Interesting posts.
If semantics/using words with meanings that are contrary to either the dictionary or "standard" accepted meanings is a hallmark of cults, then I posit that Christendom is indeed in serious trouble.
I've been kicked off a forum simply because of calling the moderators, and one specifically, to task by the word of God and dictionary definitions alone. When the dictionary definition contradicts the useage by the person, there is a problem, for sure. Yet that seems to happen so often among Christians. It seems that a high percentage are participants of this. Does that make the majority of Christians cultists? It might very well reveal a spiritual penury, or even a spiritual blindness, but does that define a cult? If "yes", all then are cultists, right?
Does contradicting very clear statements in the scriptures make one a cultist? If so, then we all start out as cultists, for (Rom 8:6) "For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace" AND (1Co 3:1-3) And I, brothers, could not speak to you as to spiritual ones, but as to fleshly, as to babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk and not with solid food, for you were not yet able to bear it; nor are you able even now. For you are yet carnal. For in that there is among you envyings and strife and divisions, are you not carnal, and do you not walk according to men?"
Thus, all newborns in Christ are cultists, right?!!! So who defines what? I had the same question years ago, and found the answer: it is a self determined one. That's why so many call each other cultists. By very definition of the word cult, it is a self determined thing by the majority, by the commonly accepted preponderance.
Newborns in Christ are still carnally minded, are injuncted by the word of God itself to renew their minds in Christ Jesus their Lord and Savior. What I find most disconcerting, is that so many new believers seem to read the word of God, and when it contradicts their carnal thinking, they do not accept it. And when that is persisted in, and they claim to be learning of God, that is a lie. But they don't admit that, of course. And to persist in that is not of God, and will indeed choke out the spirit of God, even as they continue to state that they are taught and led by the spirit of God, all proof by their beliefs showing otherwise, for they are wise in their own eyes. Can this possibly be an appropriate application of the truth that Christ taught when He stated that many who come to God are made twice the sons of hell as those who "led them to Christ"? Does this make them a cultist? It would seem to be so, no matter who is asked the question, except for those in this state. (Of course.) So yet again, we see that the term "cult" or "cultist" is a self defined, self used term.
Is there any benefit to using such as term when it is solely self defined and self used for others? I highly doubt it.
If we go back through church history, we find that "cultism" started right back with the "church fathers". Church fathers is defined not as the apostles, but those after them. And we see in the early writings that things were starting to veer even then. So we see the seeds of "cults" right back then. And we even have some of them mentioned by the apostles themselves in their epistles, so we know for a fact that "cults" started when the apostles were ministering. Satan wastes no time, it seems.
If a person directly contradicts scripture, are they a cultist? Who defines that? If the answer to that question is "yes", then we are all cultists, even if only to a very nominal extent. Take for example some of the debates on this very forum:
1) Does God love everybody? A fair number of scriptures were given that clearly state that God hates certain people. Even have the New Testament states this for them before they are even born! So if someone doesn't believe the clear, bold, blunt statements of the word of God, are they a cultist? They are clearly carnally minded, for they clearly do not accept the blunt word of God. That is not of God, but is fleshly, demonic, of the mind that is not yet renewed in Christ in that area. That does NOT mean that they are damned, by any stretch of the imagination. Yet for one who purports to be of the Lord, to be mature enough in spiritual things to correct others, that is an untenable position, and the scriptures have some very, very condemning statements for such. We must be aware of these things.
2) Can we be both righteous and wicked at the same time? Scripture is emphatic: cannot be true. Cannot be both pure and impure at the same time. Cannot be both salt water and fresh water at the same time. Cannot be both leavened and unleavened dough at the same time. But Christendom, with rare exception, fully believes this to be a lie, believing that we are both wicked and righteous at the same time. Does this make the main of Christendom cultists? By very definition of mainstream Christendom regarding cults, they have defined themselves as a cult. Humorous, if not sad.
3) You can be a homosexual Christian. The scriptures state that homosexuals, (amongst many others, but this is a hot-button issue today so I appropriate it here) have no part in the kingdom of heaven. And in a number of places. Does this make many churches, denominations, and "Christians" cultists? Apparently so. But not by those who choose to believe a lie and live in sin at war with God.
4), or, does a person's not accepting such blunt scriptures make them a cultist? We have those who do not accept that God can hate anyone, even though the word states otherwise. We have those who even go so far as to discount much of the scriptures, simply because said scriptures do not fit that person's view of God. Is that of God, or of demons? It would tend to be of demons, or we are the determining factor for spiritual truth: we determine what is correct and what isn't. But isn't that the very core of cultism? Yes, by very definition. So just who ISN'T a cultist? Scripture defines that, I believe. But it is those who do not accept scripture, as evidenced in many beliefs, (some of which have been mentioned here), that would decry such. It cannot be any other way, for it is from that which the well is, that is that which the well brings forth. It cannot be otherwise.
So we see yet again that the term "cult" or "cultist" is a self propagating, self promulgating, self determined state for others to be pitied, condemned, helped, or even proseletized by "us", right? Or it is a term for us to be labelled and interacted with the same accordance as we to others, by them toward us! Either way, it is a self determined thing.
And not to pick on anyone in particular, (at least four posters were covered with some of these things, one of whom I consider an on-line friend), but even the trinity issue can be traced back to first seeing it arise in Christian writings, and there are many, and have been many for centuries, who have seen this and call trinitarians "cultists", or at the very least, deceived. It would appear that no corner of Christendom has not been ravaged by disagreement and thus the term "cult" and "cultist". This is a sad state of affairs, for sure. "How long, O Lord? How Long?"
Perhaps, then, it would be a better thing to not use such a term, for invariably, it puts a damper on any dialogue with those who we label as such. Or do we discontect our beliefs and values from how we think and live? Impossible.
The OP was spot on.
نورمان شارب