To distinguish a cult from TRUE Christianity is simple, really. The main thing a cult will do is change the Jesus of the Bible and His teachings. That is the common element of cults.

Examples: The Bible clearly states that Jesus is God who became Man. The JW’s claim that He is Michael the archangel and that He was created. The Mormon’s claim that He is also an angel and that He is the brother of Lucifer.

The Bible cleary states that there is only One mediator between God and man and that is Christ Jesus. Many religions claim that their organization is the mediator. Catholicism teaches that Mary is a ‘co-mediatrix’. The Watchtower Soceity (of the JW’s) claim that they are ‘God’s organization’.

The list goes on and on…

The Bible should be your only authority. It’s doctrines are unmistakeable. If you find yourself not being able to distinguish any of it, it is because you have not relied on God for the answers. I suggest praying for guidance and understanding every time you open your Bible. Put your trust only in the Lord Jesus and no man can take you from the Heavenly Father.

Christianity is: A relationship with Jesus Christ, the One and Only Saviour.
Religions/Cults is: A relationship with man who can save no one.

May the Lord bless you richly in all wisdom and understanding, Amen.

I must add my name to the sad litany of those who were once duped by a cult-like group. When I was young I joined a rather zealous group know as the “True Church of Christ” – the name should have been my first clue, “No, really, we’re the TRUE Church . . .”.
And so, with an austere religious spirit they taught that all other denominations are evil, that music is not allowed during worship, that television and radio will send you to Hell, and that you should severely limit contact with your “unsaved” family and friends, and the worst: if you leave this “true church”, the Lord will take away the Holy Spirit and give you a demon instead, like King Saul.
These people have done violence to innocent souls and to the name of our Lord as well.
My greatest embarrassment is that I could ever have been involved with them.

Art,

My apologies, I should not have made the assumption you were a Christian so let me back up a bit. Jesus Christ, God the Son came to earth to 1) reveal God to man and 2) reconcile man to God. What is significant to note is that everything that transpired in the OT was in preparation for his incarnation and his redemptive purpose. In this way, he tells God’s ‘rest of the story’, which is aptly summarized in Peter’s speech on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:22-36).

The reason Jesus selected the apostles was so they can be his eyewitnesses that would testify about him after his death, burial and resurrection. So when I say the ‘apostolic witness’ it is in reference to the testimony of Christ, who he is and what he came to do. Keep in mind that the message was passed on via oral tradition. However, as the church grew quantitatively and regionally, letters began to circulate concerning instruction in context of this testimony (epistles) as was the written account of Jesus’ earthly ministry.

We know from 2 Timothy 3:16 that scripture is God-breathed, which he utilized men to accomplish. Therefore, the sacred writings were accomplished under the inspiration of God, but in a way that accounted for man’s perspective. But this all happened in the context of development of the church. Btw, this is the major source of contention between protestantism and RCC, who believes that God provided his authoritative instruction in the context of the church and therefore, the church is the instrument through which salvation is realized. Protestanism is founded on the belief that authority is found in scripture. That does not negate the tradition in which all of this transpired and some have held higher views of tradition than others.

Juxtaposed to the circulation of sacred writings that would come to be recognized as scripture, would be other writings passing on the apostolic witness and church tradition. These are the writings of the early church fathers. There was also the circulation of letters that reflected rising heresies against Christianity. While there was a solid body of letters, now in our NT, that were recognized as scripture by the late 2nd century, there was sort of a validation process (for lack of a better term) that would solidify the canon of scripture we now have known as the NT. This happened in the 4th century (376 I think but will have to look it up).

The heresies would also give rise to the need to clarify the testimony of Christ, his work and person. This occurred through the convening of ecumenical councils, beginning in 325 with Nicea and followed by Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), Chalcedon (451). There are 3 after this but these were the most significant.

So I think its significant to note the development that served to attest to the faith that was handed down from the beginning. I hope that helps.

Hi Lisa

I am not a “Christian” so I am offering a perspective from an external / independent perspective.

When you speak of the ‘apostolic witness’ I assume them to mean the same as doctrinal beliefs. You say ‘oral traditions and sacred writings’ and then ‘councils’. Can you expand on this for me please?

I’m not meaning to be flippant or dismissive of the question, just trying to suggest that the conclusion/response/rejection in toto of what the Bible teaches need not necessarily follow from what is asserted about Christian disunity/disagreement – an assertion that may be too broad.

mary 40.: Why can’t Americans/psychiatrists/linguists agree on anything the Constitution/theory of psychiatry/discourse analysis says/teaches/demonstrates? That is why I can no longer believe in anything the Constitution/psychiatry/linguistics says/teaches/demonstrates.

Why can’t Christians agree on anything the bible teaches. This is why I can no longer believe in anything the bible teaches.

Art, I’m not sure exactly what your point is. Nor am I negating that people look to Christianity to fulfill a need. We do have a need! The question is how is the local assembly addressing that need.

As to this point

Furthermore you should remember that Protestantism (at least as far as Luther propounded it) rejected the Authority and Divine perogratives of the Papal cult. But if you are adamant, despite this, that the RC holds a high level of Biblical authority then all true Christians must follow Jesus’ words to ‘eat his flesh and drink his blood’ in Transubstantiative terms for the efficacy of their communion in Christ.

Luther’s intentions were to reform the church not to reject it. And I would not isolate the RCC doctrine of transubstantiation as a criteria that points to what I am addressing in this post because of the context in which Christian doctrine is established by the RCC, that is the doctrine of the church.

As to this point

Accordingly labeling other organisations a cult on the basis of their deviation from mainstream or orthodox doctrines does not make your brand of Christianity anymore legitimate than those of Arius, or Sabellius. ‘Mainstream’ doesn’t quarantee anything. The problem of who or what qualifies a cult therefore lies in who actually is qualified to pass that judgment in the first instance. Should it be a religion whose roots are Apostolic in nature or a religion defined and established in the 4th century by a Pagan Emperor for a pagan audience.

We do have an apostolic witness of scripture and tradition that establishes the foundation of Christianity. I don’t really want to address the schism of Protestantism and the RCC in this post because that’s not the point. And I am not saying that mainstream guarantees anything because it is within this framework that the post is addressing.

Derek, talk about hairsplitting! As to a couple of your points

1) It was impossible for me to go into a litany of 2,000 years of doctrinal development within the framework of this post. I do believe the councils (primarily first 4) were significant in clarifying essential elements of Christianity. However, the emphasis I was trying to bring up is embodied in the Vincent of Lerins caption of what has been ‘believed everywhere, always and by all’. That does leave a broad range of options. What I was getting it in this section is the rejection of the foundation in favor of something new.

4) Nope, sorry I don’t see this as an attack on continuationism. You said “I do think modern revelation can be authoritative to those whom it is given to.” I don’t think all continuationists would agree with you on this. But I do think it can make a local assembly more susceptible to cult-like influences. How quickly can a ‘prophecy’ by this definition become abused especially given even a shade of delegated authority influence. The problem is not with continuationism but with this definition of it.

4) This seems like an indirect attack on those who believe in the spiritual gifts. I have no issue with additional revelation, so long as it doesn’t contradict the Bible (I’m even open to the possibility of “new” revelation, as long as it doesn’t attack this base either). I think if one wanted to be too strict on this, they could discount the Old Testament prophets and say their words weren’t Scripture (a view the Sadduccees held in Jesus’ own day). While I wouldn’t equate modern revelation with Scripture, I do think modern revelation can be authoritative to those whom it is given to. Plus, Scripture gives us tests to determine true prophecy from false prophecy. I’ll write something on this eventually, although I think ScottL and Marv are doing a good job on this already.

5) The only authority a Christian is held to are the words of Jesus and the apostles. I think a pastor should encourage his flock to study these words in as pure a fashion as they can (be it through original languages, church history, etc.). But there are plenty “newbies” who think they know it all, too, just because they picked up Strong’s or have a little knowledge. I think Proverbs 11:14 applies here: “Where there is no guidance, a people falls, but in an abundance of counselors there is safety” (ESV).