What constitutes a "CULT"

I remember one time when I was about 14 years old, I attended a worship service with a group of non-denominational believers. The pastor/preacher/leader (whatever you would call him) would strum this electronic harp & the people would act like they were in some kind of a trance. This would be done throughout the entire service.

I thought that was some creepy stuff. Needless to say, I never went back there. I would consider them a cult of some kind, but definitely not an "occult".

It was located in an office building & only was around there for about three months.

The truth is not all cults are bad, but I will say there are some weird ones out there. Some people easily confuse cults with occults.

 

...or refuse to attend a local church while following Bill Gothard.

 

Two separate issues the second being of no consequence outside of your subjective standard. Even adding them together, which is incorrect, does not equal a cult.

 

Is this too simplistic to go by these days?:

Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God...... 1 Jn 4:2,3

 

...according to your subjective standard. I see them as quite intertwined.

 

You need them intertwined.

 

More "subjective standard" on your part...

 

So you have no real standard?

 

Yes, and it's not you.

 

I have a real standard. Any one who doesn't agree with me is a cult. Very simple and straight forward. Though there is no dictionary that holds this point of view so by my definition all dictionaries are products of a cult. :laugh:

 

This is only good in context of gnosticism. At the time, the "Christian Gnostics" denied that Jesus had a human body because they believed the body (and the material world) to be evil. John was writing against the Gnostic teachings partially in 1 John and so he had this statement.

This statement is not a test for many other heresies.

 

Cult is a perfectly good word if used correctly. It describes many groups that are dangerous (such as Jim Jones, Koresh, Heaven's Gate, Church of Scientology, and others) and is useful when identifying groups that claim to be Christian but are not, such as the JWs, LDS, Oneness, etc. I do not use this term when talking to cultists but it is a good and useful term when educating believers on these groups. Just because a term is misused does not mean we can't use it.

Most people don't see a use for the term until someone in their family or church as joined a cult.

 

Actually the word here for flesh is sarx which in koine means mortal flesh(subject to death) energized by blood.

The koine word for body is soma.

So, IMO this passage has a much wider scope than the error of "Gnosticism" which is not mentioned in the text of this passage.

Anyone who denys either the true deity or the true humanity of Christ comes under the condemnation of this passage.


Here is the Scripture logic.

John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.​

...

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.​

HankD​

 

Yeah, I know about those words but it is still talking about denying that Jesus came in a real human body. The verse says anything about denying the deity of Christ. You are adding that to it.

 

I was responding to a question about this as a test:

Yes, the presumption overall in 1 John is that Jesus is God but this specific statement is saying that those who deny that Jesus came in a human body are not from God. It was a test for the early Gnostics (most scholars and Christian commentators believe) who denied that Jesus came in a body. This sentence does not address the deity of Christ and is not giving that as a test. I'm not talking about the overall requirements for heresy.

(Some New Agers will say Jesus is God but they are not Christians. So that is not always a good test, either. They may say that because they think everyone is divine or is God).

This is what that passage is I John is probably about:

http://emp.byui.edu/MarrottR/352Folder/ism collection.html

 

OK, let me repeat with some additional thoughts Marcia.

I showed you the scriptural logic and that by the same human author John the Apostle inspired by the Holy Spirit in both his gospel and epistles.

...The Word was God...
...The Word became flesh...

1 John 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.​

"Jesus" His name referring to His manhood.
"Christ" His title referring to His deity.​

The fact is that the phrase "human body" is not used, neither the word "body" to make it perfectly clear from the word sarx that Christ was/is a human being with human nature (apart from sin) subject to death as well as being truly God come in the flesh.​

In other words, Jesus Christ did not just appear to be a human being, He was a human being (born of woman) and as such was subject to death. ​

Angels have appeared as "men" with an apparent human body but they are not human beings. They were not "come in the flesh", nor "born of woman" and are not subject to death. ​

While Scripture is our final authority, above is the argument (and Scriptures) that Tertullian used against Marcion from this passage.​

Marcia, I understand what you are saying about and appreciate your knowledge concerning the ancient error called Gnosticism which is still with us today disguised in other forms. I am only trying to be helpful and fill in your extensive background. ​

The emphasis of this passage (1 John 4:2-3) is His mortal human nature (sarx) more than His human body (soma). His name Jesus referring to His humanity and the title "Christ" referring to His deity.​

God bless you in your diligence.​

HankD​

 

So you are saying it is about denying the humanity of Jesus? Why do all the commentators say it is about denying that Jesus came in an actual human body?

 

Do you really see a difference in those two?