Queen of Heaven?
All powerful?
Altars of Mary?
Praying to Mary?
Physical torment applied to Christians who refuse to pray to Mary?

Are you saying that these gross doctrinal errors make the RCC a cult? If so - what is the "measure" of error that determines them to be a cult?

Indeed - coredemptrix.

However they also insist that Mary is sinless and perfect - and that this ALSO is not an attribute of "Christ alone".

They insist Mary is our mediator with God and "not Christ Alone".

They insist that Mary be prayed to and not "God alone".

I fail to see the difference here - each one steals an attribute of God alone - and applies it "also to Mary".

Mary is not the Mother of God. God has no mother. God was never "procreated". Simple and obvious.

The Messiah is the "incarnation" of God the Son and NOT the "procreation" of God the Son. Therefore Mary can not be "the Mother of God".

Notice that scripture never calls her "The Mother of God" and for good reason.

This is gospel text written decades AFTER the resurrection of Christ and STILL they are not using the term "Mother of God".

Instructive for anyone wanting to "add that" to Bible doctrine.

That is also false. Those who did not believe in the Trinity - had OTHER reasons for believing that other than "not calling Mary the Mother of God". The RCC "notion" is equivalent to saying that IF you believe Jesus was truly a man - then that is the REASON you won't accept him as God the Son. In fact he was both man and God. There is no need to insist that we "introduce error" as the only way to "prove" he was God. And this is exactly what the RCC (historically) tried to get Christians to swallow.

In Christ,

Bob

 

IMO the marks of a cult are
1. Cults tend to be centered on a person ( Man or Woman) rather than centered on Jesus.
2. Cults refer to their statements of Belief rather thatn the inspired Word of God.
3. Cults have a list of regualtions that are distinctions of a cult rather than be ing Bible based.
4. Cults do not believe that there is any validity to other groups besides themselves and anyhone that disagrees with them are referred to as blasphemers.
5. Cults accuse others of being in a cult.

 

Indeed - coredemptrix.

However they also insist that Mary is sinless and perfect - and that this ALSO is not an attribute of "Christ alone".

They insist Mary is our mediator with God and "not Christ Alone".

They insist that Mary be prayed to and not "God alone".

I fail to see the difference here - each one steals an attribute of God alone - and applies it "also to Mary".</font>[/QUOTE]Sinlessness is not an attribute of God alone. Both Adam and Eve were sinless before the fall. Immaculate Conception does not steal an attribute of God but falsely imputes an attribute to a person to whom it does not belong. (Although man is totally corrupted through original sin, sin is not of the substance of man. Christ is true man yet without sin.)

RC errors concerning prayers to Mary are more serious. One denies Christ by trusting in another creature besides Christ.

Notice that scripture never calls her "The Mother of God" and for good reason.

Actually scripture does call Mary the "mother of God" and for good reason. Luke 1:35 KJV If you deny the personal union of divine and human natures in the Christ Jesus born of Mary, you have denied Christ. Protestants who don't like the term "mother of God" are in constant danger of doing just that.

 

John Gilmore,

Well, I have the NKJ, and it reads...

"And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the highest will overshadow you. Therefore, also, that Holy one who is to be born will be called the son of God."

Jesus Christ is being given a title, but I see no title given to Mary in this passage.

It is impossible for Mary to be the "Mother of God". God is eternal and created all that is. So He cannot possibly have a "mother". Mary was the earthly pysical mother of the God-man Jesus Christ. That is the only context in which she could be truthfully referred to as the mother of God...since Jesus is God.

I see no evidence that she has been given the *title* Mother of God.

God cannot possibly have a mother, but I can certainly see the motivation for the RCC to invent that falsehood...and all the other heresies regarding Mary.

God bless,

Mike

 

John - I notice that you did not respond to coredemptrix.

God's Word says that "there is non rigtheous - no not one" and then refers to "Jesus Christ the Righteous". It appears from the text - Jesus is "the only one" that IS righteous.

Adam and Eve - were created (not born, not procreated) into a sinless world - sinless. However comparing Mary to Adam - is exactly what Paul does with Christ in Romans 5.

Again - you can't help but pull in a "God alone" attribute for Mary in the case of those doctrinal errors.

Bob said --
Notice that scripture never calls her "The Mother of God" and for good reason.

Let's see if ANY title AT ALL is given to Mary in Luke 1 -- or "if" in fact that title give - is to Christ "alone" Luke 1:25 --

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.


So Christ is called the "Son of God" - this title is appropriate for Christ. But Mary is not called "Mother of God" EVEN these many decades AFTER the resurrection. Surely this was the PERFECT place to call Mary "Mother of God" IF in fact they were doing that.... clearly they were not.

God was not "born". God was not "procreated".

This is the difference with Christ - God has no mother - Christ was INCARNATED not PROCREATED.

In losing that important distinction - Catholicism embraces error. Then they employ a circular argument to prop up their own error by claiming that without their error - the only other option is the error that Christ is not the Son of God.

The RCC does say that about protestants "AS IF" by not embracing the catholic error that God has a mother - that Mary procreated God Himself -- then the only "other option" is that the Trinity is not true... but of course they are wrong.

There is in fact no need to embrace that RC error in order to avoid the error of denying the trinity.


In Christ,

Bob

 

Well, I have the NKJ, and it reads...

"And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the highest will overshadow you. Therefore, also, that Holy one who is to be born will be called the son of God."

Jesus Christ is being given a title, but I see no title given to Mary in this passage.
</font>[/QUOTE]The NKJV is wrong. See Bob Ryan's post above. The title "mother of God" is not in scripture, just as the title "Trinity" is not in scripture, but concept is being taught. "Mother of God" tells us nothing about Mary but tells us much about Christ. In the Incarnation, the Son of God has forever become our brother in order to save us from sin. To deny this is to deny the Christ who saves us.

 

KJV.

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.


Here is a text about a title FOR CHRIST - and the RCC would make it "a title of Mary" instead.

My argument is that God the Son - was never procreated. He was INCARNATED. By definition then - God the Son - the pre-existing eternal one INCARNATED COULD not have a mother. That is "if" you believe in the Trinity and Incarnation of God the Son.

To say anything else would be to deny the trinity - deny the pre-existence of God the Son - deny the incarnation - and make it PROCREATION of God - with Mary exaulted to the biological position of truly procreating God Himself.

I am sure we all would want to avoid such a thing.

Agreed. But the "BIG DIFFERENCE" is that while we believe in the trinity we don't insist that if you refuse to "Say that word" you don't believe in God the Father, God the Son or God the Holy Spirit. And for "obvious reasons" - since the Bible authors themselves never SAY it.

However the RCC has tried to turn that around to support their idea that you must agree to the unbiblical "title" -- Mary Mother of God or ELSE.

But sadly - not only is that title not mentioned in the Bible - but it actually "conveys error" as it makes it appear to claim that Mary proCREATED God. She did not.

To even imagine such a thing is to totally ignore the history and message of the sect of Christianity - that all through the dark ages - prayed to the queen of the Universe WHO HOLDS that title pricesly BECAUSE of her title "Mother of God".

She also holds the co-mediatrix and co-redemptrix roles on that SAME basis.

To claim that it "made no difference" is to totally ignore the lessons of the dark ages in Europe.

In Christ,

Bob

 

John Gilmore,

You must be catholic. I have heard catholic hiearchial apologists propagate that weirdness on EWTN.

John, we have absolutly no need of Mary to proclaim to the world that Jesus is God. The scriptures, multitudes of them, proclaim Jesus God with not the slightest mention of Mary. She is 100%, 1000%, 100,000% unnecesarry to proclaim that Jesus is God.

The title "Mother of God" tells us absolutly nothing about Jesus that multitudes of scriptures tell us completly independant of any mention of Mary.

But the title "Mother of God" does tell us plenty about the catholic and eoc views of Mary, and its not good.

Thats 100% true. Thats why nobody here is denying the incarnation.

We are argueing against this mind bogglingly inappropriate adulation and attention given to some towards the sinner saved by grace Mary.

The way some organisations treat Mary you would think that there were pages and pages and pages of scripture proclaiming her greatness, her power, her wisdom, her miracle working ability, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

If fact, in the gospels the scriptural mentions of her are very few and far between, and she is completly ignored in the epistles.

Think of that, the epistles are the clearest, most in depth and comprehensive source for new covenant doctrine...and they ignore Mary.

There is a very good reason why.

God bless,

Mike

 

I don't have to show "book chapter verse." Where do you get that from? What we do is look at the overall principles and teachings in the Bible and we can see what matches up and what doesn't. We do not have to have a specific verse on it.

For example, there is no "book chapter verse" on abortion, adult/child sex, or pornography. But we can figure out whether these things are godly according to many passages and teachings.

Jesus said that there would be false Christs and to reject them. So what is a flase Christ? It is one that is not the real Jesus, not the Jesus we know from the Bible.

The Oneness Jesus is not the Jesus of the Bible because the Oneness Jesus and God the Father are one and the same. The Oneness Jesus is God the Father "enrobed in flesh." This is NOT the Jesus of the Bible. It is a false Jesus.

Just because they use the same terms does not mean it is the same God.

 

John Gilmore,

You said...

Really? Than why is it that the very ones who champion that phrase, are also capable of hundreds of idolatrous prayers to the sinner saved by grace Mary, such as the following from the current pope, John Paul II...

"Our Lady of the Millennium, Mother of the Redeemer with great joy we call you blessed.

In order to carry out His plan of salvation,
God the Father chose you before the creation of the world.

You believed in His love and obeyed His word.
The Son of God desired you for His Mother
when he became man to save the human race.
You received Him with ready obedience and undivided heart.

The Holy Spirit loved you as His mystical spouse
and He filled you with singular gifts. You allowed yourself to be led by His hidden and powerful action. On the eve of the third Christian Millennium we entrust to you the Church
which acknowledges you and invokes you as Mother.

To you, Mother of the human family and of the nations, we confidently entrust the whole of humanity, with its hopes and fears.
Do not let it lack the light of true wisdom.
Guide its steps in the ways of peace. Enable all to meet Christ, the Way and the Truth and the Life.

Sustain us, O Virgin Mary, on our journey of faith
and obtain for us the grace of eternal salvation.
O clement, O loving, O sweet Mother of God and our Mother, Mary!"

(www.udayton.edu/mary/prayers/jppray01.html#1)

I wouldnt pray that prayer if I was told to in front of a firing squad.

And you are saying that the title "Mother of God" tells you nothing of Mary?

The current Pope obviously disagrees exceedingly with you, and the reason he does are very very grievious.

God bless,

Mike

 

The title "Mother of God" was given to Mary to counteract heresies about the nature of Christ. The title was given not to glorify Mary but to affirm the united human/deity nature of Christ. This happened due to the Nestorian heresy in the 5th century.

Jesus was born of a woman the way all men are born. He was carried in Mary's womb and birthed like all men. But he was also God the Son. I don't think we can deny that he was procreated. He incarnated but was also born of woman. He was not just God putting on flesh, but became fully man. Hebrews makes it clear that Jesus had to be like men in order to redeem them.

The title "Mother of God" can be misused (and it has been) if the emphasis is placed on Mary, but the Bible does call Mary Jesus' mother and Jesus was God the Son.

From the Athansian Creed: