28 thoughts on “The Strategy of the Cults”

1. How is it exactly that you define the word “cult”? Is it simply a derogatory term that you use to label those that you disagree with theologically? Or do you have an objective and consistent meaning that you attach to it?

2. “Often, you hear Evangelical Christians refer to certain groups (such as Mormonism) as “cults”. What does that mean? Are they using the term correctly?

   It is always valuable to define the terms we use. The word cult means nothing unless it means something. Therefore, in an attempt to clarify rather than cloud the issue, I will try to define the term.

   First, we should understand there are two common uses for the word “cult;” a sociological one and a theological one. The word, when used by sociologists, in the newspapers, and by the public in general, normally denotes a group which is led a charismatic leader who holds the membership of the group captive through coercion and manipulation. From this viewpoint, we recall men like the late Jim Jones, who led 900 of his followers to suicidal deaths in Guyana. Or, we think of the late Marshall Applewhite who also led his disciples to suicide in attempt to connect up with a space craft following in the wake of the comet Hale-Bopp.

   However, this sociological definition is normally not the definition Evangelical Christians are thinking of when they use the word cult They are thinking of a somewhat different concept. The theological definition of the word used by Evangelicals stems from use of a word in the New Testament that is closely related to our word “sect.” In Greek that word and its definition looks like this:

   139 hairesis {hah’-ee-res-is}

   from 138; TDNT – 1:180,27; n f

   AV – sect 5, heresy 4; 9

   1) act of taking, capture: e.g. storming a city

   2) choosing, choice

   3) that which is chosen

   4) a body of men following their own tenets (sect or party)

   4a) of the Sadducees

   4b) of the Pharisees

   4c) of the Christians

   5) dissensions arising from diversity of opinions and aims

   As you can see, this word is also the root for our word “heresy.” Again, in Christian circles, the word heresy is used to describe beliefs which are different from what Christianity has described as “orthodox”. And orthodox literal means “correct worship” or “correct doctrine.” In other words heresy describes beliefs which are considered to be wrong.

   We live in an age when it is nearly always unacceptable to tell people they are wrong about anything. But if a religious system is to exist at all it has to present a system of beliefs which it declares are “right beliefs.” Obviously beliefs in contradiction to these “right beliefs” are, by definition, “wrong beliefs.”

   Normally the word “cult” identifies a subgroup of a larger group. A group which has split off from the older groups, or is in the process of splitting off. However, sometimes the word is used with nearly no negative meaning. When, for example, Roman Catholics speak of the Cult of Mary, they often are not implying anything negative. They are identifying a specific group within the Roman Catholic Church.

   In the Bible, when Paul referred to “The cult of the Pharisees,” he was not being negative. Paul, of course, disagreed with the Pharisees (often in the strongest of terms), but he was not resorting the name calling. For Paul, the word meant something like “The party of the Pharisees.”

   Throughout the history of Christianity subgroups have departed from mainstream or orthodox theology to become “heterodox” or “heretical.” These are groups which often continue to claim to be essentially Christian, but which were regarded by the mainstream Christian churches as having “departed the faith.”

   This is the viewpoint orthodox Christians have of groups like Mormonism and the Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is not that they are considered evil people; they are considered to be in serious theological error.

   The use of the word “cult” should not be abandoned because some people use it in a significantly different way. Of course we should always be careful with the way we use words. And if we feel that people are misunderstanding our use of certain words, we should take the time to explain ourselves.”

   – mazeministry.com

3. Thank you for your response.

   Honestly, I think you’re making a nuanced distinction here that the far majority of people wouldn’t make with the term “cult”. So when you throw around such a charged term, knowing the kinds of connotations in conjures up in the minds of your audience, are you not subtlety implying something more than simply theological miscues? Couldn’t this even be considered deceitful or a form of demagoguery?

   Let’s put this in terms of the Golden Rule. If the Catholic Church began referring to your church/denomination as a cult, on what grounds would you object to that label? Would your objections be strictly theological? Or would you also be repulsed by what else they were allowing that term to suggest to the general public?

4. Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons deny essential doctrines such as the deity of Christ – that all other orthodox Christians have embraced in all the major councils in Church history. I am using the term in a theological sense as many have before me. http://www.amazon.com/Kingdom-Cults-The-Walter-Martin/dp/0764228218/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1337037929&sr=1-1

5. Thanks again for your response. I’m not sure I understand your answer; are you saying that because others have done it, that makes it ok?

   The Golden Rule. Catholics certainly could make similar charges against your church that you list to justify your use of that derogatory term, that it denies certain ‘authoritative’ councils and as such is not orthodox in its theology. So you wouldn’t be repulsed if they labelled your church, over and over, with very little or no qualification, as a cult?

6. No, that is not what I am saying and I am sorry you do not like the term. What would be a better term to use of those who are so far removed from orthodox Christianity that they can not be considered Christians in any sense at all?
   For example, Mormons believe god was once a man who elevated himself to godhood and who lives on a planet now encircling a star called Kolob. Christians do not believe any of that. Therefore, what would be a better term to use than “cult” for those who hold such beliefs?

7. Well certainly theology can be debated back and forth. It just seems apparent to me (not that you necessarily meant to do this) that others specifically chose to use the term “cult” for these faiths precisely because of all the negative and frightening images in conjures in the minds of most.

   Don’t get me wrong, I do think there is a right religion and wrong ones, so I’m not preaching every belief is equal. It’s just that using a term like that seems to be intended to frighten irrationally, based upon deception, and that’s what I object to. If you wouldn’t want such unfair tactics employed against your faith, it’d probably be best not to employ them against others. Thanks for your time.

8. TJ, I understand you. “Cult” is a strong word but it is being used in a theological sense as I defined above. It IS a word used by orthodox Christians as a warning to people not to get involved with such a group because the beliefs (and possibly practices too) are outside the camp of what we would define as Christianity. For example, a Baptist and a Presbyterean would have disagreements over their understanding of baptism and possibly church government, yet as important as these issues are, both would hopefully embrace the person on the other side of the debate as a brother or sister in Christ. That is because the disagreement, though important, is not essential to salvation. Both sides would happily affirm the Apostles’ Creed and the catholic creeds of the church. The word “catholic” needs some explanation. Used in its historic sense the word “catholic” simply means “universal” and means that we accept the creeds of the church that all orthodox Christians throughout the centuries have embraced such as the Apostles’ Creed, the Council of Nicea (4th century) and the Council of Chelcedon (5th century) which affirm the full humanity and Deity of Jesus Christ, the Holy Trinity, and the substitutionary atonement of Christ for sinners. The point is, members of a “cult” as I am defining the term, cannot do so – their views are outside the camp of Christianity; and to use this word “cult” in this theological sense is a very legitimate word to use, functioning as a Shepherd warning the sheep of the danger of joining such a group. A Baptist joining the Jehovah’s Witness group or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons) is not the same as a Baptist becoming a Presbyterean, Lutheran or Anglican. Some groups are indeed not Christian in any way, shape or form.

9. That’s all very well and nice, but it again sidesteps the very point I’ve been making this entire time. If you are intentionally using a word that you know will be understood in, let’s say an ‘expanded’ sense from how you are carefully defining it, that’s deceptive.

   Do you honestly believe that your sheep, the ones you’re communicating with, are going to infer nothing from the word “cult” other than the mere rejection of certain councils/creeds? I find that very difficult to believe.

   According to your definition, the Coptic Orthodox Church is a cult? It of course rejected the ruling of the Council of Chalcedon. Exactly how many of your “orthodox” councils must a church be signed onto before it’s no longer a “cult”? Does it have to accept the Council of Trent? Vatican II? For that matter what about the Council of Rimini in 359 CE?

   Or is your entire definition for “cult” arbitrarily crafted specifically to give an Evangelical like yourself the Catholic-type argument of the historical ‘authority of the Church’ to decide heresy…that is, up until you disagree with said authority of said Church and no longer recognize its authority? When did the Church lose that power in your view?

10. TJ, Your accusation of me using the word “cult” deceptively is completely unwarranted. I use the term in a theological sense and when I do so, explain its usage. Matt Slick in an article here http://carm.org/what-makes-church-or-group-non-christian writes:

    … groups like the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses object to being labeled a “cult” because it often gets an emotional reaction as well as is a label they want to avoid.

    The dictionary defines cult as “a system of religious worship or ritual”; “devoted attachment to, or extravagant admiration for, a person, principle, etc.”, “a group of followers.”

    This is a typical secular definition and, by it, any believer in any god is a cultist, even atheists since they have an admiration for a principle and are a group of followers of the philosophy of atheism. Therefore, this is too broad a definition since it doesn’t sufficiently address the issue of true and false religious systems.

    The definition I use (and other Christian ministries and theologians use as well) for “non-Christian cult” or “non-Christian religion” is a group that may or may not include the Bible in its set of authoritative scriptures. If it does include the Bible, it distorts the true biblical doctrines that effect salvation sufficiently so as to void salvation.1 If it doesn’t use the Bible, it is a non-Christian religion and does not participate in the benefit of divine revelation.

    In Christian bookstores, there are almost always ‘cult’ sections which include the Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc… what makes something non-Christian is when it denies the essential doctrines of the Bible.

    •The Deity of Christ, which involves The Trinity
    •the Resurrection, and
    •Salvation by Grace

    1. The Church is responsible for remaining close to the Scriptures. Isaiah 8:20 – “To the Law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.”

    2. The Church is responsible to test that which is contrary to sound doctrine. 1 John 4:1-3 – “Believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God… Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is not come in the flesh is not of God.”

    The Holy Spirit warns us in very strong terms about demon inspired doctrines. One version of 1 Timothy 4:1, 2 reads, “The Spirit expressly warns us that in the latter times some shall revolt from the faith; they will give heed to seducing spirits, and to doctrines devil-taught, trapped by the hypocrisy of liars whose consciences are seared.”

    3. The Church is responsible to be watchful. Jesus warned there would be false teachers. (Matt. 7:15) “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” (Mark 8:5,22) “For false Christ and false prophets shall rise, and shall show signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, the very elect.” Paul wept saying (Acts 20:29) “For I know this, that after my departing, shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.”

    There are such things as damnable heresies (2 Peter 2:1). Any Church, religious group or organization proclaiming another “god” or a different gospel is something every true shepherd will warn his flock about, no matter what its name may be, with the caveat “for the well being of your soul, don’t join this group!” I have asked you to come up with a better term to use on such occasions and you have not done so. I think we have fully exhausted the issue. Lets leave it at that.

11. TJ, I think John is establishing church history here. In otherwords saying the Jehovah’s drastically diverged from historic and foundational non negotiable doctrines of the Christian Faith handed down from the Apostles that flowed down church history until now. Not to mention they carry many of the characteristics of cults as John has shown, and many times will try to align themselves with Christians. There views are so off the mark, that it would be like leopard deciding it no longer wanted to be called a leopard anymore, but rather a snake.
    I hope that helps
    Russ

    Russ

12. Hi Russ,

    Thanks for your input. I tend to think that your vague definition of “historic and foundational non negotiable doctrines of the Christian Faith” allows you to make it whatever you want to make it. For example, many would argue that Christ intended just ONE church, does this mean then that yours is a cult?

13. There is only ONE church, His!! These are His people who embrace the gospel of Jesus Christ and are justified by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.. and it has always been this way. http://effectualgrace.com/2011/09/24/the-gospel-according-to-the-church-fathers/

14. Hi John,

    So are Coptic Orthodox Christians part of his one church?

15. No one is justified in the sight of God by being part of a church, no matter what its label, not even my own local church – justification by faith alone is the article upon which a church stands or falls, and that is true for every individual also.

16. Is the Coptic Orthodox Church a cult?

17. This is a Reformed Blog and so obviously, you will find a Reformed position outlined here. In Evangelical and Reformed circles historically, the word “cult” has meant to define groups, churches and organizations that deny the catholic or universal creeds of the church concerning the full humanity and deity of Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity (there is one God, eternally existent in three Divine Persons, co-equal, and co-eternal; Father, Son and Holy Spirit).

    The Protestant Reformers would not use the word “cult” to refer to the Roman Catholic Church because unlike the Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses and groups like them, the RCC does indeed affirm orthodox doctrine on the essentials mentioned above. However, they would declare the Rome to be a “false church” because of its pronouncement of an anathema (eternal curse) on anyone who believes sola fide (justification by faith alone), which is of course, the very heart of the gospel of grace – justification being “the article upon which the church stands or falls” (Luther).

    Let me therefore answer your question with a question – what is the official position of the Coptic Orthodox Church concerning the doctrines of the full humanity and full deity of Christ, the Trinity and justification by faith alone? Answer this clearly from their official documents, affirmations and declarations and you will have your answer.

18. Hi TJ you said
    ” I tend to think that your vague definition of “historic and foundational non negotiable doctrines of the Christian Faith” allows you to make it whatever you want to make it. ”

    Can you elaborate or give an example how my definition of essentially church history allows for me or others to make it whatever we want to make it?

    I think John has stated “concerning the full humanity and deity of Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity (there is one God, eternally existent in three Divine Persons, co-equal, and co-eternal; Father, Son and Holy Spirit).” This is an example of foundation non negotiable doctrine that has very rich church history. Look at the council of Nicea for example where the doctrine of the trinity was a huge part of that council.

    Russ

19. Hi John,

    I’m not sure why exactly you are so willing to label Mormons and JWs as cults, but then seem so reluctant about the Copts. They reject the decision of the Council of Chalcedon in 451. Earlier, in defining the difference between orthodox Christians and cults you said:

    “we accept the creeds of the church that all orthodox Christians throughout the centuries have embraced such as the Apostles’ Creed, the Council of Nicea (4th century) and the Council of Chelcedon (5th century) which affirm the full humanity and Deity of Jesus.”

    Therefore, by your own definition, Coptic Christians that follow the patriarch of Alexandria are cultists, are they not?

20. Hey Russ,

    Well this was a big issue at the time of the Reformation. The Reformers, especially Calvin, championed Augustine for his view on grace. But Catholics loved to point out what else Augustine taught. Having fought against the schismatic Donatists all his life, Augustine was very big on the belief that there is just ONE true, unified church.

    This was just as important to early Christians as the doctrines you extoll above. Thus, by building your rationale for determining who is and isn’t a cult on historically agreed-upon beliefs of ancient catholics, you actually put yourself into the heretic/cult category (assuming you are Protestant) because you reject one of their strongest, most popular beliefs.

21. TJ, I dont know how to spell out the criteria any clearer than I have as to how to differntiate these things. How do you classify the Coptic Orthodox Church and on what basis?

22. At the time of the Reformation, Augustine was quoted by both sides in the debate. The RCC quotes him regarding his view of the church; the Reformers with regard to his view of grace. In many ways the debate was Augustine on grace v. Augustine on the church. We Protestants believe Augustine had a biblical view of grace and an unbiblical view of the church. That is why the formal principle of the Reformation was the issue of sola Scriptura, that only Scripture is God breathed and has the right to bind the conscience (in spite of all the respect we give to teachers in the church); and Scripture leads us to the material principle of the Reformation, namely sola fide, justification by faith alone.

23. So do you think Augustine would consider your church a cult?

24. Right back at yer TJ: do you think Augustine would consider your church a cult?

25. “Right back at yer TJ: do you think Augustine would consider your church a cult?”

    Abso-freakin-lutely! The orthodox Christians at the time of the creeds that form the basis of your cult litmus test believed in a church that was a part of the state. Thus to stand apart from the one state church was not only heresy, but also sedition. Naturally you hold to these historical, non-negotiable beliefs also, correct?

26. Much as I admire Augustine, anything he taught (and anything anyone else would teach) must be tested by that which is theopneustos (inspired by God, or God breathed), namely the Scripture.

    “To the teaching and to the testimony! If they will not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn.” (Isaiah 8:20).

    “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim 3:16,17)

    Scripture is the only thing God has given to the church which is God breathed; every other thought and doctrine, no matter who says it, must be tested by it, for Scripture alone has authority to bind the conscience, being the only infallible rule of faith for the people of God. Let God be true and every man a liar.

27. Ah, so when it comes down to it, it’s really NOT the ‘foundational, non-negotiable doctrines’ from orthodox history that you rely upon for determining right and wrong beliefs? This is why the basis you use for determining who is and is not a ‘cult’ is flawed; it could just as easily make your church out to be a cult, which you obviously aren’t prepared to accept in the slightest.

28. TJ, You do not understand and seemingly do not wish to understand the Reformed doctrine of sola scriptura and its application regarding every doctrine. At this point, I can see no potential fruit in any further discussion so lets just leave it there.

Comments are closed.