The Vast Majority of Christian Denominations are Christian "cults"

[Smyth]

RECOGNIZED CHRISTIAN CULTS

A large portion of Christendom recognizes the JW's and used to recognize the SDA and MORMON's as Christian "cults." However, SDA are no longer recognized as a cult (Walter Martin removes them from this classification) and Mormons are being more accepted as a Christian group. But why were they regarded as "cults" in the first place? Because they reject the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity or eternal punishment in hell?

JW, SDA, and LDS are cults not because of their false doctrines, but because of the source of their doctrines (founders or leaders who claim authority on par with the Bible, especially those basing doctrines on claims of extra-biblical revelation).

All extra-biblical doctrines are false, but just having a false doctrine doesn't make a church a cult. It just makes the church mistaken (e.g. AoG). Or, maybe faithless (e.g. PCUSA).

 

[The Biblicist]

JW, SDA, and LDS are cults not because of their false doctrines, but because of the source of their doctrines (founders or leaders who claim authority on par with the Bible, especially those basing doctrines on claims of extra-biblical revelation).

All extra-biblical doctrines are false, but just having a false doctrine doesn't make a church a cult. It just makes the church mistaken (e.g. AoG). Or, maybe faithless (e.g. PCUSA).

And so a denomination could reject the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, the trinity but as long as they still maintain the bible as the only scripture then they are a Christian denomination in your estimation?

 

[Smyth]

And so a denomination could reject the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, the trinity but as long as they still maintain the bible as the only scripture then they are a Christian denomination in your estimation?

There are PCUSA pastors who are guilty of that. The PCUSA is reprobate. Their pastors (who aren't looking for an exit) are faithless. But, they are not a "cult".

 

[SovereignGrace]

Agree. But consider the source of the OP; Landmarkism.

I once confronted someone who believes that those who oppose the DoG are lost because they do not truly worship the God of the bible. I confronted him and told him he was...and is...flat out wrong. We are not saved by knowledge but by grace. This is eerily akin to what the OP is advocating.

 

[SovereignGrace]

And so a denomination could reject the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, the trinity but as long as they still maintain the bible as the only scripture then they are a Christian denomination in your estimation?

Denying this is not even remotely close to denying eternal security. Not even in the same solar system...

 

[SovereignGrace]

I know relationships can cloud our judgement because we love people. However, are you really thinking about what you have said? Shouldn't it be obvious that the person who believes devoutly they are justified by their works will be doing their dead level best to walk as close to God as they can, because they really believe if they don't they will go to hell. However, that person has no "rest" with God because they don't believe that Christ completely satisfied the righteousness needed to be at "rest" with God. Really, what do you expect from those who are devout in this belief????? I am sorry if I sound insenstive, but you are describing the typical religious person who sincerely believes in justification by works which is a complete rejection of Christ's finished works in their behalf. Fear is a great motivator!

There is no clouding my judgment. I have known him for over 13 years. I have witnessed his life firsthanded. I live within 100 yards of him. He is a man of God.

 

[SovereignGrace]

So, Dr. Mark, it is either your way or being agnostic. Kudos buddy...

 

[The Biblicist]

Sorry Gentleman, but I choose to define what is a Christian cult by the absolutes of Scripture not by the subjective personal opinions and definitions that have been so far expressed on this forum.

Consider this, are "Christian cults" in your estimation equivalent to being "accursed"? If not, then the Bible condemns those who deny Biblical justification WORSE than what you define as a Christian cult, but if so, then they are as scripturally as bad as what you subjectively define as Christian cults. So either way your position is proven false.

Consider this, 99% of those who repudiate eternal security of TRUE believers also reject the biblical doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone WITHOUT WORKS and the bible condemns such with the strongest possible condemnation as "accursed." You have nothing but subjective personal definitions for what you condemn in what you consider to be the strongest possible designation "Christian cult" but what I define as a "Christian cult" is based on the strongest explicit condemnation scripture uses "let him be accursed."

You have moved from the scripture to traditions as your standard for your strongest condemnation of professed Christendom who you would define as a "Christian Cult" while I base my definitions of a "Christian cult" on the what the Scripture explicitly uses the strongest condemnation for. I will stick with the scripture application and condemnation and will leave you to your traditions, and subjective personal opinions.

 

[The Biblicist]

Sorry Gentleman, but I choose to define what is a Christian cult by the absolutes of Scripture not by the subjective personal opinions and definitions that have been so far expressed on this forum.

Consider this, are "Christian cults" in your estimation equivalent to being "accursed"? If not, then the Bible condemns those who deny Biblical justification WORSE than what you define as a Christian cult, but if so, then they are as scripturally as bad as what you subjectively define as Christian cults. So either way your position is proven false.

Consider this, 99% of those who repudiate eternal security of TRUE believers also reject the biblical doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone WITHOUT WORKS and the bible condemns such with the strongest possible condemnation as "accursed." You have nothing but subjective personal definitions for what you condemn in what you consider to be the strongest possible designation "Christian cult" but what I define as a "Christian cult" is based on the strongest explicit condemnation scripture uses "let him be accursed."

You have moved from the scripture to traditions as your standard for your strongest condemnation of professed Christendom who you would define as a "Christian Cult" while I base my definitions of a "Christian cult" on the what the Scripture explicitly uses the strongest condemnation for. I will stick with the scripture application and condemnation and will leave you to your traditions, and subjective personal opinions.

I presented solid reasonable arguments in the post above. I included no jokes, no humor and yet when the best that my opponents can do is mock you know their position is not only weak but non-existent and obviously wrong.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Again Brother Mark, we are not saved by what we know but grace. I agree eternal security is valid, but I will not call those who disagree with it as being cultish.

 

[The Biblicist]

Again Brother Mark, we are not saved by what we know but grace. I agree eternal security is valid, but I will not call those who disagree with it as being cultish.

Would you at least agree that those who repudiate the Biblical doctrine of justification by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone WITHOUT WORKS are the subjects in view in Galatians 1:8-9 or can you find any other subject or doctrine in Galatians 1-5 that it applies to? Then can you agree with Paul that all who preach "another gospel" should be regarded as "accursed"?

Finally, would you do me the kindness of pointing out in that post you mocked where either my logic, my arguments or my scriptural application is flawed?

 

[SovereignGrace]

I see Galatians 1 as Paul addressing those wanting christians to revert back to Judiasm. I see this as akin to adding circumcision into the salvation equation. But I could be wrong in my assessment.
Paul used the words confusion and perverted, and I don't think eternal security was what was being addressed. It was the fact they were having Judiazers trying to revert them back into Jewish customs.

 

[The Biblicist]

I see Galatians 1 as Paul addressing those wanting christians to revert back to Judiasm. I see this as akin to adding circumcision into the salvation equation. But I could be wrong in my assessment.

You realize that circumcision was the introductory rite of committment to keeping the whole law in the life of a Jew and this is being applied to Christians in these churches? So inclusion of circumcision is inclusion of the whole law.

Second, even if you restrict it to "circumcision" does not the principle equally forbid commandment keeping of any sort being added to the doctrine of justification by faith?

Paul used the words confusion and perverted, and I don't think eternal security was what was being addressed. It was the fact they were having Judiazers trying to revert them back into Jewish customs.

Paul said if any man "preach any other gospel" not if any man "revert back to Judaism." I never asked you to comment on eternal security but on actual subject matter of Galatians 1-5 which is the doctrine of justification by faith without works. I asked you if Galatians 1:8-9 is applicable to those who deny justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone WITHOUT WORKS of any kind including circumcison, baptism or whatever. Would you please address the precise questions I asked?

I also asked you to kindly point out any logical or scriptural flaw in the post you mocked. And I notice that you continue to keep mocking my response. Do you think your response is the response of a Christian gentleman?

 

[SovereignGrace]

You calling God fearing people cults is far from christian. Do not poke your finger at me. You are on a crusade to castigate believers as cultists. You started this...not me...

 

[The Biblicist]

Sorry Gentleman, but I choose to define what is a Christian cult by the absolutes of Scripture not by the subjective personal opinions and definitions that have been so far expressed on this forum.

Consider this, are "Christian cults" in your estimation equivalent to being "accursed"? If not, then the Bible condemns those who deny Biblical justification WORSE than what you define as a Christian cult, but if so, then they are as scripturally as bad as what you subjectively define as Christian cults. So either way your position is proven false.

Consider this, 99% of those who repudiate eternal security of TRUE believers also reject the biblical doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone WITHOUT WORKS and the bible condemns such with the strongest possible condemnation as "accursed." You have nothing but subjective personal definitions for what you condemn in what you consider to be the strongest possible designation "Christian cult" but what I define as a "Christian cult" is based on the strongest explicit condemnation scripture uses "let him be accursed."

You have moved from the scripture to traditions as your standard for your strongest condemnation of professed Christendom who you would define as a "Christian Cult" while I base my definitions of a "Christian cult" on the what the Scripture explicitly uses the strongest condemnation for. I will stick with the scripture application and condemnation and will leave you to your traditions, and subjective personal opinions.

Here is my post that so far the only response has been ridicule instead of any kind of positive criticism. Brethren, if you disagree with this post, would you be kind enough to point out any flaw in my logic or arguments or scripture I have used in this post. I am not going to ridicule your responses. I am not asking for your opinions or feelings but actual flaws that you can point out.

 

[The Biblicist]

You calling God fearing people cults is far from christian. Do not poke your finger at me. You are on a crusade to castigate believers as cultists. You started this...not me...

So you have nothing but personal opinions and emotions to support your view. You have been evasive to specific questions and yet you feel you can openly mock what you cannot give a reasonable or Biblical based response?

So in your opinion Galatians 1:8-9 has no present day application to anything contextually related to it?

 

[SovereignGrace]

Here is my post that so far the only response has been ridicule instead of any kind of positive criticism. Brethren, if you disagree with this post, would you be kind enough to point out any flaw in my logic or arguments or scripture I have used in this post. I am not going to ridicule your responses. I am not asking for your opinions or feelings but actual flaws that you can point out.

Maybe it is because it is not worthwhile? You already have it shot down anyways. I reported the OP asking this thread to be closed. It was an unchristian like OP to begin with.

 

[SovereignGrace]

So you have nothing but personal opinions and emotions to support your view. You have been evasive to specific questions and yet you feel you can openly mock what you cannot give a reasonable or Biblical based response?

So in your opinion Galatians 1:8-9 has no present day application to anything contextually related to it?

All I am saying is calling ppl cultish is pretty bad. Remember, God told Peter what He has cleaned to not call it common, which is what you are doing in this thread. I am asking you to tread lightly with the names you call ppl of God.

 

[The Biblicist]

All I am saying is calling ppl cultish is pretty bad. Remember, God told Peter what He has cleaned to not call it common, which is what you are doing in this thread. I am asking you to tread lightly with the names you call ppl of God.

First, Cornelius did not preach "another gospel" or identify with a cult and so your example is simply invalid and has nothing to do with Galatians 1:8-9. Your personal opinion and emotion are invalid and have nothing to do with the Biblical basis for the application and conclusion in this thread. Your emotions are no different than paedobaptist emotions that think it is terrible to forbid baptism to infants.

If you could find a valid logical or Biblical flaw in the post that you ridiculed you would have presented it. So I am asking you to kindly set aside your emotions and personal opinions and offer valid criticisms to that post you ridiculed.

 

[The Biblicist]

Sorry Gentleman, but I choose to define what is a Christian cult by the absolutes of Scripture not by the subjective personal opinions and definitions that have been so far expressed on this forum.

Consider this, are "Christian cults" in your estimation equivalent to being "accursed"? If not, then the Bible condemns those who deny Biblical justification WORSE than what you define as a Christian cult, but if so, then they are as scripturally as bad as what you subjectively define as Christian cults. So either way your position is proven false.

Consider this, 99% of those who repudiate eternal security of TRUE believers also reject the biblical doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone WITHOUT WORKS and the bible condemns such with the strongest possible condemnation as "accursed." You have nothing but subjective personal definitions for what you condemn in what you consider to be the strongest possible designation "Christian cult" but what I define as a "Christian cult" is based on the strongest explicit condemnation scripture uses "let him be accursed."

You have moved from the scripture to traditions as your standard for your strongest condemnation of professed Christendom who you would define as a "Christian Cult" while I base my definitions of a "Christian cult" on the what the Scripture explicitly uses the strongest condemnation for. I will stick with the scripture application and condemnation and will leave you to your traditions, and subjective personal opinions.

Gentleman, again to those who disagree with my position, would you kindly point out valid criticisms you can find in the above post if you think I am wrong. I am not asking for your personal opinions or emotional feelings.