The word "cult." Has it lost its meaning?

FSSL

Well-known member
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
7,692
Reaction score
532
Points
113
Location
Gulf Shores, Alabama
In casual conversation, among Christians, you may have heard "IFBs are cultists."

I think it is an unfortunate use of the term "cult." The Apostle Paul identifies cultists as "Promoting another gospel."

This is not an exhaustive definition, for sure. However, it does give a parameter on the definition.

Can IFBs be regarded as a cult? Sure. There are some. The "say a prayer and you will be saved" approach is not the gospel.

Let's discuss...
 
In casual conversation, among Christians, you may have heard "IFBs are cultists."

I think it is an unfortunate use of the term "cult." The Apostle Paul identifies cultists as "Promoting another gospel."

This is not an exhaustive definition, for sure. However, it does give a parameter on the definition.

Can IFBs be regarded as a cult? Sure. There are some. The "say a prayer and you will be saved" approach is not the gospel.

Let's discuss...
FBCH - Definitely a Cult
Steven Anderson and his ilk - Definitely a Cult
Ruckmanites - Cult
SOTL Crowd - Cultish
Lancaster Baptist/WCBC - Not a cult, just strange and not someone I care to affiliate with.
 
The "Are you a KJB Bible believer" does lend itself to being called a "cult." The emphasis on the creation (King James Version) and not the Creator (Jesus Christ) would be another gospel.

If a church follows a personality and Christ is not made preeminent, they deny the gospel and could rightly be considered a cult.
 
During my time of discipleship in IFB circles, a cult was broadly defined as an organization that professed to be Christian but as you said, preached another gospel. Walter Martin's Kingdom of the Cults was a frequently used reference.

The three main criteria for defining a cult were: Denying the deity of Christ, preaching a works oriented salvation and the promotion of their writings as being on par with or superceding the Bible. Of course, the Mormons, JWs, and the SDA were chief among the cults. Others, like some Pentecostals who denied the deity of Christ, some Church of Christ who preached baptismal regeneration, would be included. Several smaller groups, most notably The Way International, a surprisingly popular group among military people, was definitely on the list of cults.

The concept of what qualifies as Fundamentalist seems to have shifted over the past 40 years. To me, at the time, anyone from Adrian Rogers to John MacArthur was considered fundamentalist. It was only as time went on and I began to see the different nuances of these different groups that I realized the definition of fundamentalist was not that simple.

When I hung with the PCC crowd in the early to mid 80s, their radio station, WPCS, carried John MacArthur, Chuck Swidoll and David Jeremiah. As the 80s drew to a close, associations with these teachers were severed.

The definition of a cult as I learned it, did not seem to take in a "cult of personality" aspect but it is very clear that whether a preacher preaches the gospel or not, their personality can obscure the gospel and render the group a cult of sorts. This happens in many IFB(X) circles. When the focus becomes maintaining the "old standards" danger lurks. Perhaps, that is what is meant when Christ said to the Ephesian Church, "... you have left your first love..."
 
Ruckmanites - Cult
I'm afraid many are. However, a congregation in Lewiston ID is pastored by a PBI graduate. I've met the pastor and some of the folks from their congregation and while it's not where I'd go regularly, I'd not consider them a cult.
 
People who throw the word 'cult' around remind of people who throw the term 'racist' around. The word 'cult' has definitely lost its punch, but its use does scare away people who understand its original definition, and hear it used in its modern accusations.
Any church that has standards (whether you agree with them or not) is labeled as 'cultish' anymore. Churches have become so 'liberalized', that if you demand any modicum of decorum for workers, you are now considered a cult.' I agree with abcaines in his assessments.
 
In casual conversation, among Christians, you may have heard "IFBs are cultists."

I think it is an unfortunate use of the term "cult." The Apostle Paul identifies cultists as "Promoting another gospel."

This is not an exhaustive definition, for sure. However, it does give a parameter on the definition.

Can IFBs be regarded as a cult? Sure. There are some. The "say a prayer and you will be saved" approach is not the gospel.

Let's discuss...
Technically, every religion or society is a cult or culture. From Etymology Online:

1610s, "worship, homage" (a sense now obsolete); 1670s, "a particular form or system of worship;" from French culte (17c.), from Latin cultus "care, labor; cultivation, culture; worship, reverence," originally "tended, cultivated," past participle of colere "to till" (see colony).
The word was rare after 17c., but it was revived mid-19c. (sometimes in French form culte) with reference to ancient or primitive systems of religious belief and worship, especially the rites and ceremonies employed in such worship. Extended meaning "devoted attention to a particular person or thing" is from 1829.
Cult is a term which, as we value exactness, we can ill do without, seeing how completely religion has lost its original signification. [Fitzedward Hall, "Modern English," 1873]
Cult. An organized group of people, religious or not, with whom you disagree. [Hugh Rawson, "Wicked Words," 1993]

I think the NT equivalent of the typical connotation of the word, cult, is heresy, or heretic, and like that is just as loosely applied today.

Early on, I had adopted Walter Martin's definition of cult, but then ran into the phrase, temple cultus, in my reading, referring to the rites and ceremonies related to the Jewish temple. I think what Walter Martin describes in his famous book are heresies more so than cults, though in their beginnings were definitely cultish.

There are a lot of cultish Christian groups out there with doctrines still within the bounds of orthodoxy, but for me to call some nominal Christian group a cult, there must be 1) a single authoritative figure who is seen to be God's sole prophet or apostle for the group; 2) a practice of isolating members from society, or, at the very least, from their families and heritage; and 3) teach a plainly unbiblical doctrine whether by epistemology or practice that manifests itself in the sanctification of some form of concupiscence or licentiousness.
 
The word 'abuse' is just as loosely flung about as 'cult,' btw.
Like Starlifter said, these buzz words get thrown around very loosely. "Abuse" is one of those words.

I'm NOT talking about genuine abuse like what happens between subordinates and superiors in both ecclesiastical and secular settings.

Your observation about "cult" being related to "culture" is very astute. It would be grammatically correct to label any microcosm of culture as a "cult". However, like many of our words, the terms culture and cult carry different connotations of related meanings. Therefore, the term "cult" can be used to describe a group whose doctrines or practices obscure the Gospel.
 
The focus on heterodox doctrine (e.g. KJV-onlyism, "magic blood," or no-repentance antinomianism being obvious examples) is cultish.

So is the aggresssive separationism.

In another sense of the term, personalities like Jack Hyles are.definitely a cult of personality.

I think it was on this forum that I once ran down the characteristics of a destructive cult and how close many IFB churches came to fulfilling them. I should see if I can find that post.
 
Others, like some Pentecostals who denied the deity of Christ, some Church of Christ who preached baptismal regeneration
NOTE: the Pentecostals in question do not deny the deity of Christ; conversely, they deny the Trinity in favor of a view based on Colossians 2:9 where it says "in [Christ] all the fullness of the Godhead dwells in bodily form."
As for Church of Christ, they ALL preach baptismal regeneration to a degree.
 
During my time of discipleship in IFB circles, a cult was broadly defined as an organization that professed to be Christian but as you said, preached another gospel. Walter Martin's Kingdom of the Cults was a frequently used reference.

The three main criteria for defining a cult were: Denying the deity of Christ, preaching a works oriented salvation and the promotion of their writings as being on par with or superceding the Bible. Of course, the Mormons, JWs, and the SDA were chief among the cults. Others, like some Pentecostals who denied the deity of Christ, some Church of Christ who preached baptismal regeneration, would be included. Several smaller groups, most notably The Way International, a surprisingly popular group among military people, was definitely on the list of cults.

The concept of what qualifies as Fundamentalist seems to have shifted over the past 40 years. To me, at the time, anyone from Adrian Rogers to John MacArthur was considered fundamentalist. It was only as time went on and I began to see the different nuances of these different groups that I realized the definition of fundamentalist was not that simple.

When I hung with the PCC crowd in the early to mid 80s, their radio station, WPCS, carried John MacArthur, Chuck Swidoll and David Jeremiah. As the 80s drew to a close, associations with these teachers were severed.

The definition of a cult as I learned it, did not seem to take in a "cult of personality" aspect but it is very clear that whether a preacher preaches the gospel or not, their personality can obscure the gospel and render the group a cult of sorts. This happens in many IFB(X) circles. When the focus becomes maintaining the "old standards" danger lurks. Perhaps, that is what is meant when Christ said to the Ephesian Church, "... you have left your first love..."
I would definitely consider the "Cult of Personality" aspect and if I truly applied such to the criteria, then Lancaster Baptist would certainly be in the "Cult" category. Everything in that church was all about "We love our Church and we love our Pastor" or they made much about whatever staff member "Led them to the Lord" but did not seem to elevate much beyond this! I have often stated that you can be 100% straight on your doctrine and still be considered a "Cult" but if you have cultic tendencies, chances are the doctrine is off somewhere and when your salvation is all about "Making a Decision," this is a huge red flag!
 
I'm afraid many are. However, a congregation in Lewiston ID is pastored by a PBI graduate. I've met the pastor and some of the folks from their congregation and while it's not where I'd go regularly, I'd not consider them a cult.
You are correct. I have known quite a few PBI grads who are in the ministry that I would not consider "Cultists." These just happened to graduate from PBI and were strong KJV Only but were far from being Ruckman Sycophants. I would, however, take serious issue with their "Hyper-Dispensationalist" approach to biblical hermeneutics.

Of course the very same thing could be said for HAC, WCBC, GSBC, and Crown graduates.
 
In Philippians 3:2 Paul says to beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision. That’s pretty strong condemnatory language which is akin to labeling somebody as a cultist I suppose. And as you pointed out, Paul did so because of these people’s heretical teachings regarding the grace of God. Those who would conflate works with grace as a matter of achieving righteousness corrupt the gospel, and thereby make one an evil worker and effectively a religious (as opposed to sociological…as Ekk pointed out above dealing with isolating members) cultist. To that end, I think some IFBs come perilously close when they teach that our sanctification is a matter of how well we attain to and maintain a list of (man-made) standards of “holiness”.
 
People who throw the word 'cult' around remind of people who throw the term 'racist' around. The word 'cult' has definitely lost its punch, but its use does scare away people who understand its original definition, and hear it used in its modern accusations.
Any church that has standards (whether you agree with them or not) is labeled as 'cultish' anymore. Churches have become so 'liberalized', that if you demand any modicum of decorum for workers, you are now considered a cult.' I agree with abcaines in his assessments.
Depends on the standards.
The IFB church downtown is definitely not a cult, IMO. If I weren't divorced and remarried, I'd rather go there than the SBC church where I grew up. Yeah, they're strict, and that's fine.
The UMC church (now non-denom megachurch) that I used to attend is heading full-bore toward cult status. It's long been a cult of personality centered around the pastor and everything is about promoting the church. Their standards are attend worship (though watching online and filling out an online form counts), be in a small group, a mission project, and your tithe. Especially the money.
 
Cult may mean following a leader mindlessly and many times involves isolation from anyone who may disagree with any teaching the leader espouses. I believe from a Christian point of view the word to use would be “unorthodox.” The heart of it all is what does someone teach about the deity of Christ and salvation.

2 John 9 says, “Whosoever transgresses, and abides not in the doctrine of Christ, has not God. He that abides in the doctrine of Christ, he has both the Father and the Son.”
Mark Spence (Living Waters) wrote this:
Which Jesus? If a stranger approaches you and says he knows your buddy “John.” but all the facts are wrong concerning him, you could safely conclude that he is referring to a different John. With that in mind, there are many religions that claim they know and believe in Jesus, but that does not mean they are referring to the same Jesus Christ in the Bible, for example.
1. Mormons believe Jesus was the spirit brother of Lucifer.

2. Jehovah Witnesses
believe Jesus was Michael the Archangel.

3. Muslims
believe Jesus was just a prophet.

4. Baha’i
teaches Jesus was simply a messenger.

Here I will add another.

5. Oneness Pentecostals believe Jesus is God but believe salvation is obtained by:

A. Being baptized in Jesus’ name only.

B. Speaking in tongues

C. Once salvation is obtained through these religious activities, it must be maintained by good works and legalistic codes of personal behavior or one will go to hell.

This brings us to the heart of the matter. Salvation is by faith alone which is followed by good works as a result of being born again. If adding the rituals of the law such as circumcision can damn someone, so can adding the ritual of Baptism or any other religious activity. Jesus clearly distinguished between the ceremonial aspects of the law which could be taken care of by ritual washings and moral defilement which corrupts a person’s soul and can only be dealt with by the blood of Christ through repentance and faith.
Mark 7:21-23
“For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man. (Mark 7:21-23).

A man can be trusting in Christ alone and still have doubts concerning salvation and believe salvation can be lost because of the fact that we still have the old nature and will never reach sinless perfection in this life. There isn’t really much difference between Arminians and Calvinists in that both believe repentance is what distinguishes a believer from a non-believer. Both groups can’t fully understand the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man in relation to salvation so they both try to reconcile the unreconcilable in theological terms. There are hyper-Calvinists as well as hyper-Arminians who go to the extreme of excluding the necessity of the sovereignty of God or the responsibility of man.

Charles Spurgeon, a classic five point Calvinist fully acknowledged in his sermons that he couldn’t reconcile man’s responsibility and God’s sovereignty but that the scriptures taught both. This is what he had to say about John Wesley, a classic Arminian. “It will be time to find fault with John Wesley, not when we discover his mistakes, but when we have cured our own. When we shall have more piety, more grace, more fire, more burning love, more intense unselfishness, then and not till then, may we begin to find fault and criticize.”

A false gospel is one that requires trust in any good works or rituals and not in Christ alone.
 
Cult may mean following a leader mindlessly and many times involves isolation from anyone who may disagree with any teaching the leader espouses. I believe from a Christian point of view the word to use would be “unorthodox.” The heart of it all is what does someone teach about the deity of Christ and salvation.

2 John 9 says, “Whosoever transgresses, and abides not in the doctrine of Christ, has not God. He that abides in the doctrine of Christ, he has both the Father and the Son.”
Mark Spence (Living Waters) wrote this:
Which Jesus? If a stranger approaches you and says he knows your buddy “John.” but all the facts are wrong concerning him, you could safely conclude that he is referring to a different John. With that in mind, there are many religions that claim they know and believe in Jesus, but that does not mean they are referring to the same Jesus Christ in the Bible, for example.
1. Mormons believe Jesus was the spirit brother of Lucifer.

2. Jehovah Witnesses
believe Jesus was Michael the Archangel.

3. Muslims
believe Jesus was just a prophet.

4. Baha’i
teaches Jesus was simply a messenger.

Here I will add another.

5. Oneness Pentecostals believe Jesus is God but believe salvation is obtained by:

A. Being baptized in Jesus’ name only.

B. Speaking in tongues

C. Once salvation is obtained through these religious activities, it must be maintained by good works and legalistic codes of personal behavior or one will go to hell.

This brings us to the heart of the matter. Salvation is by faith alone which is followed by good works as a result of being born again. If adding the rituals of the law such as circumcision can damn someone, so can adding the ritual of Baptism or any other religious activity. Jesus clearly distinguished between the ceremonial aspects of the law which could be taken care of by ritual washings and moral defilement which corrupts a person’s soul and can only be dealt with by the blood of Christ through repentance and faith.
Mark 7:21-23
“For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man. (Mark 7:21-23).

A man can be trusting in Christ alone and still have doubts concerning salvation and believe salvation can be lost because of the fact that we still have the old nature and will never reach sinless perfection in this life. There isn’t really much difference between Arminians and Calvinists in that both believe repentance is what distinguishes a believer from a non-believer. Both groups can’t fully understand the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man in relation to salvation so they both try to reconcile the unreconcilable in theological terms. There are hyper-Calvinists as well as hyper-Arminians who go to the extreme of excluding the necessity of the sovereignty of God or the responsibility of man.

Charles Spurgeon, a classic five point Calvinist fully acknowledged in his sermons that he couldn’t reconcile man’s responsibility and God’s sovereignty but that the scriptures taught both. This is what he had to say about John Wesley, a classic Arminian. “It will be time to find fault with John Wesley, not when we discover his mistakes, but when we have cured our own. When we shall have more piety, more grace, more fire, more burning love, more intense unselfishness, then and not till then, may we begin to find fault and criticize.”

A false gospel is one that requires trust in any good works or rituals and not in Christ alone.
Good stuff, there.
 
In casual conversation, among Christians, you may have heard "IFBs are cultists."

I think it is an unfortunate use of the term "cult." The Apostle Paul identifies cultists as "Promoting another gospel."

This is not an exhaustive definition, for sure. However, it does give a parameter on the definition.

Can IFBs be regarded as a cult? Sure. There are some. The "say a prayer and you will be saved" approach is not the gospel.

Let's discuss...
Heck the Baptist religion is a cult. IFBs are a cult on steroids.
 
Top