Cults

[religusnut]

If one looks on the Internet he can quickly see that almost everything one names can be assigned a cult status.

Obviously every denomination has a different set of beliefs to another so therefore basically every group is a cult of some sort.

Therefore how do you determine which is and which is not. For example most Non-Pentecostals classify Pentecostals as people that are of a cult. However every Pentecostal that I have ever talked to used everything that he believed to point me to Jesus. This is very confusing to may non believers.

 

[aspen]

If one looks on the Internet he can quickly see that almost everything one names can be assigned a cult status.

Obviously every denomination has a different set of beliefs to another so therefore basically every group is a cult of some sort.

Therefore how do you determine which is and which is not. For example most Non-Pentecostals classify Pentecostals as people that are of a cult. However every Pentecostal that I have ever talked to used everything that he believed to point me to Jesus. This is very confusing to may non believers.

The doctrine of the Trinity is the dividing line between Christian and nonChristian religions.

Peace

 

[religusnut]

The doctrine of the Trinity is the dividing line between Christian and nonChristian religions.

Peace

Interesting idea but then as I stated above you can find any group you want to name that is listed as a cult. However there are many groups listed on the lists that even believe in the Trinity. There are others that believe in say Jesus only who claim to be Christians......

It is hard to understand what is and what is not.

 

[bud02]

I find that the first indicator is a woks based salvation and or works based method of staying in salvation are first noticeable.
Finding doctrinal errors are difficult unless you understand that most cultist speak the same language as true Christians but their mind defines the meaning differently.
Its the definition of words that uncovers the nature of the beast. Walter Martins book - Kingdom of the Cults is a good reference.
Here is a C/P from the book.

Encountering the Cultist

Whenever a Christian encounters a cultist, certain primary thoughts must be paramount in his mind:

• (1) He must strive to direct the conversation to the problem of terminology and maneuver the cult adherent into a position where he must define his usage of terms and his authority, if any, for drastic, unbiblical redefinitions, which are certain to emerge;
  (2) the Christian must then compare these �definitions� with the various contexts of the verses upon which the cultist draws support of his doctrinal interpretations;
  (3) he must define the words �interpretation,� �historic orthodoxy,� and standard doctrinal phrases such as �the new birth,� �the Atonement,� �context,� �exegesis,� �eternal judgment,� etc., so that no misunderstanding will exist when these things come under discussion, as they inevitably will;
  (4) the Christian must attempt to lead the cultist to a review of the importance of properly defining terms for all important doctrines involved, particularly the doctrine of personal redemption from sin, which most cult systems define in a markedly unbiblical manner;
  (5) it is the responsibility of the Christian to present a clear testimony of his own regenerative experience with Jesus Christ in terminology which has been carefully clarified regarding the necessity of such regeneration on the part of the cultist in the light of the certain reality of God�s inevitable justice.

It may be necessary also, in the course of discussing terminology and its dishonest recasting by cult systems, to resort to occasional polemic utterances. In such cases, the Christian should be certain that they are tempered with patience and love, so that the cultist appreciates that such tactics are motivated by one�s personal concern for his eternal welfare and not simply to �win the argument.�
Let it never be forgotten that cultists are experts at lifting texts out of their respective contexts without proper concern for the laws of language or the established principles of biblical interpretation. There are those of whom Peter warns us, who �wrest [the Scriptures] unto their own destruction� (2 Peter 3:16). This is an accurate picture of the kingdom of the cults in the realm of terminology.
Looking back over the picture of cult semantics, the following facts emerge.

• 1. The average cultist knows his own terminology very thoroughly. He also has a historic knowledge of Christian usage and is therefore prepared to discuss many areas of Christian theology intelligently.
  2. The well-trained cultist will carefully avoid definition of terms concerning cardinal doctrines such as the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the Atonement, the bodily resurrection of our Lord, the process of salvation by grace and justification by faith. If pressed in these areas, he will redefine the terms to fit the semantic framework of orthodoxy unless he is forced to define his terms explicitly.
  3. The informed Christian must seek for a point of departure, preferably the authority of the Scriptures, which can become a powerful and useful tool in the hands of the Christian, if properly exercised.
  4. The concerned Christian worker must familiarize himself to some extent with the terminology of the major cult systems if he is to enjoy any measure of success in understanding the cultist�s mind when bearing a witness for Christ.

We have stressed heavily the issue of terminology and a proper definition of terms throughout this entire chapter. It will not have been wasted effort if the reader has come to realize its importance and will be guided accordingly when approaching the language barrier, which is an extremely formidable obstacle both to evangelizing cultists and to giving a systematic and effective defense of the Christian faith against their perversions.

As you can see even a basic dictionary definition can be very useful when debating such people. I am always weary of people that go to great lengths to define or shape words, keeping a watchful eye on the three card monte game. This type of game gets played in politics everyday.

 

[aspen]

Interesting idea but then as I stated above you can find any group you want to name that is listed as a cult. However there are many groups listed on the lists that even believe in the Trinity. There are others that believe in say Jesus only who claim to be Christians......

It is hard to understand what is and what is not.

What lists?

All I can tell you is how the early church determined between heretical groups and orthodoxy - one of the foundations of faith is the doctrine of the Trinity. The manner in which early Christians joined the church included baptism and adherence to The Apostle's Creed and later the Nicene Creed.

Of course, nowadays every splitter group out there beliefs everyone,but them are cults - I use the same standard as the early church.

Also, if you want to get technical, Christianity is a Jewish cult - so the whole cult idea is really meaningless.

Finally, if you are talking about groups that abuse their followers when you use the words cult - doctrine really doesn't play into it. I once belonged to a Brethren church that claimed to be orthodox, but also encouraged the idea that the minister was divine - all of this weirdness is do to a lack of authority in the church.

Sorry if I muddied the waters,

Peace

 

[bud02]

The first definition of a cult, Christ like but not of Christ.


1 John 4
[sup]1[/sup] Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. [sup]2[/sup] By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, [sup]3[/sup] and every spirit that does not confess that[sup][a][/sup] Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.
[sup]4[/sup] You are of God, little children, and have overcome them, because He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. [sup]5[/sup] They are of the world. Therefore they speak as of the world, and the world hears them. [sup]6[/sup] We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

Now its not always evident how sum deny Jesus came in the flesh. My example is the RCC's definition of Mary.

The Immaculate Conception



It’s important to understand what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is and what it is not. Some people think the term refers to Christ’s conception in Mary’s womb without the intervention of a human father; but that is the Virgin Birth. Others think the Immaculate Conception means Mary was conceived "by the power of the Holy Spirit," in the way Jesus was, but that, too, is incorrect. The Immaculate Conception means that Mary, whose conception was brought about the normal way, was conceived without original sin or its stain—that’s what "immaculate" means: without stain. The essence of original sin consists in the deprivation of sanctifying grace, and its stain is a corrupt nature. Mary was preserved from these defects by God’s grace; from the first instant of her existence she was in the state of sanctifying grace and was free from the corrupt nature original sin brings.


Mary was also sinless
The traditional translation, "full of grace," is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of "highly favored daughter." Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for "daughter"). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning "to fill or endow with grace." Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.

You can read the full definition here http://www.catholic....n_and_Assum.asp

With these distinct attributes its clear Mary is more a demigod than a decedent of Adam and Eve. More to the point in 1st John IMO it denys that Jesus came in the flesh of man. She "Mary" was never a part of mankind, so clearly denying that Jesus came in the flesh as John says. The second argument would be why did not God just do the same for any man? Or why did we need Jesus if God could simply Immaculately conceive any savor that was without sin or shared in the original fall of mankind. Why because its a lie, John was very much aware of in his time. For Jesus shared in our human weakness, this He received from His human mother Mary, whom was very much a daughter of Eve that shared the same fallen condition as all of us, and not some RCC demigod.

Hebrew 2- [sup]14[/sup] Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, [sup]15[/sup] and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. [sup]16[/sup] For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham. [sup]17[/sup] Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. [sup]18[/sup] For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.

So Aspen I would disagree with your statement that
" Finally, if you are talking about groups that abuse their followers when you use the words cult - doctrine really doesn't play into it ".
Doctrine plays a part in anyone claiming to be of Christ whether abusive of the flesh, Spirit, or the truth of the word of God.

You are right in asking about the definition of cult from the OP
The term is confusing because it is ambiguous — infused with a variety of meanings depending on who uses it — and for which purpose it is used.

As you can see the definition of words or people such as Mary can turn the teaching into a teaching of Antichrist. Or cult if you wish to use the term in such a manner. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.

 

[religusnut]

I find that the first indicator is a woks based salvation and or works based method of staying in salvation are first noticeable.
Finding doctrinal errors are difficult unless you understand that most cultist speak the same language as true Christians but their mind defines the meaning differently.
Its the definition of words that uncovers the nature of the beast. Walter Martins book - Kingdom of the Cults is a good reference.
Here is a C/P from the book.

Encountering the Cultist

Whenever a Christian encounters a cultist, certain primary thoughts must be paramount in his mind:

• (1) He must strive to direct the conversation to the problem of terminology and maneuver the cult adherent into a position where he must define his usage of terms and his authority, if any, for drastic, unbiblical redefinitions, which are certain to emerge;
  (2) the Christian must then compare these �definitions� with the various contexts of the verses upon which the cultist draws support of his doctrinal interpretations;
  (3) he must define the words �interpretation,� �historic orthodoxy,� and standard doctrinal phrases such as �the new birth,� �the Atonement,� �context,� �exegesis,� �eternal judgment,� etc., so that no misunderstanding will exist when these things come under discussion, as they inevitably will;
  (4) the Christian must attempt to lead the cultist to a review of the importance of properly defining terms for all important doctrines involved, particularly the doctrine of personal redemption from sin, which most cult systems define in a markedly unbiblical manner;
  (5) it is the responsibility of the Christian to present a clear testimony of his own regenerative experience with Jesus Christ in terminology which has been carefully clarified regarding the necessity of such regeneration on the part of the cultist in the light of the certain reality of God�s inevitable justice.

It may be necessary also, in the course of discussing terminology and its dishonest recasting by cult systems, to resort to occasional polemic utterances. In such cases, the Christian should be certain that they are tempered with patience and love, so that the cultist appreciates that such tactics are motivated by one�s personal concern for his eternal welfare and not simply to �win the argument.�
Let it never be forgotten that cultists are experts at lifting texts out of their respective contexts without proper concern for the laws of language or the established principles of biblical interpretation. There are those of whom Peter warns us, who �wrest [the Scriptures] unto their own destruction� (2 Peter 3:16). This is an accurate picture of the kingdom of the cults in the realm of terminology.
Looking back over the picture of cult semantics, the following facts emerge.

• 1. The average cultist knows his own terminology very thoroughly. He also has a historic knowledge of Christian usage and is therefore prepared to discuss many areas of Christian theology intelligently.
  2. The well-trained cultist will carefully avoid definition of terms concerning cardinal doctrines such as the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the Atonement, the bodily resurrection of our Lord, the process of salvation by grace and justification by faith. If pressed in these areas, he will redefine the terms to fit the semantic framework of orthodoxy unless he is forced to define his terms explicitly.
  3. The informed Christian must seek for a point of departure, preferably the authority of the Scriptures, which can become a powerful and useful tool in the hands of the Christian, if properly exercised.
  4. The concerned Christian worker must familiarize himself to some extent with the terminology of the major cult systems if he is to enjoy any measure of success in understanding the cultist�s mind when bearing a witness for Christ.

We have stressed heavily the issue of terminology and a proper definition of terms throughout this entire chapter. It will not have been wasted effort if the reader has come to realize its importance and will be guided accordingly when approaching the language barrier, which is an extremely formidable obstacle both to evangelizing cultists and to giving a systematic and effective defense of the Christian faith against their perversions.

As you can see even a basic dictionary definition can be very useful when debating such people. I am always weary of people that go to great lengths to define or shape words, keeping a watchful eye on the three card monte game. This type of game gets played in politics everyday.

That is real good but the only problem is what are you to define? Non-Pentecostals for instance define Pentecostals as being a part of a cult. What would you as a non-Pentecostal try to get the pentecostal to define. Or you as a Pentecostal try to get then non pentecostal to define.....? This is very confusing to a lot of non Christians and normally that is who many times gets caught up in the middle when one or the other is trying to witness to an unsaved person. I have seen it first hand.

 

[bud02]

That is real good but the only problem is what are you to define? Non-Pentecostals for instance define Pentecostals as being a part of a cult. What would you as a non-Pentecostal try to get the pentecostal to define. Or you as a Pentecostal try to get then non pentecostal to define.....? This is very confusing to a lot of non Christians and normally that is who many times gets caught up in the middle when one or the other is trying to witness to an unsaved person. I have seen it first hand.

The first and most important is to know what and why you believe. If you don't know about the foundation of your own faith getting into debates about doctrine with others is a sure way to find out. You'll get slammed and knocked around but if you remain faithful the Lord will teach you, BUT YOU HAVE TO SPEND THE TIME in the word.
You have not defined a topic or verse yourself, how would I know what you think without you telling me. Pentecostals and Non-Pentecostals is a broad subject, that will boil down to understanding and personal acceptance of scripture. I find that asking questions about others faith is the quickest way to get an understanding of their knowledge and foundation of their faith, it varies even within the same denomination, it varies between true believers but these usually recognizes one another and soon one man sharpens an other.

It seems like you are looking for a quick verse or answer to a topic and that will be the end of it. Its not so easy and as soon as you parry one you will find another followed by another and so on.

 

[religusnut]

The first and most important is to know what and why you believe. If you don't know about the foundation of your own faith getting into debates about doctrine with others is a sure way to find out. You'll get slammed and knocked around but if you remain faithful the Lord will teach you, BUT YOU HAVE TO SPEND THE TIME in the word.
You have not defined a topic or verse yourself, how would I know what you think without you telling me. Pentecostals and Non-Pentecostals is a broad subject, that will boil down to understanding and personal acceptance of scripture. I find that asking questions about others faith is the quickest way to get an understanding of their knowledge and foundation of their faith, it varies even within the same denomination, it varies between true believers but these usually recognizes one another and soon one man sharpens an other.

It seems like you are looking for a quick verse or answer to a topic and that will be the end of it. Its not so easy and as soon as you parry one you will find another followed by another and so on.

Actually most of the ones one talks to of what ever belief have at times hundreds if not thousands of hours of study in their respective beliefs. Personally I am that way. I am for instance am too Pentecostal to be considered not by many non Pentecostals but not enough to be by many Pentecostals to be considered such.

Most beliefs among Christians have things that do not match the Bible if one studies only the Bible to come to conclusions.

It is an intriguing thing to ask questions about. Just like to hear others thoughts on such things.

 

[Surf Rider]

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

 

[veteran]

"Christianity is a Jewish cult?"

Never heard that one before. (Must be from the Judeo-Christian term many throw around. I'll show how that doesn't fit either further below).


The only REAL way to recognize a 'cult' that claims to be Christian, is to stay in God's Word to learn the difference, for The Bible is the Measure of ALL doctrine.

Another tool is to study history of man's ideas involving religion. That's why Christian theological universities require some familiarity with the religious beliefs of the world.

The early Church fathers had to deal quite a bit with Gnosticism in the 2nd century A.D. Study the writings of the early Church fathers. And that study is relavent for today, since movies like the Davinci Code pushes several old Gnostic doctrines about our Lord Jesus.

Ancient Babylon is where the foundation of false religion began.


Judeo-Christian:
That term I see as a slur to Christianity. The reason is because the system of Judaism is vehemently anti-Christian. The Jew's religion Paul spoke of is not the original religious system of Israel under Moses in Old Covenant times.

The tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi went into Babylon captivity for 70 years, and a pagan priest cast crept in (Nethenims) and mixed among the Levitical priest system (Ezra). In Babylon the scribes and priests created philosophical sage-like writings that got away from God's Word of the Old Testament. God's Word became secondary, as their Babylonian Talmud writings produced the religious traditions of the Jews which our Lord Jesus rebuked at His first coming.

The majority of Israel under the ten tribes had already been scattered to Assyria and the land of the Medes when Judah went captive to Babylon (see 1 Kings 11 forward thru 2 Kings 17). It was those 3 tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Levit at Jerusalem that became known as Jews (word comes from 'Judah'). The rest of the tribes were not subject to that Babylonian Talmud false religious working.

However, the ten tribes totally got away from God's Word, and went into literal Baal worship, which is why God scattered them out of the land first. Many of those ten tribes migrated to the West, and brought their various forms of Baal worship with them to Europe. When Christ came and was preached, then they began to put theeir Baal idols away. Many of these to this day don't realize they have heritage as part of literal Israel, but are told they are Gentiles. So it's very important to realize about cults and pagan worship, since God scattered all Israel for doing that.

 

[HammerStone]

Well, I first off agree that cult can be a rather relative term.

However, cult has always signified a group that is insular to me. Not insular in the sense that membership is restricted (which often it is), but that there is often a sense of "only we are the way" or only believing the exact same thing will get someone to the desired end. I think that by definition a cult is also rather small - cult has always implied smaller size as well. That's not to say that something cannot grow large and still be a cult...

 

[tomwebster]

Well, I first off agree that cult can be a rather relative term.

However, cult has always signified a group that is insular to me. Not insular in the sense that membership is restricted (which often it is), but that there is often a sense of "only we are the way" or only believing the exact same thing will get someone to the desired end. I think that by definition a cult is also rather small - cult has always implied smaller size as well. That's not to say that something cannot grow large and still be a cult...

In that case Smyrna and Philadelphia could be considered cults. I see a cult as any group that places writings other then the Word equal to Scripture in authority.

 

[HammerStone]

Really? Because you're overlooking that Christ makes the call about Smyrna and Philadelphia and not the churches themselves; you're looking too hard to find disagreement as of late it seems. Cults are always self-proclaimed, I suppose I should have phrased my thoughts that way.

 

[aspen]

I think it may be helpful to distinguish between the word heresy and the word cult. You can belong to a cult that is not heretical - the Catholic Church recognizes groups that remain orthodox and therefore, within the church, yet specialized - the cult of the saints, for example. Being devoted to a particular saint does not go against the teachings of the church, but membership is not required to be a member of the church either.

Heresy on the other hand, is a teaching held by a cult that separates the group from the parent religion. An example of heresy might include the LDS teaching of polytheism - the teaching is not compatible with Protestant orthodoxy. On a similar note, many SDA churches also reject the doctrine of the Trinity, yet remain within the bounds of Protestant orthodoxy because they do teach monotheism, using the term Godhead to distinguish themselves from the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity.

Finally, Christianity was certainly a Jewish cult in the early days - early Christians saw themselves as Jewish - they worshiped in the synagogues. However, as the religion developed, the Jewish people noticed too much of a difference and kicked them out. Soon after, Christianity emerged as a distinct religion, retaining only part of the parent belief system.

Don't even get me started on Schisms

Peace

 

[veteran]

Finally, Christianity was certainly a Jewish cult in the early days - early Christians saw themselves as Jewish - they worshiped in the synagogues. However, as the religion developed, the Jewish people noticed too much of a difference and kicked them out. Soon after, Christianity emerged as a distinct religion, retaining only part of the parent belief system.

Sorry Aspen, I've still got to challenge you on that idea.

The doctrines of Christianity are NOT from the Jew's religion of Judaism. The Jew's religiion persecuted Christ's disciples. Why? Because the Jew's religion (Judaism) is against The Gospel of Jesus Christ. How can one claim to be a Christian and not know this from God's Word in the New Testament?

Saul (apostle Paul) before Christ converted him, had a letter of authority from the Jews in Jerusalem to hunt down Christians, and bring them captive back to Jerusalem for trial (Acts 9). Later, Paul was persecuted by the unbelieving Jews for preaching The Gospel in their synagogues in various cities per the Book of Acts. In one situation, the Jews stoned Paul and left him for dead (Acts 14). Some Jews in those synagogues converted to Christ, but other Jews did not and stayed with the Jew's religion of leaven traditions of men that formed during the Babylon captivity.

The "parent belief system" you speak of is actually the beliefs all Israel held BEFORE the separate captivities of the "house of Israel" (ten tribes) and the "house of Judah" (three tribes). The much later Jew's religion (Judaism), itself... is something different than Israel's original beliefs. And that is why Christ and His Apostles rebuked the doctrines of the Jewish scribes, Pharisees and Sadduccees...


Mark 7:5-9
5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, "Why walk not Thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?"
6 He answered and said unto them, "Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me.
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And He said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
(KJV)

That's why the Babylonian Talmud devised during Judah's Babylon captivity is full of religious doctrines of men that form a different belief system than what was followed in the days of Moses. Christianity did not originate from that, for if it did, the unbelieving Jews would not have been so vehemently against The Gospel of Jesus Christ, even to today.

 

[brionne]

All I can tell you is how the early church determined between heretical groups and orthodoxy - one of the foundations of faith is the doctrine of the Trinity. The manner in which early Christians joined the church included baptism and adherence to The Apostle's Creed and later the Nicene Creed.

who wrote the nicene creed? Was it the Apostles?

 

[JarBreaker]

The doctrine of the Trinity is the dividing line between Christian and nonChristian religions.

Peace

guess that knocks me out then

or maybe it's found nowhere in scripture and only exists in personal interpretations ?





Surf Rider mentions semantics then uses the word PENURY ?


I like it.

 

[JarBreaker]

The majority of Israel under the ten tribes had already been scattered to Assyria and the land of the Medes when Judah went captive to Babylon (see 1 Kings 11 forward thru 2 Kings 17). It was those 3 tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Levit at Jerusalem that became known as Jews (word comes from 'Judah'). The rest of the tribes were not subject to that Babylonian Talmud false religious working.

The 10 lost tribes never having been subjected to Babylonian talmud does not mean paganism never creeped in and infiltrated their whole ideas of worship --- Daniel was 1st steeped in 3 years of training of the false babylonian ways during his 3 years of training. He then was made 3rd ruler of that kingdom due to him having a more excellent spirit. But after the "handwriting on the wall" incident, further pagan influences beyond Babylonian came into play.

Sorry Aspen, I've still got to challenge you on that idea.

The doctrines of Christianity are NOT from the Jew's religion of Judaism. The Jew's religiion persecuted Christ's disciples. Why? Because the Jew's religion (Judaism) is against The Gospel of Jesus Christ. How can one claim to be a Christian and not know this from God's Word in the New Testament?

The belief in the 1st century believers was very much as Aspen says, these people actually sat in the temple and the synagoges til they were thrown out by those who did not recognize Yahshua --- as the other pagan influences come into that original faith, we are led into what the RCC converted things into.

 

[deprofundis]

The Nicene Creed was written by the first ecumenical council in 325, as I recall. I believe it was later revised somewhat.

As for cults, semantics. For the most part, it is a pejorative label people like to hurl at those with whom they disagree. I suppose if I had to define it, it would have less to do with some specificities of doctrine, but rather of church practice. Cults are about indoctrination, mindless obedience, etc.