Wait, It's A Cult?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

No room for differences. Cult members must believe exactly the same way and in exactly the same things; there is no room for disagreeing with the cult's rules or doctrines.

1 Cor 1:10 I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought

But where o where did WL agree with anyone? Where was he perfectly united in mind and thought? I remenber him telling us he hadn't learned anything from anyone else for 40 or 45 years.

Yet we were expected to be united with his mind and thought.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

But where oh where did WL agree with anyone? Where was he perfectly united in mind and thought? I remember him telling us he hadn't learned anything from anyone else for 40 or 45 years.

Silly aron ... MOTA don't have to agree with anyone. It's us that s'posed to agree with him. (or her.)

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Silly aron ... MOTA don't have to agree with anyone. It's us that s'posed to agree with him. (or her.)

Why does someone build a church where the rules apply to everyone but them?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Why does someone build a church where the rules apply to everyone but them?

They start out building the church, and eventually decide to build their own empire. Happens all the time to the talented ones.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

They start out building the church, and eventually decide to build their own empire. Happens all the time to the talented ones.

But in Witness Lee's case, he co-opted the empire of Nee. And Nee, like Lee after him, was emperor; aka Seer of the Divine Revelation, aka God's Wise Master Builder, aka Deputy God, aka God's Oracle.

Rules were for peons. The MOTA made the rules, and didn't have to keep them. "Thinking the same thing" is a perfect example. The MOTA has the mind of Christ, and the rest must be one eith the MOTA.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Silly aron ... MOTA don't have to agree with anyone. It's us that s'posed to agree with him. (or her.)

Our "having the same mind" and "thinking the same thing" wasn't predicated on the MOTA also following this. The MOTA as Seer of the Divine Revelation (WL's de facto title for WN & thus himself) communed only with God.

But where in the NT do we see Paul claiming primacy? Where do we see the apostle John adopting a slavish imitation of Paul? We simply do not. But this fiction was essential to WL being 'today's Paul' and dominating the intellectual landscape of the LSM LC with his personality.

It was so bad that if anyone tried to use their God-given capacity to think, they were roundly deemed ungrateful for WL's efforts on their behalf, and in danger of being labeled as independent, ambitious, and factious.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Our "having the same mind" and "thinking the same thing" wasn't predicated on the MOTA also following this. The MOTA as Seer of the Divine Revelation (WL's de facto title for WN & thus himself) communed only with God.

But where in the NT do we see Paul claiming primacy? Where do we see the apostle John adopting a slavish imitation of Paul? We simply do not. But this fiction was essential to WL being 'today's Paul' and dominating the intellectual landscape of the LSM LC with his personality.

It was so bad that if anyone tried to use their God-given capacity to think, they were roundly deemed ungrateful for WL's efforts on their behalf, and in danger of being labeled as independent, ambitious, and factious.

So true.

Brother Titus Chu, whom we all considered to be one of the greatest free thinkers in the LC, chided John Ingalls for speaking his conscience on behalf of the Anaheim saints saying, "you owe brother Lee even your own life."

Who would say such a thing? Where and when did we in the LC's make such a horrible transition? How did we morph from owing the Lord everything for His great salvation to owing Lee everything for his "great" ministry? At what point did our ascended Head stop being the Minister of the age, and Lee take over His duties?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

So true.

Brother Titus Chu, whom we all considered to be one of the greatest free thinkers in the LC, chided John Ingalls for speaking his conscience on behalf of the Anaheim saints saying, "you owe brother Lee even your own life."

Who would say such a thing? Where and when did we in the LC's make such a horrible transition? How did we morph from owing the Lord everything for His great salvation to owing Lee everything for his "great" ministry? At what point did our ascended Head stop being the Minister of the age, and Lee take over His duties?

The quote is from Philemon. Which is why if you want to run with this definition then you are going to define the early church as a cult. If someone had told me when I was meeting the LRC that you considered both the LRC and early church as a cult, I would have taken that as a badge of honor and considered you fallen Christianity. This is why I think these definitions are bogus. It also raises serious questions with me as to why someone would fabricate their own definition of a cult when the NT is very clear on what constitutes a false prophet and what constitutes the fruit of a false prophet. Why is it that they avoid the NT definition to create their own definition which would also classify the early church as a false church?

According to this verses that apply to Paul cannot apply to Witness Lee. Awareness takes this one step further and says that because they cannot apply to Witness Lee they can't apply to Paul, hence the NT is full of error.

The obvious error to me is that the same document that defines what a church is also defines what a false church is, and yet no one is taking that definition. Why not?

[UntoHim]

ZNP,
Nobody around here is calling the early church a cult, and your circular arguments are not helping the discussion go forward. As a matter of fact they just serve to muddy the waters which are already murky enough. Many, if not most, of the so called "New Testament definitions" you speak of have a historical and cultural context to them. Some can be brought forward to our current point in time, some can be brought forward with certain cautions and filters, and some cannot, or should not, be brought forward in any case.

Just who gets to decide what gets brought forward? Well, this is what church history is all about. This is, in part, what historical and biblical theology is all about. And this is why letting a person like Witness Lee decide for a whole movement is extremely unwise, and ultimately dangerous. This is why letting a man, or group of men, dictate to an entire Christian movement who is, and who is not, to be considered "the one apostle", will always end in disaster for the Body of Christ at large, and even tragically for the followers of these men. History has confirmed this over and over again.

Again, just WHO is calling WHO a cult? The old adage "consider the source" applies big time here. For example, where did this term "minister of the age" come from? In this case it came from Watchman Nee. When all the dust settled, who did Nee end up considering "the minister of the age"? Why, HIMSELF of course! And what ministry did Nee end up considering the "ministry of the age"? Why, HIS MINISTRY of course! And whose "vision" did Nee end up considering "the vision of the age"? Why, HIS VISION of course! Needless to say, Witness Lee doubled-down and tripled-down on Nee's mistakes.

Get the picture?
-

[ZNPaaneah]

Every single Christian group has a "leader". Could be a pastor, or elder, or evangelist, or well known author, etc. It is perfectly scriptural and correct to give that person a level of respect. To create a definition based on "crossing the line" of what is a proper level of respect and an improper level of respect is therefore the question.

I would hope that any useful definition would not just work in hindsight but be useful as a warning to those in a "cult". I do not think that giving honor to those taking the lead is a useful warning.

I was in the movement for 20 years and was never aware that Witness Lee was "dictating to the entire movement who is and who is not an apostle". Therefore whether or not that was taking place is irrelevant to me, that would not have been a useful warning to me and probably to half of those in the US. Perhaps those in Orange county had a different perspective. But again, a warning to the inner circle is hardly a useful warning.

What I did know from the very beginning was that Witness Lee's claim to fame was being the closest coworker of Watchman Nee, and the account of Watchman Nee's excommunication from the church in Shanghai. Anyone whether in the movement or out of the movement could have fellowshipped with me about this, I would have gladly shared word for word the story I had been told. Had they then asked me a few "innocent" questions about what kind of elders could be so foolish I would have been willing to agree that the story did not seem plausible. Had they then told me that the biggest warning sign of a false prophet is that he uses fabricated stories to make merchandise of you that would have been an extremely useful warning to me that I would have thought on.

From that point on I would have been able to see that the ministry and its mission was to make merchandise of the saints. It might have taken six months or a year, but anyone concerned for someone in a "cult" could keep chipping away at that one point -- "what was Daystar?" "How does the standing order work"? "Why are you selling these books in a yard sale instead of returning them to the LSM?" This would have been effective with me. I know because ultimately I came to see that the church was not concerned with people but with "the ministry" which does not mean what you would hope, but rather with preserving a false image of what the ministry is, maximizing book sales even if you are force feeding it down the saints throats, substituting ministry books for the Bible to increase sales, etc.

However you say that we cannot bring forth certain NT verses from the early church to today. By which I understand you to mean the verse in Philemon where Paul says "you owe me even your own life". I doubt that would have been an effective approach for me or for anyone else I knew in the LRC. We gave our lives, paid any price, and saw ourselves as having returned to the pure word and that path of the early church which Christianity had left.

You and I agree that the term "Minister of the age" is a very big warning sign. However, I never heard Witness Lee refer to himself with this term, rather it was Ray Graver who said it repeatedly as though he had made some great discovery. Witness Lee referred to Watchman Nee as "the minister of the age" and to himself as Watchman Nee's closest coworker given the mission to carry on his ministry. It was then left to us to connect the dots.

Now if you wish to dismantle the teaching "Minister of the Age" that would be fine with me. This term is based on OT types which refer to Jesus. There is no NT reference to a minister of the Age and the teaching that uses Peter and then Paul is very weak without the OT. If you want to say that a false prophet is a "false Christ" then that is a very clear NT teaching and I agree with that being used. Let's stop dancing around the issue. To refer to Watchman Nee as "the minister of the age" is to refer to Watchman Nee as a "false Christ". Jesus is the Minister of this age, the age of the church, the age of grace.

Likewise Witness Lee's use of the teaching "Minister of the Age" is designed so that the dim witted will come to the "revelation" that he is the minister of the age. It is based on a fabricated story about Watchman Nee because if you understand the truth of his excommunication then it is obvious he was not "the minister of the age" even to the dim witted. And this story is for a very specific purpose, give Witness Lee's Living Stream Ministry a monopoly. You are now enlisted to do everything in your power to "support this ministry". Buy books, go to trainings, support the church's standing order, donate money to the legal defense team, give 18 months of free labor building their conference centers, etc.

So then why not use these three items to identify a cult?

1. Fabricated stories
2. Makes merchandise of the saints
3. False Christ

Simple, straightforward, Biblical, even those in the LRC would agree with this, and all three are evident to every member.

As for "who is calling who a cult" I know for a fact that Christianity calling the LRC a cult based on their definition is not going to be an effective warning to anyone in the LRC. The God Men and The Mindbenders did that. But if you give me the fellowship of the apostles (in this case Jesus and Peter) then I would have certainly received that.

[aron]

Lawless pseudo-Christian personality cults: Eastern Lightning (Zhao Weishan); Family of God (David [Moses] Berg); Branch Davidians (David Koresh); Mormon Fundamentalist Polygamy (Warren Jeffs); People's Temple (Jim Jones); Heaven's Gate (Marshall Applewhite).

Law-ful pseudo-Christian personality cults: Jehovah's Witnesses (Charles Taze Russel); Mormons (Joseph Smith); Unification Church (Sun-Myung Moon); Rastafarians (Haile Selassie).

Christian personality cults: LSM LC (Witness Lee); Seventh-Day Adventists (Ellen White); Christian Science (Mary Baker Eddy).

Non-Christian personality cults: Scientology (L Ron Hubbard)

All of the above were dominated by out-size personalities and their personal "revelations". In all cases, the Revelator was the conduit to revealed truth.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

But where o where did WL agree with anyone? Where was he perfectly united in mind and thought? I remenber him telling us he hadn't learned anything from anyone else for 40 or 45 years.

Yet we were expected to be united with his mind and thought.

Where did the apostle Paul agree with anyone? Can you answer?

[Evangelical]

There is a definition of a cult that has not been addressed here so far and the OP fails to mention it -

My definition of a cult:

A cult is a group which is subject to mesmerization and has hypnotic following of a leader or leaders, who have sinister intent. A cult implies a person's own rational and logical free-will being overtaken by mesmerization or hypnosis.

Mesmerization and hypnosis in and of themselves do not define a cult. There must be sinister intent. For example, many religions of the world, including Christianity, practice a kind of hypnosis or mesmerization. The goal however, is not sinister, but enlightenment, improvement, or having spiritual experiences.

With this definition, mormons and JW's, as bad as they are, are not cults, they are sects.

The Bible shows the definition of a church versus a sect:

A church, is a visible, practical and local expression of the Church Universal. All of the assemblies mentioned in the bible are churches. A sub-group of a church is not a church, but a sect.

Today, what most would call churches, baptist "church", Lutheran "church", etc are strictly speaking, not churches, but sects. A sect, is a sub-group of the church, a church within a Church. A sect is the proper label to give all the protestant denominations (see the Catholic encyclopedia).

All the denominations in our eyes are not real churches. They are sects, from which the word sectarian comes. Catholics and Orthodox have similar viewpoint.

Sects may have cult-like traits (as one person here noted, every denomination fits at least 1 or 2 of the categories), but there is a big difference between a sect and a cult.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

T
The Bible shows the definition of a church versus a sect:

A sub-group of a church is not a church, but a sect.

This is a circular argument. What is a "subgroup" of a church? Let's see, well, first you have to define a church. In the LSM mindset that's a group the calls itself "church in [some city]" and follows Witness Lee. Therefore any group that does otherwise is a "subgroup" and not a church.

The Bible does not give you enough information to make such pronouncements. Again, it's all just a pretext to discrediting everything but the LCM, um, sect.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

This is a circular argument. What is a "subgroup" of a church? Let's see, well, first you have to define a church. In the LSM mindset that's a group the calls itself "church in " and follows Witness Lee. Therefore any group that does otherwise is a "subgroup" and not a church.




The Bible does not give you enough information to make such pronouncements. Again, it's all just a pretest to discrediting everything but the LCM, um, sect.

It's not really circular because the definition of a church is straight from the biblical pattern. If the New Testament showed different churches with different names.. eg. Paul's letter to the "Baptist church of Ephesus", and Paul's letter to the "Faith Community Hope Peace and Love Center of Corinth" then we definitely would use that to define a church.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It's not really circular because the definition of a church is straight from the biblical pattern. If the New Testament showed different churches with different names.. eg. Paul's letter to the "Baptist church of Ephesus", and Paul's letter to the "Faith Community Hope Peace and Love Center of Corinth" then we definitely would use that to define a church.

There is no place in the Bible where we are commissioned to judge whether a group of otherwise good Christians is a church or not. And the act of doing so is against the whole spirit of oneness, tolerance and receiving that the Bible encourages us to embrace among one another.

To me you are straining gnats and swallowing camels. Worrying about names, taking it upon yourself to decide what are churches and what are not and generally being a childish nuisance and pain in the rear.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

There is no place in the Bible where we are commissioned to judge whether a group of otherwise good Christians is a church or not. And the act of doing so is against the whole spirit of oneness, tolerance and receiving that the Bible encourages us to embrace among one another.

To me you are straining gnats and swallowing camels. Worrying about names, taking it upon yourself to decide what are churches and what are not and generally being a childish nuisance and pain in the rear.

Applying your words, to say, the LGBT church in a city (yes ,they exist), is troubling.

I don't think the apostle Paul would see it that way, to went to lengths to preserve the oneness and unity, and wrote against sectarianism and "other names".

Paul's commands for us to judge those in the church also extend to groups of believers, not just individuals. For example, suppose a church called itself the "Satan church", we can judge that to be not Christian. I use extreme examples to make a point - judgement is right and necessary.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There is a definition of a cult that has not been addressed here so far and the OP fails to mention it -

My definition of a cult:

A cult is a group which is subject to mesmerization and has hypnotic following of a leader or leaders, who have sinister intent. A cult implies a person's own rational and logical free-will being overtaken by mesmerization or hypnosis.

Mesmerization and hypnosis in and of themselves do not define a cult. There must be sinister intent.

For evidence of mesmerized sheep, look at how they sit, hour after hour, day after day, year after year, listening to ratty and threadbare exposition, and no one raises a peep. At the Psalms training, one poster here said he and his neighbour looked at each other and grimaced. But not one modifying word came forth from the crowd. Everyone knew not to correct the Ascended Master. Even when he's wrong, he's right.

For evidence of intent, look at Daystar, Philip Lee as the Office, Linko and so on. Eventually they realized that Standing Orders to the ministry franchises, the local churches of LSM, was most effective.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

For evidence of mesmerized sheep, look at how they sit, hour after hour, day after day, year after year, listening to to ratty and threadbare exposition, and no one raises a peep. At the Psalms training, one poster here said he and his neighbour looked at each other and grimaced. But not one modifying word came forth from the crowd. Everyone knew not to correct the Ascended Master. Even when he's wrong, he's right.

For evidence of intent, look at Daystar, Philip Lee as the Office, Linko and so on. Eventually they realized that Standing Orders to the ministry franchises, the local churches of LSM, was most effective.

Couldn't your description apply to any church on a Sunday?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Couldn't your description apply to any church on a Sunday?

No. Shepherds are accountable. They don't get carte blanche. Only God is always right. The rest of us, all of us, are subject to the flock. Otherwise mutuality is irreparably harmed.

The other thing you must remember is that if a pastor or shepherd begins to abuse the sheep, they can leave. The so-called revelation of the local ground was an end run on that. Now we were "caught for the local church". And lo and behold the abuse, and the merchandise of ministry, begins anon. Fealty is extracted, and out comes the lash.

[aron]

Contrast the LSM LC experience with the clear record in the NT. "After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them. . ." (Acts 15:7) Where by contrast did we ever see such mutuality in decision aking in the LSM LC? No, everything was done by fiat. Poster 'Hope' recalled how he and some others had a discussion on the merits and demerits of WL's latest 'flow'. WL got wind of this, had them summoned, and publicly blasted them. On the ride home, his host laughed and said all the So. Cal. brothers got this treatment.

Where is the mutuality in the LSM LC? Nowhere is where.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There is a definition of a cult that has not been addressed here so far and the OP fails to mention it -

My definition of a cult:

A cult is a group which is subject to mesmerization and has hypnotic following of a leader or leaders, who have sinister intent. A cult implies a person's own rational and logical free-will being overtaken by mesmerization or hypnosis.

This would be a personal definition of a cult that is created without reference to what is already there. And it is preferred because it would give your leader a free pass.

Or would it . . . . ?

There are some who can point to the tricks of oratory that seduce people to set their natural reasoning aside in favor of illogic spoken by the orator. And when the intent is arguably to create a group that will buy your wares as if they were gold, then sinister intent could be inferred.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There is a definition of a cult that has not been addressed here so far and the OP fails to mention it -

My definition of a cult:

A cult is a group which is subject to mesmerization and has hypnotic following of a leader or leaders, who have sinister intent. A cult implies a person's own rational and logical free-will being overtaken by mesmerization or hypnosis.

1. Mesmerization -- If you told me I had been "mesmerized" while in the LRC I would have rejected that.
2. Hypnotic following -- Many claimed that "pray reading" and "calling on the name of the Lord" were practices conducive to "hypnotic following". Again, I was in the LRC, I heard this, I rejected it.
3. Sinister intent of leader -- Even to this day how many of the leaders of the LRC do we ascribe "sinister intent" to? This is incredibly difficult to prove. How do you know what someone's intent is?

In my experience this definition would not have had the slightest benefit to me while in the LRC.

Even to this day I don't believe I was "mesmerized" rather I was deceived by a fabricated story. I had some misgivings about the story but since no one challenged it I never really spent time to think on it carefully. If you had told me that the false prophet's ministry was based on a fabricated story, based on the Apostle Peter's ministry I would have received that. If you told me that Witness Lee's ministry was based on the fact that he was the closest coworker of WN I would have received that. If you then said that this story about WN's excommunication is the "foundation" of WL's ministry because if it is false, he is a false prophet, only if it is true is he really a true minister. I would have agreed with that as well.

You could then tell me that the "false prophet" is the false Christ that Jesus referred to as there being many of them. I would have agreed. If you then went carefully through the verse references made by WL concerning WN being the "minister of the Age" I would have agreed that they were referring to Jesus. If you then said that Jesus is the "Minister of the Age" I would have agreed. You would have had to leave me with that, and I would have thought on it, but you would have made a case I would have listened to that WL's ministry was based on a fabricated story and that he was setting himself up as a false Christ.

At that point I would have been on high alert to observe if the purpose of WL's ministry was to "make merchandise of the saints" and also if the fruit of this ministry is poisonous. I would have seen instance after instance supporting these two points and instead of accepting that I should ignore these things as others will take care of that, I wouldn't have ignored it. The prime example is when I heard that JI left. I would not have accepted that he "became negative" but would have looked into it. It would have been a great salvation to me have learned this lesson as a young Christian. Shortly after this I saw LSM try to ram rod these "truth lessons" down the throat of new ones and falsely credit successful evangelistic efforts with their books.

That is how you help someone in the LRC.

[Evangelical]

You are right the view is rather subjective, but I believe it to be correct, nonetheless, and can help tell a real cult. What I wanted to avoid was my interpretation being misinterpreted to mean any kind of experience that involves subjectivity. For example, experiences such as trances and out of body experiences are genuine and biblical (Peter and Paul had them). The practice of praying in tongues for example could be considered hypnotic and mesmerizing. Benny Hinn for example gets a following by mesmerization. But they are not a cult. Loud repetitive music in churches can be mesmerizing. I do not believe that pray reading or calling on the name of the Lord is any more hypnotic than praying the Lord's prayer by rote, or listening to Hillsong for any extended period of time at high volume.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You are right the view is rather subjective, but I believe it to be correct, nonetheless, and can help tell a real cult. What I wanted to avoid was my interpretation being misinterpreted to mean any kind of experience that involves subjectivity. For example, experiences such as trances and out of body experiences are genuine and biblical (Peter and Paul had them). The practice of praying in tongues for example could be considered hypnotic and mesmerizing. Benny Hinn for example gets a following by mesmerization. But they are not a cult. Loud repetitive music in churches can be mesmerizing. I do not believe that pray reading or calling on the name of the Lord is any more hypnotic than praying the Lord's prayer by rote, or listening to Hillsong for any extended period of time at high volume.

So why do we go down this road? Trances, visions, prophecies, etc. All of these are genuine experiences in the Bible and typical examples of how a false prophet will try to scam you.

1. Lies -- not typical of any genuine apostle or prophet.
2. making merchandise of you -- not typical of any genuine apostle or prophet.
3. Poisonous fruit -- not typical of any genuine apostle or prophet.
4. Setting themselves up as false Christ -- not typical of any genuine apostle or prophet.

Why go with a definition that is going to confuse a genuine man of God with a phony one?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So why do we go down this road? Trances, visions, prophecies, etc. All of these are genuine experiences in the Bible and typical examples of how a false prophet will try to scam you.

1. Lies -- not typical of any genuine apostle or prophet.
2. making merchandise of you -- not typical of any genuine apostle or prophet.
3. Poisonous fruit -- not typical of any genuine apostle or prophet.
4. Setting themselves up as false Christ -- not typical of any genuine apostle or prophet.

Why go with a definition that is going to confuse a genuine man of God with a phony one?

As per my previous post, why go down this road of survey questions at all? We have to consider the weight of each question, the potential for "survey bias", and the fact that we need to decide on thresholds. But you have given a number of other good "survey questions" that I do not see in the OP.

[Evangelical]

I think we need a strong absolute definition of what is the church and what are sects so we can see what are the cults. I do not think that the 9 questions that leastofthese put forward are so helpful or reliable in defining what is a cult. The reason is that the "point scoring approach" is biased toward the purpose of the survey and does not consider the weight of each question.

I will explain a little about "weight" using an example. Suppose there is a set of questions that aim to find out "do you have cancer"? If a person answered yes to only two questions "do you feel tired?", and "is there cancer in your family?", probably they don't have cancer. However if the two questions they answered yes to were about painless swellings or lumps, then the chance that it is cancer may be higher. In other words, each question is weighted differently, so it is not a simple matter of counting how many questions you answer "yes" to.

"survey bias" is another problem. Suppose I asked you 3 questions, and you did not know what the test is about:
1) do you feel tired?
2) do you drink and smoke?
3) do you have any painless swellings or lumps?

Suppose you answered yes to all three. If the survey was about "do I have cancer", you might be very worried and make a doctor's appointment. On the other hand, if the survey was about "do you live a healthy lifestyle", then we probably would not worry as much. The decision about whether or not the survey is true and what action you will take, depends strongly upon what the survey is actually about.

It is for these reasons that we cannot rely upon these sort of tests for determining whether or not the local churches are a cult.

Another problem with this approach is that we still need to decide how many of these 9 points will be answered "yes" before we conclude it is a cult. For the Catholic church, the number of questions answered 'yes' may be higher than the number of questions answered 'yes' for the Baptist church. Does it mean Catholic are "more of a cult" than Baptist? No.

This is tricky because it depends. For example two or three of the points may apply to a number of denominations and well known Christian ministries (particularly tv evangelists and mega churches) but we would not say they are a cult.

Most of the points seem to apply to the Catholic church but we would not say they are a cult. JW, Mormon and SDA satisfy a number of the points, but most Christians would not say they are a cult, but a sect. Worshipping false gods is not necessarily cultish.

The problem is that the word cult is defined according to our own view of orthodoxy and what is a "church". For example, "salvation is not through Jesus" or "salvation is by works" does not define a cult. That could be any religion or even atheism.

I think the missing thing is as I have said, hypnosis and evil intent. But we also need a strong definition of church.

I think a better term for churches that are not churches and not cults, are sects. If they are not churches and they are not cults, then what are they? They are sects. But then Protestantism is a sect of Catholicism. The Church of England for example is a sect. This view is too difficult. We need a correct absolute view of the church based upon the bible and only then can we properly see what is a sect and what is a cult. The absolute and biblical pattern of church is the church as the locality , the church in Corinth, the church in Rome, the church in Ephesus etc.

My definition is thus:
The church in the locality is "the church". The sub-groups within the locality with other names (the denominations) are sects. The groups that satisfy most of the criteria, and are clearly not the church or sects, including hypnosis and evil intent, are cults.

I believe this definition is superior to other definitions (including the scoring/point system put forward by the OP) for the following reasons:

Based upon the absolute pattern of church in bible, it is easy to define clearly what is a church and what is not. We avoid the relativism and subjectivity associated with the "9 points" put forward in the OP. That is, it avoids the situation of having to worry about how many points are answered "yes" before we conclude it is a cult. As I explained before, one denomination may be a "yes" to most of the points, but another may hit only one or two.

The strong and absolute definition of church, also avoids wrongly concluding that Roman Catholicism or JW or Mormons are cults. It also prevents us incorrectly calling other religions cults, just because they believe in works-based salvation or reject the Trinity.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I do not think that the 9 questions that leastofthese put forward are so helpful or reliable in defining what is a cult.

I don't disagree with you Evangelical, I said as much in my intro. This doesn't change the fact that it was the top google search. Which, I would think, is relevant at least as much as to shed light on what the general population may first read when looking for more information on cults.

Which locality do you meet with?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

I don't disagree with you Evangelical, I said as much in my intro. This doesn't change the fact that it was the top google search. Which, I would think, is relevant at least as much as to shed light on what the general population may first read when looking for more information on cults.

Which locality do you meet with?

I'm not blaming you, this is a difficult subject and interesting conversation. Surveys can be valid if done properly but I wanted to point out their shortcomings. There may be a perfect survey somewhere with a high success rate of determining what is and what is not a cult. I cannot disclose my locality on a public forum, sorry.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Where did the apostle Paul agree with anyone? Can you answer?

The Acts 15 conference. Verified by Paul in his Galatians letter. They received one another in fellowship. Nobody was abjectly servile to another.

Paul did not receive his revelation from men (Gal 1:12), yet he was still in agreement with men.

Nee received his revelation from men (and women) yet ultimately was in agreement with no one. Likewise Lee from Nee; Lee told us he hadn't learned anything from anyone for 40+ years.

Nee had to shed himself of Wang, his senior co-worker and fellow student of Barber, before he could "recover" authority and submission. Then his revelation placed him as de facto Top Dog. He no longer had to agree with anyone but God. But all had to agree with him.

But where, for example, do you see the apostle John expressing the abject servility towards Paul that we should expect? Look at John's epistle to the Ephesians in the Apocalypse. No love there, said John. Where is Paul's successor, the new Deputy God? Nowhere to be seen. What had happened to the 'apostle Paul duplication center' in Ephesus? Where was 'today's Paul' as John was writing to the seven churches in Asia? Nowhere is where. The story of Paul as MOTA is a fiction.