What converts a religious group into a "cult" or "hated setct"?

[Pastor_Chick]

Often among SDA believers you will hear or read what has been called "Catholic bashing." All too often, other "undesirables" such as Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, Davidian Seventh Day Adventists, Creation 7th Day Adventists, and the likes are maligned.

What is it, then, that converts the various religious communities into what would be called "a cult" or even a "hated sect"?

[fccool]

I would not be too concerned about the labels in your case. Adventists calling something "cult" or "sect" is rather ironic, given the history and the definition of the words. These are often times used pejoratively. In reality, these only aim to describe history/mindset.

Sects refer to the splinter groups that form by separating from some other groups. By definition, both Christianity and Adventism are sects.

Cults refer to religious groups that encourage and exercise certain amount of control and separation of their members. Both Christianity and Adventism have their fair share of cult attributes.

[miz3]

I have already shown you in another thread why you are a cult. That should have been enough evidence even for you.

[fccool]

miz3, I can likewise show you evidence why you are one too :)

[Israfel]

Pastor chick,

I think added to the dictionary definition, a cult in the eyes of the populace is a "religious group" that is unknown, that others don't understand or that are different than the commomly accepted and known by the mass.

We could not say of the Catholic church for example, that it is a cult because of its fame and acceptance by the mass even by some of those called "cults." The evangelicals are not a cult, they are accepted by a large proportion of the Christian world and the "worldlings". There was once upon a time that the SDA Church was call a cult but all of this has changed to quote Neil C Wilson,

"Although it is true that there was a period in the life of the Seventh-day Adventist Church when the denomination took a distinctly anti-Roman Catholic viewpoint...that attitude on the church's part was nothing more than a manifestation of widespread anti-popery among conservative Protestant denominations in the early part of this century and the latter part of the last, and which has now been consigned to the historical trash heap so far as the Seventh-day Adventist Church is concerned." (Neal C. Wilson, past president of the Seventh-day Adventist General Conference, Court Transcript of United States vs the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission vs the Pacific Press Publishing Association and the General Conference, Reply Brief for Defendants, p 4, Civil Case #74-2025 CBR, presided over by Judge Charles B. Renfrew, U.S. District Court, San Francisco, California, 1974-1975.)

"there is another universal and truly catholic organization, the Seventh-day Adventist Church." (Neal C. Wilson, General Conference President of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, in Adventist Review, March 5, 1981, p 3).

So I would rather like to ask today, which cult named is rightly named so? and was the Early Church fitting for that term? And who resemble the First Church and how do we know, truthfully from the Bible perspective.

"Isn't the true Church built upon the foundation of the prophets and the Apostle and Jesus Christ being the chief connerstone"? Eph. 2:20

[BobRyan]

Often among SDA believers you will hear or read what has been called "Catholic bashing." All too often, other "undesirables" such as Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, Davidian Seventh Day Adventists, Creation 7th Day Adventists, and the likes are maligned.

What is it, then, that converts the various religious communities into what would be called "a cult" or even a "hated sect"?

The most "justifiable" mechanism for those derogatory terms is that the group disconnects itself from a sola-scriptura defense of its position and begins to follow some extra-biblical charismatic leader instead of holding to solid bible doctrine.

It could be argued that the first century Christians were rightly accused of that - IF they were junking their Old Testaments and claiming to follow Christ "sans-scriptura".

But they were not.

in Christ,

Bob

[Gustave]

In todays theological language the classification of cult is generally laid on systems who claim they are Christian...

...Who have, as part of their teaching - that Christ could have sinned and lost His Salvation. That's the big #1.

...The JW's, Mormons, Christadelphians, WWCOG and SDA's all affirm this.

[Light Fox]

I've never encountered that definition, Gustave. What are you drawing from to consider that the "big #1" in today theology language?

Bob, could you give some more detail on that? For example, you said that it would only apply to the NT authors if they were outright junking their Old Testaments to follow a charismatic leader. Would that mean that it would only apply to groups today who claim to go "sans-scriptura" to follow their leader? I'm not aware of anyone in that list who does that, so if you could clarify, I'd appreciate it.

I'm thinking of Paul, for example, who was charismatic and wrote some really unusual applications of old passages in Hebrews. He didn't junk the Old Testament, but what he taught was pretty unorthodox from the Jewish perspective. It certainly wasn't "solid Bible doctrine" as they were taught it, though it matched the principles of the symbols.

[phkrause]

I've never encountered that definition, Gustave. What are you drawing from to consider that the "big #1" in today theology language?

There's an agenda behind that statement Qinael!

[Light Fox]

There's an agenda behind that statement Qinael!

Even so, I'm curious if it's actually a definition being used in theology today. I've only seen it in Gus's posts around the forum so far, so if it's standard, I wouldn't mind being educated about that development.

[Pastor_Chick]

Ellen White has some things to say about "the hated sect." Usually, there are principles that can be gleaned from what she has written.

When Rome at one time determined to exterminate the hated sect [referring to the Waldenses], a bull was issued by the pope, condemning them as heretics, and delivering them to slaughter. They were not accused as idlers, or dishonest, or disorderly [not "criminals"]; but it was declared that they had an appearance of piety and sanctity that seduced "the sheep of the true fold." [caused a potential for confusion to divert the tithe] Therefore the pope ordered "that malicious and abominable sect of malignants," if they "refuse to abjure, to be crushed like venomous snakes."--Wylie, b. 16, ch. 1 [brackets supplied]

[miz3]

Pastorchick and Qineal,

How many times do you have to be shown in the clearest of tones. Yet you persist in twisting the Truth by comparing SDA taking you to court with the Roman Church's persecution of those who disagree with her.

Since you either fail to understand or you intentionally ignore the correction of your views because as a "cult" you are hell bent on your course regardless of the Truth. This course you are taking is clear evidence that you and yours are indeed a cult or wacko group bent on self destruction.

I repeat again for your edification:

1. The Catholic Church had the civil power and the religious power firmly under its control. It and it alone decided who the civil powers would be and who the religious powers would be. They were superior to both entities and thus could order the civil power to do what ever the Roman Church wanted. The Roman Church appealed to no law but upon its whim ordered the civil power to do its bidding.

2. The SDA Church holds no power over the American civil authorities. As such they cannot just order the civil authorities to enforce their whims. The SDA Church is subject to the laws of American civil powers. As such there is a huge difference between the Dark Ages model of Roman Catholic power and the SDA Church operating in America today.

3. Thus, your model collapses under the weight of the fact that the two entities are in entirely different environments and that the dynamics are totally not parallel even in the smallest detail.

Again this is cultish behavior on your part when in the face of clear facts the cult continues to ram its totally stupid and unsubstantiated claims again and again.

If you cannot win on one thread you start another thread but the story continues to be the same no matter what topic you try and disguise your one note song.

As I also said all roads lead to the "law suit" by the SDA Church regardless of topic or thread or whatever. Also typical of sects and cults is the "I am persecuted" complex. This is typical in order to gain sympathies in a "David vs Goliath" theme.

Face it pastorchick and Qinael you and yours are a CULT!

Pastorchick claims prophetic powers (although he exercises those powers as if he were a "messiah") and also claims to be rescuing God's people. Although again not claiming to be a messiah pastorchick exercises all the attributes of being a messiah in the mold of Jim Jones, David Koresh, etc. Pastorchick also displays the emotional and the psychological earmarks of pushing things so as to eventually push the martyr button. Again, Jim Jones and David Koresh like.

[Gustave]

I've never encountered that definition, Gustave. What are you drawing from to consider that the "big #1" in today theology language?

It's simply the mechanism ALL Christian denominations which accept the Creed....

....Determine if Christians of other groups are cultic or not.

Any teaching which affirms Christ could have sinned.....

...And had that been realized - God would have annihilated Christ PERMANENTLY.

...Is absoultely a "CULT".

The only groups who affirm such teachings hail from the Adventist spectrum....

...Christadelphians, JW's, WWCOG, SDA's, etc.

[Pastor_Chick]

[miz3]

Pastorchick and Qinael,

How do you answer the discrepancy in your position concerning what I said about the Roman Church versus the SDA Church. Why don't you answer and clear up the discrepancy?

[Pastor_Chick]

Q-

Did you hear some thunder?

[Gustave]

[Pastor_Chick]

Gus,

Thank you for your continued diplomacy and acknowledgment.

[Light Fox]

Q-

Did you hear some thunder?

[miz3]

Pastorchick,

The thunder you heard was the Thunder of God asking you to answer the questions honestly and truthfully. God hates your avoidance and God hates your twisting of Ellen White and He especially hates your twisting of His Scripture.

You are unable to explain the discrepancies concerning your quotes and the nature of the truth.

This is yet another evidence of your cultish nature because you are stubbornly holding on to your position which has clearly been shown to be in error.

[Igakusei]

You are unable to explain the discrepancies concerning your quotes and the nature of the truth.

This is yet another evidence of your cultish nature because you are stubbornly holding on to your position which has clearly been shown to be in error.

To be fair, I could make the same accusation of you with respect to our other conversation :)

[miz3]

Igakusei,

You could direct such an accusation at the SDA Church in its beginnings. You can't direct such at me because unlike pastorchick:

1. I do not claim to be a prophet or the son of a prophet.

2. I do not claim to have visions from God.

3. I do not claim to have DIRECT communications from God.

4. I am not claiming to have overcome all known sin.

5. I am not trying to start a "new" group that claims to have the TRUTH.

6. I am not twisting the Word the God in order to wrap myself in the cloak of a martyr and I am not claiming my enemies are the Mark of the Beast, etc.

I think that demonstrates there are quite a few extremely wide differences between me and pastorchick and his blind followers.

You should also know that I am one who questions the fundamental beliefs of even my group. See my posts on the Theology Townhall.

[Igakusei]

Point taken, I was just being snarky for no reason because I couldn't resist biting at the "stubbornly holds on to beliefs" part.

I gratefully accept the rebuke :)

[miz3]

Igakusei,

You are good person and I like you very much!

[BobRyan]

Point taken, I was just being snarky for no reason because I couldn't resist biting

I think that went without saying ...

in Christ,

Bob