Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim
I think our friend ZNP has been pray-reading too much of J. Gordon Melton and Hank Hanegraaff (just razzin you Z)
Seriously, Melton and Hanegraaff both came to the nonsensical and absurd notion that since the term "cult" has been misapplied a few times that no group is deserving of being dubbed with the label. They also brought forth this somewhat comical idea that since every religion or sect could be considered a cult by somebody (presumably even by just a few people), then every religion or sect is a cult...and therefore since every religion or sect is a cult then nobody's a cult.
Not to over simplify this matter, I think many reasonable Christian people could, or should, ask the following: "Just WHO is calling WHO a cult?". I mean, if the Moonies or Warren Jeffs' polygamous Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints calls some local Baptist church a cult, does that make them a cult? Conversely, if Dr. Walter Martin, the foremost cult researcher in the world, hears about Local Church members marching on Moody church/Bible Institute shouting slogans of "Down with Christianity!", then hears about LC members say "we want to be little Witness Lees" and "we are baby gods!", and then confirms some of the aberrant and divisive teachings of Lee, then declares the Local Church to be "a cult of Christianity", is Dr. Martin unreasonable is making such a declaration?
Yes, yes, I understand that our dear brothers and sisters in the Local Church have not marched on Moody church lately. (and let's thank God and some semi-sober minded Local Churchers for this!), and they have cutback quite a bit on the "we are baby gods" nonsense, but neither have they turned away from nor repudiated the excesses in teaching and practices of the past. In fact, they have actually doubled-down on such unbiblical, and yes even neo-cultic, notions as "We are becoming God in life and nature, but not in the Godhead". Neither have they repudiated the notion that Witness Lee was "the one minister with the one ministry for the age". Neither have they repudiated the teaching that every Christian church besides the Local Church are "a daughter of the great harlot". And the list goes on and on.
My honest, albeit regretful, assessment is that any group that is properly and legitimately classified as a cult of Christianity, and subsequently refuses to turn away from or repudiate the very teachings and practices which caused the assessment, remains under the veil of an aberrant or even cultic group. Are there worse "cults of Christianity" around? You betcha. Are there worse places for young people and new Christians to get tied into? Absolutely! But many of us have seen and experienced that the Lord can work through godly men and women, and yes, even institutions (gasp) without the need to declare themselves to be the only group through whom God is making his Kingdom come.
-
|
I have no issue with using a non scriptural term, which some have concluded is my position.
Likewise, I have no issue with that non scriptural term being "cult".
My issue is that we need a real definition. The definitions I have seen would all classify the early church as a cult, which I feel puts those making these definitions clearly in the camp of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
1. To be a cult you have to have a "false prophet" running it. This was my reference to receiving the fellowship of the apostles. I'm not interested in vague expressions like "giving the Bible verse an extra twist".
2. However, it is not adequate to simply having a teacher who is in error, that would be equivalent to Apollos. You also have to have the abuse of the saints.
So, if you simply had the first point you could claim that the 7th day adventists are a cult, but once you add the 2nd point then it makes it clear the church of Scientology is a cult. Perhaps the Mormons and JW's would also rise to the level of cult. Manson, Moonies, etc would all be cults.
You don't want to wait until they bring out the Kool aid to realize there is an abusive situation, so the precursor is always "making merchandise of the saints".
Now as some have pointed out selling books and tapes is so widespread that is too universal to be useful. So then the basis of making merchandise of the saints has to be a lie. The "cult leader" is going to fabricate some story about aliens picking us up, or bringing in a revolution, or being the closest coworker of the minister of the age.
But the real give away is "you shall know them by their fruit". You could claim that the Catholic church is a cult based on their definition, but is the fruit charity and good works? I recall in the Local church they were specifically taught not to be involved in good works, and any church that tried to have any program other than "supporting the ministry" was dealt with.
When the great leader doesn't want you giving to the poor but rather wants you to have a standing order for the books he sells and that no one wants, that is the biggest take away that this is a false prophet, abusing the saints.