Marks of a Cult

CalledOutOne · #1 17th July 2012, 07:45 PM

For someone who was in a cult at one point, this means a lot.

Here are some common misconceptions that people have about what looks like a cult.

Cultic Minority - This is a logical fallacy known as ad populum. Just because you are in the minority, doesn't mean you are in a "cult"
Uncommon teachings - This does not mean that the teachings are untrue. For instance, there aren't many sovereign grace churches in my area. That does not mean they are a cult.
Uncommon convictions - Obviously there were some people who had uncommon convictions that the Bible refers to as "believers" (Acts 15:5)

Here are some real warning signs.

Legalism - saying that you must do something to get saved. This is a false Gospel.
Arrogant leaders - I saw this in my own cult leader. He would smirk and even laugh at the doctrines of others.
Failure to establish leadership - all assemblies without leaders should be searching for elders. I'm not saying they should just let anyone be an elder, but they should take some time to examine his fruit then let him be an elder. An assembly without elders is a vessel for hell.
Unnecessary separation from others - Separation from the world is a necessary fruit of salvation. However, this is a separation of fellowship. You still have to deal with the world and interact with the people in it. Not only that, but the Scriptures forbid you to end any kind of relationship with someone who is not a Christian that you would lead the to Christ. This doesn't mean make new relationships with non-believers, but to maintain the one you already have with that person.
Unnecessary condemnation of other leaders at other churches - My particular cult leader taught me that there was another unforgivable sin (other than blasphemy of the Holy Spirit). He would say that these people are not elect because they preached a false Gospel. But did not Paul preach a false Gospel? His idea was that if he preached a false Gospel the Bible calls him anathema therefore he is not elect. But the Bible calls all people who don't love Christ anathema (1 Corinthians 16:22) which is the same judgement. Therefore no if he were to extend his beliefs no one would be saved because no one outside of Christ loves Christ. But still he condemned anyone who preached an "Arminian Gospel" which brings me to my next point.
Neo-gnosticism or Equating other doctrines to the Gospel - My old cult leader would condemn anyone who did not believe in a particular atonement. He said that Arminianism is a false Gospel, but what he didn't understand is that the application of the Gospel is not the Gospel. The Gospel is Christ, His life, death, and resurrection. That alone is the Gospel.

These are the warning signs that I picked up. Even some true Christians can be swept away by these deceptions for a time. Please heed my warning. You don't want to be in my shoes!

tankerG · #2 17th July 2012, 11:18 PM

Good post! Thanks for sharing.

bernardwaugh · #3 18th July 2012, 01:01 AM

You have shared a good and informative article. I am glad you are trying to clear the misconceptions people have.

generalbreadbasket · #4 18th July 2012, 01:34 AM

Well organized post.

May I ask what kind of a cult you were in?

CalledOutOne · #5 18th July 2012, 07:51 AM

Originally Posted by generalbreadbasket

Well organized post. May I ask what kind of a cult you were in?

Not sure how to explain what kind of cult. We called ourselves Reformed and had five members. It was started by someone who said, "There are no Biblical churches in our area." At the time there were, we just hadn't found them yet, then when we found them, the guy who started it refused to visit these other churches and insisted on starting his own which I guess could be another sign.

Albion · #6 18th July 2012, 08:25 AM

According to most cult-watching organizations, there are two main ways of identifying a cult.

The one is the commonly thought of picture of a religion that deals in mind control, drugs, sensory deprivation, making the members totally dependent upon the leader, etc. IOW, psychological factors.

The other (and to me, more important on forums like this one) is a theological deviance, marked by one or more of three significant departures from normal Christianity (either Catholic or Protestant).

1. Additional books of scripture not known to historic Christianity.

2. Denial of the nature of God (Trinitarian) in one of several ways.

3. Denial of the nature of Man (created but immortal).

Think of all the churches that you think of as cults and see if one or more of these points does not characterize them.

CalledOutOne · #7 19th July 2012, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by Albion

According to most cult-watching organizations, there are two main ways of identifying a cult.

The one is the commonly thought of picture of a religion that deals in mind control, drugs, sensory deprivation, making the members totally dependent upon the leader, etc. IOW, psychological factors.

The other (and to me, more important on forums like this one) is a theological deviance, marked by one or more of three significant departures from normal Christianity (either Catholic or Protestant).

1. Additional books of scripture not known to historic Christianity.

2. Denial of the nature of God (Trinitarian) in one of several ways.

3. Denial of the nature of Man (created but immortal).

Think of all the churches that you think of as cults and see if one or more of these points does not characterize them.

According to your standard Catholicism is a cult.

Additional books: "The Protestant Church rejects the apocrypha as being inspired, as do the Jews, but in 1546 the Roman Catholic Church officially declared some of the apocryphal books to belong to the canon of scripture. These are Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (also known as Ecclesiasticus), and Baruch."
~Matt Slick, CARM.org

Denial of the nature of Man: "God did not create mankind as a race of automatons, but free creatures, capable of making free decisions. In creating and endowing man with free will, God gave man the ability to love. Love of its very nature is free; no one can be forced to love another person or another thing. But while free will allows man to turn to God and love Him, free will also allows man to reject God, and commit evil. Such rejection we call sin."
~Eric Williams, voices.Yahoo.com

The Scripture says that man doesn't have the ability to do anything good. That we are unable to love, because outside of Christ we have not the one who is love: God.

I'm not going to sit here and say that I disagree with you. I've always thought that Catholicism looked a bit cultic.

I don't want to get this into a Catholicism vs. Protestantism debate. I'm just going off of what you said.

Albion · #8 19th July 2012, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by CalledOutOne

According to your standard Catholicism is a cult.

Additional books: "The Protestant Church rejects the apocrypha as being inspired, as do the Jews, but in 1546 the Roman Catholic Church officially declared some of the apocryphal books to belong to the canon of scripture. These are Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (also known as Ecclesiasticus), and Baruch."
~Matt Slick, CARM.org

Denial of the nature of Man: "God did not create mankind as a race of automatons, but free creatures, capable of making free decisions. In creating and endowing man with free will, God gave man the ability to love. Love of its very nature is free; no one can be forced to love another person or another thing. But while free will allows man to turn to God and love Him, free will also allows man to reject God, and commit evil. Such rejection we call sin."
~Eric Williams, voices.Yahoo.com

Well, although I was succinct, I did identify what was meant by those three concepts. You have offered alternate meanings for the terms I used. All I can say to that is that anyone can have his own definition of a cult, and it seems that just about everyone DOES have his own. What I was doing was relaying the most standard definition that those people who have formed research societies, published findings, etc.--often to warn ordinary Christians about cults -- have come up with. I think their POV makes sense.

As for the Catholic Church, some cult-watchers have included the RCC, most famously Walter Martin. I do not think that the RCC reaches the definition of a cult, but for those who DO think that it is a cult, the reason is usually the one point that you did NOT focus on--Papal Infallibility as a varient of point #1.

I guess it would be possible to argue that Papal ex cathedra decrees are in the category of Ellen G. White's prophetic revelations and the Book of Mormon, but I personally wouldn't think so.

SummaScriptura · #9 23rd July 2012, 10:14 PM

Originally Posted by CalledOutOne

<snip>Additional books: "The Protestant Church rejects the apocrypha as being inspired, as do the Jews, but in 1546 the Roman Catholic Church officially declared some of the apocryphal books to belong to the canon of scripture. These are Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (also known as Ecclesiasticus), and Baruch."
~Matt Slick, CARM.org<snip>

Sometimes an explanation can oversimplify the answer to a question to the point it becomes erroneous, as is true of the above post and is often the case of articles on CARM.

Unwitting readers could be led by this explanation to the completely wrong conclusion that the Apocrypha was insinuated into the Bible in the 16th century by those sneaky papists. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I post a link to the following article here, something I usually avoid, but in this case this person has done such a good job hyper-linking his citations, I resist my normal reluctance and post it.

The Jewish books which Protestants call "apocrypha" have a long use as Scripture in the history of the Church.

History of the use of the disputed books of the Old Testament as Scripture

BobRyan · #10 23rd July 2012, 10:20 PM

Making up a list of rules - off the top of your head - is something that cults do.