When asking yourself, "Am I in a cult?" the first thing to ask yourself is, "Does the leadership of my group, or my group has a whole, seek to awaken the Great Old Ones from their ancient slumber, causing the earth to flame with a holocaust of ecstacy and freedom, where men will learn new ways to shout and kill and enjoy themselves?" If yes, you're in a cult.
As a Roman Catholic, I never liked labeling other mainstream Christian groups as cults. I firmly believe they’re theologically incorrect, some more so than others, and it’s okay to just I say “I believe this group is theologically wrong.” But the term cult should really be reserved for exploitive and manipulative groups that work to entrap and control. The word should be reserved for those groups that pose a clear threat to their members.
I’m a very staunch LCMS Lutheran and it always befuddled me when Catholics calls it a cult. I have many Catholic friends and have attended Catholic masses before and I can confidently say that we believe the vast majority of the same things and go about it the same as well. Unfortunately there are obviously a couple of sticking points that lead Catholics and Lutherans to be at each other’s throats and turn our attention away from the real enemies
There are different definitions for "cult" for Catholics. There is the "cult of Mary" in Catholicism. That only means veneration of Saint. That is different from cults like JWs or Mormons.
I think the BITE model is a bit more succinct when defining what is a cult: B - behavior control I - Information control T - thought control E - emotion control
Joshua, so much of what you say is a breath of fresh air. Too many people throw around the word “cult” simply to describe those with whom they have disagreements. But it’s SO much more than that.
I wish I could give this video to so many people I’ve met in my life. I’ve legit had people tell me a certain denomination is a cult because they use a guitar in worship. That was it, the entire belief system was the same except for the use of a guitar. There is so much conversation that can happen between people if you’re willing to look at things the way you’ve laid them out in the video.
Gee. If using a guitar makes a cult, then my Catholic parish would have come under that category because our former choir had a guitarist in it, along with the organist, and I played mandolin in it for awhile. The presence of musical instruments does NOT signify a cult! A lot of mainstream churches would qualify for the cult label, if that was the only criteria used.
The problem is that the term cult can get a variety of definitions.. To me by now, it is actually a term used to disparage.Often a loaded term... And loading the language is typically. There is however things to look out for, when dealing with a a group. And that's control by leadership or group, and well leadership looking to obtain wealth on the groups expense. To some degree that is the case with virtually all the Churches. It wasn't the case with the ecclesia in the New Testament, although there were some problems with some ecclesias as well as Paul pointed out several times.
As someone who was legit raised in an ACTUAL cult by ANY of the definitions given in this video, I also say that the BITE Model is a wonderful tool for figuring out what is a cult and what isn’t a cult.
@@danielmaher964 you didn’t but I have had this conversation many times before my point is that it is very difficult to draw a distinction legitimate and abusive means on control, the same with parents, what is the difference between abusive controlling parents and non abusive ones? It is very difficult to define
@Michael-bk5nz I was not clear, I thought you were reacting to OP, not me. I was suggesting through my ad aburdum comment that a definition of cult which can be reduced merely to control is an insufficient definition.
My home church was Pentecostal. Great place - full of love and miracles. Then suddenly the pastor announced she was the reincarnation of Jeremiah and none of us would get to Heaven except on good report from her. The love was gone - the miracles ceased. Most of the church officers left. I hung on - hoping she'd snap out of it. But she only got worse - turning paranoid and suggesting we bring guns to service so to protect her from the community. That's when I left. So I got a glimpse of how a ministry becomes a cult.
@@brianrich7828 It's indeed imperfect and could use some revision. Meanwhile I hope you're speaking from experience and not ignorance. And where else are you going to go to get healed or delivered?
@@SelectCircle healed? A hospital. Delivered? A hospital. Healed spiritually? From the Bible. Delivered? By faith alone through grace alone in Jesus Christ the Lord and Savior.
This is one of my favorite channels. I started watching before I came back to the Lord. Even as a non-believer, this stuff was fascinating, but now it is such a help in clarifying questions I have as a Christian. Thoroughly researched, and clearly presented; keep up the hard work.
Once I saw an ad on a bus listing the signs of an abusive relationship. It made me realise the leader of the cult I was in was doing all those things to someone but only one or two of them to anyone in particular. That's when I started calling him out.
I recently discovered and subscribed to this channel and have been watching each video as I have time. Thank you for providing non-biased clarity on the differing beliefs of the various religions.
This may not clear up what the video was saying about "Christian cults". Pentecostals (implicitly) ask their congregation to participate in 3+ church sponsored events a week. Baptists have something similar. Then there are fundamentalists that think that if you don't adhere to the Bible everyday, then you have no right calling yourself a Christian. All these would be part of high-demand groups... But would they be cults in practice. I don't think the BITE can be used when looking at denominational differences imo.
Steven Hassan is highly criticized by his peers. he has no credentials in the field of Cults and has never been recognized as a court ordered expert. Please read the following link which is a critical look at his book by an expert in the field cultnews.com/2012/08/third-installment-of-steven-hassans-trilogy-adds-little-understanding/
@marcopollo366 oh it definitely can be used. Important to understand that even individual congregations can vary on their bite model analysis. It is all about how groups control members. That group can be huge and geographically well spread out, or it can be a small group of 5 to 10 people even. The bite model is about behaviors. So yeah denominations can be generally assessed with the understanding that each congregation could vary
11:09 Seventh-Day Adventists absolutely do NOT deny a literal hell. They just don't believe hell is eternal. They believe that the unrighteous will burn and be tormented in hell for a period of time but that the individual will eventually be burned up--not be tormented endlessly. Texts such as Revelation 14:11 where "forever and ever" is used is understood by SDAs to be hyperbolic language such as "I've been waiting forever and ever to get a pay raise." The justification for a limited time in hell is based on texts such as Malachi 4:3 which refer to the wicked as becoming "ashes". SDAs believe that souls can only live eternally if they have salvation in Christ; a wicked person's soul is unable to live eternally based on texts such as Ezekiel 18:20 which indicates that the soul that sins shall die.
Daniel 12:2 [2]And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and EVERLASTING CONTEMPT Matthew 25:45-46 45 Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into ETERNAL PUNISHMENT, but the righteous into eternal life. Revelation 20:10, 14-15 And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be TORMENTED DAY AND NIGHT FOREVER AND EVER. . . . Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
@@StephenJoshParreño Thanks for responding. "Everlasting contempt" and "eternal punishment" do not conflict with the idea of wicked people being ultimately burned up. A wicked person's fate is final, everlasting, and eternal since they made the decision to be lost. There is no second chance after death, so there is no conflict there to me. I've addressed the language of "forever and ever"--Scripture sometimes uses that term to mean an indefinite long period of time. Exodus 21:6, for example, uses the word "forever," but it is does not mean an endless period of time in the very literal sense. The Bible has verses that indicate the wicked will die and turn into ashes (Ezekiel 18:20, Malachi 4:3, etc), implying burning will not last literally forever, and but there are other verses that you and I both quoted that indicate that hell could potentially be forever in a literal sense. I have no issue with fellow Christians who hold to one view or the other as the text is open to being read either way. However, I do not believe a person's soul is immortal and that is the only way they can burn forever in the literal sense. I Timothy 6:16 says only God has immortality. A person who burns forever in the literal sense would mean he has eternal life too. Our Lord is clear that the wicked will be destroyed in hell in Matthew 10:28, so to me, this means there is an end of the burning at some point. I take the position that the unrighteous will burn in hell for a long, extended period of time, but at some point during that burning, the wicked will be burned up and destroyed. It is the only possible way I've seen that we can reconcile all the verses that the Bible provides for us.
New to your videos, I am thankful I found someone giving unbiased information on other religions. As a member of the churches of Christ, I have heard that we are a cult. To myself: any group that adds or subtracts from "Bible only" and any group calling themselves christian but have a different version of Jesus Christ are cultish. Times have changed and we are not alone, that think it is our way or the highway, but those who fall under the above sentence - study for yourself and let God determine the rest. Do however beware of groups where human leaders (individuals or governing bodies) demand obedience to their teaching and not to God's word alone.
I'm a Christian also and have to laugh at the ignorance of anyone who calls the churches of Christ a cult. Unfortunately, I have to cry at those who worship at building labeled "YYY Church of Christ" who have devolved to think they are the only Christians. To think such is to forget the very basis of the Restoration Movement -- that is completely casting aside labels so that we place no barriers between restorationists and any who Jesus has called his own. We are not only unqualified to be judges, but explicitly commanded not to judge. One of my favorite writings of the restoration is en.wikisource.org/wiki/Last_Will_and_Testament_of_The_Springfield_Presbytery The entire concept is to discard barriers among Christians. Building our own new ones is just stupid. I'm not saying Christian cults and false teachers don't exist. They most certainly do. I just am wary of classifying doctrinal differences as disqualifying someone as a Christian. In most cases, making such pronouncements is beyond my paygrade.
I want to thank you for another balanced and well-researched presentation. As a Catholic Christian, I have often been accused of being a member of a “cult”. Given that I live in the south this is no surprise because my Protestant brothers and sisters often learn half-truths and misconceptions about the Catholic Church. When someone badmouths the Catholic Church, my automatic assumption is that they are doing so in good faith based upon misinformation they received from someone they trusted. The indiscriminate use of the word “cult” has only cheapened the word and made a general slur against anyone having opposing beliefs. We see the same thing happening with the word “racist”. As for the quote attributed to Mariam Horvat (timestamp 11:53) I would urge you and your viewers to dismiss her comments. She presumes to speak for the Catholic Church but the pure and simple fact is she has no authority to do so. She is obviously entitled to her fallible nonauthoritative opinion but that is all it is regardless of how many letters follow her name. I read the entire article where the quote was lifted and it is very clear to me that she has selectively pulled from Catholic teaching to make her assertion. She wants to label every Protestant as a “heretic”. The Catholic Church does not do that. That word is used for a very specific situation and does not apply to Protestants in general. In short, it applies to someone who is/was Catholic and obstinately denies or doubts a core doctrine of the Catholic Faith. For example, Martin Luther was referred to as a heretic, whereas modern-day Lutherans are not. If someone was born into the Lutheran faith they are not willfully denying or doubting the Catholic Faith because quite often they don’t know the Catholic Faith. The same would be true of a myriad of other Christians in various denominations that do not know or understand the Catholic Faith. They are operating in good faith and doing the best they can to live a good Christian life with the knowledge they have been given. It might have been helpful to discuss the evolution of the word “cult”. An examination of history shows that the word “cult” shares an origin with other words like “culture” and “cultivate”. These words emerged from the Latin “cultus” which had a range of meanings like tilling, cultivation, training, education, and even worship. Given that English is a living language, the word “cult” has evolved through a series of different meanings. As noted in the video, the vernacular use of the word “cult” refers to a person or group that uses psychological, physical, emotional, and other forms of manipulation to control others. Within the Catholic Church, the word “cult” has positive, neutral, and negative connotations. As a positive example, the Catholic Church is comprised of six different liturgical rites, and within those rites, there are twenty-four particular Churches. The word “cult” denotes the followers of specific liturgical forms. All of these liturgical forms and churches are considered part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and are in communion with each other. It is perfectly acceptable for a Catholic Christian can attend any of these liturgical forms and/or churches. Another positive example is the “cult of the saints”. This practice goes back to the earliest days of the church when victims of persecution were commemorated and honored for their witness and fidelity to Jesus Christ. A neutral example can be found in the marriage law of the Catholic Church. A Catholic Christian is required to secure a dispensation if they desire to marry an unbaptized person. The dispensation is needed for what is called “disparity of cult,” which simply means they are not operating at the same level of worship. It is not intended as a derogatory word toward the unbaptized person. It’s simply an acknowledgment of the disparity in their worldviews and the complications associated with that type of marital union. It requires particular attention on the part of the couple and their pastor because the disparity requires even greater circumspection. A negative example can be found in moral theology. The Catholic Church requires its members to have respect for the life of the body but does not blindly make it an absolute value. It rejects the “cult of the body” which it regards as a neo-pagan notion that tends to idolize physical perfection and success at sports. By its selective preference of the strong over the weak, such a conception of human life often leads to the perversion of human relationships. Anyway, those are my thoughts and I hope to view more of your videos in the future.
I see Catholics saying that people just don't understand Catholicism. It seems to me like that's just how Catholics deal with the criticisms. No one "gets" it. I don't think that's entirely true. The more you understand, the more it seems wrong.
Absolutely brilliant dissection, and to see you do it all in one take without losing pace or suffering shortness of breath is astonishing- well done is all I can say good sir.
I'm a Seventh-Day Adventist. I just wanted to point out that we do believe in literal hell. We just believe hell happens after the judgement and is like Sodom and Gomorrah with eternal effects. The Bible says in Malachi 4 that the wicked will be ashes under the feet of the righteous. I've just discovered this channel and subscribed. I like how you present things and try to be neutral.
Hi. I've always been a bit confused about what you guys believe. Could you give me an explanation of your doctrine of 'investigative judgement' and what that actually means in practical terms?
@@jeyoungryou3585 Earlier this year Secrets Unsealed, a SDA ministry, held a symposium on this very subject with many speakers. While all the speakers are good Pastor Bohr is one of my favorite teachers within the SDA church. I'm posting a link to this summit and two other on different subject matter that are central to the doctrine of the SDA church. I encourage you to check out Secret Unsealed many video's. ruclips.net/p/PLIWJyuxBfZ7j7PgsPG6ISEE1jUVs8mWce ruclips.net/p/PLIWJyuxBfZ7j2ZmfBeMgnSTHpweV4Pf0n ruclips.net/p/PLIWJyuxBfZ7gaf0xBKeSpFs4KGndRI_8q
@@jeyoungryou3585 Hello, that is a wonderful question. This link should help. This is the churches 100% teaching and belief. Please let me know if you can see the link. Thank you for your time. God bless! 🤗 ruclips.net/video/_qObLoRXFsg/видео.html
The investigative judgement is sometimes also called the pre-Advent judgement. A good resource for information on this and other SDA beliefs is the ministry Amazing Facts with pastor Doug Batchelor.
@@ReadyToHarvest thanks! Yeah, that group is wild. Very litigious. Shincheonji is another Soutth Korean false religion that really needs to be dealt with more.
Yes, I want to make a video on Shincheonji also, but there's very little primary information, most things in English about them are from people not in the group.
@@oat5662 because messianic "jews" are not jewish-- they are christian. Their entire beliefs system and identification goes entirely against the definition of judaism in both a religious and ethnic sense, I say this as someone raised orthodox jewish. If it wasn't for their constant attempts to enter and affect jewish communities I wouldn't care (religious freedom baby, good stuff and definitely important for us jews), but it's an important distinction to make because of that behavior.
@@TweedleDeedleyDee You're ridiculous. Jesus was the messiah from Isaiah. Most or all of the earliest Christians were jews. For you to say they're not Jews while being part of the synagogue of Satan is disgusting.
As a Catholic I think I can add something that really defines if a strong religious leadership system (like the one we have) is a cult or not. And i'm going to do in the most Catholic way I can, a story. So, one time at mass the Deacon was going to give a homily, and was about to give a reading and said the wrong prayer before it. We replied and he just laughed at himself "wait that's not right". He called himself out, and showed, he was wrong. Clearly not a cult leader, a cult leader would most likely try to say everyone heard him wrong or something else. Or with the Pope's last letter about TLM masses (a very VERY touchy subject within Catholicism), there is mass outcry and most Catholic social media groups are either in flame wars over this, or are out right commending what was done. That's the thing, that's why the Pope is not a cult leader. We are allowed to, without fear, disagree with him. Sure there are rare times when you really can't, but nothing really culty. The Pope can still be blamed. I think that is a key word many folks forget when trying to say what is or is not a cult. Blame. Can you blame the leader? If no, the chances of something being a cult sky rocket, it might not be a cult per say. But you better check around and see if their is any kool aid.
This is a nice video, pretty comprehensive. I'm mormon, so I've been called a cult member before, and I think it's important to look at doctrinal differences in a logical and sober manner so that we don't fall into dogged tribalism. Afterall, it's critical to remember the two great commandments to love God and love thy neighbor when trying to define who is Christian--or better yet who is a part of the kingdom of God in general. (As there are many great and Christ-like people who abide by the teachings of Jesus, without themselves being Christians, Ghandi is one example that comes to mind. The old testament Jews also apply as they couldn't be Christians since Christ had not yet come, but are still firmly in the Kingdom of God.)
Dude, Mormonism fits almost every definition of a sociological and heretical cult that he listed in the video. Also Ghandi was suuuper racist and pro South African apartheid.
@@isaacselway3449 Haven't that about Ghandi before, doesn't detract from the good he did though, plus it's just an example. And no, Mormonism is a theological movement, not an organization, and therefore cannot be an oppressive organization. As for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, (the predominate Mormon sect) I think the state of Utah would disagree with you. You know there's more Mormons than Jews, right? And that they contribute billions in humanitarian aid? Or that on average Mormons are smarter, healthier, and live over 8-11 years longer than the general population? Very sketchy indeed. as for accusations of heresy, here's a nice video showing how just about all of our doctrines existed in the early church, and that we've merely restored them, just like we've claimed to: ruclips.net/video/7rV6gUipBu0/видео.html
As a Lutheran pastor I'm confused by the statement on Lutherans believing baptism to be necessary for salvation. Lutherans believe that baptism is a means of Grace. However, Luther taught that it is not the lack of the sacraments which will condemn but, rather, contempt for the sacraments. That baptism is not necessary for salvation is explicitly mentioned in official statements by the LCMS, WELS and ELCA.
Member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints here! I would recommend searching RUclips for “is the Latter-day Saint religion a Cult saints unscripted”. It’s a good watch!
As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints - the logic and fairness used in untangling the term cult in this video was refreshing to hear. As we lack the conclusive evidence to put an end to this cult calling game, I think we need to have love and patience as we wait for the One to divide the sheep from the goats. When He with total authority can end the matter once and for all. I think he can judge a person, mind, body, and heart to go to the left or the right side.
@@dewilew2137 I'm curious; what do you know about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? I have many times heard people talk about my religion very inaccurately, so I can readily caution people about giving too much credence to the gossip. Have you ever visited a worship service with us, or do you have any other firsthand experience?
I've watched a number of your videos and I have to say 'wow' - very informative, straight up information that isn't colored one way or the other. Something you don't expect from a religious person describing Churches and belief sets. As an atheist I do have a fascination with religious thinking and the varieties of 'truth' as believed by various religions. It's hard to keep track but you and Bart D. Ehrman are pretty good at providing straight up knowledgable information. Thanks.
As an anthropologist, (not the kind that studies cults specifically tho) I would say that a cult isn't really about things being taught as much as how the people are treated. The Luz del Mundo church teaches weird stuff that no other Christians believe but so do LDS Christians. But with Luz del Mundo, there's rampant sexual abuse , behavior control and social isolation. I would say this constitutes a cult. LDS, as far as I am aware, does not have these features so I dont think it is. I would strongly disagree with the idea that the Nation of Islam is a cult tho. My Muslim homies dont see them that way
There are a lot of social control elements to the LDS church that give it a cultish feel, but I think to label mainstream Mormonism as a cult is wrong (there are legitimate cults within Mormonism, however, such as the FLDS). The Nation of Islam, however, is absolutely a cult. I’m surprised that your Muslim friends would say it isn’t, given the fact that its doctrine is so incredibly different from actual islam (which doesn’t necessarily make it a cult, but they’re about as far from Muslims as Scientologists are to Christians). Furthermore, their founder believed himself to be a prophet, and fostered a cult of personality around himself, which has continued with later leaders of the sect. Add on the fact that the Southern Poverty Law Center labels them as a hate group, and I think it’s fair to say that at best they’re cult-like and at worst a full blown cult.
Sooo. As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I belong to a Heretical Sect instead of a Cult. Cool 😎. Thanks for information. Seriously, it was interesting information. Keep up the good work.
As an otherwise nonsecterian Mere Christian, I agree with your assessment. Mormons are my favourite heretics, but you're obviously christians, unlike Muslims, who are Christian believers, but deny the salvific factors of our shared faiths. I also don't see our differences as something that need get in the way of mission and charity; we can live together despite competing.
"Mormons" or rather members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints don't merely claim to be Christians. The Church's claim is that it is the same organization that Christ established before his death and resurrection. The Church makes the claim to the same priesthood keys and authorization Christ gave to the Apostles. The Church also believes that authority was lost when the Apostles were killed and thus lost and thus had to be restored. 2 Thessalonians 2:3. I would also note, that the Church does not say a person who is not a member of the Church but claims to be a Christian isn't a Christian. To a member of the Church, to say that of a person who believes in Christ but who isn't a member would seem Pharisaic or rather...rude. However, the Church does deny that any other church has the priesthood authority of Jesus Christ/Heavenly Father.
I'm starting to feel a bit contentious. Maybe we should start asserting that those who are not part of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are 'non-christian cultists'.
The changing of the connotation of the word cult makes things difficult. As mentioned in the video, cult was just another word for religion. This also happened with the word ‘propaganda’. It used to be a neutral word that described the attempt to propagate ones beliefs; ads, apologetics, and even education would all fall under this definition. Unfortunately, propaganda developed a negative connotation, so now good/moral propaganda becomes a contradiction and confuses the issue. Cult in the popular vernacular just means a religion/theological interpretation I don’t particularly like.
Well done young man I wish I could subscribe to your channel twice, I hope I live long enough to see you when you become my age, and that's meaning a lot coming from me, as one that had no other choice but to leave all of these so-called churches and I've tried them all and listen to all of their Doctrine and theology, I am commanded by the scriptures to withdraw myself from these denominations, but I would really love to sit down at a home fellowship with you and encourage each other in the fullness of the scriptures of God, let no one despise you in this calling you have in the Lord little brother.
I have no theological background or consider myself religious. But I am interested to hear your take on the historical perspective: whether these standards can be applied to the historical movements that are connected with Christianity, like Gnosticism or “heresies” like Arianism.
I would apply them the same way, though knowing whether some of those historical "heretical sects" were also sociological cults could be difficult, because of limited historical information, and because in many cases the only records we have are from the opponents of those positions who would have an interest in painting their opponents as poorly as possible.
Everyone who just commented on the most recent video of this channel about non-trinitarian groups to the effect of “how many cults can you name” should give this oldie another watch.
Most often, what I see from people is simply "I'm the good one because I say I am and you're the bad one because I say you are". When pressed for clarity on why they often give contradictory if not outright irrational claims and become hostile rather than open to discussing in greater detail. We should, I think, be far more concerned with sociological cults than with labeling each other theological cults as the latter serves to blur and almost protect the former.
Unfortunately, the use of the term "cult" is used similarly to how the term "racist" is used these days. Basically meaning a person or group who disagrees with you. It completely disregards the actual definition of the word.
and i feel like the watering down of which has made it so cult members and people holding extreme or "cultish" views in general have even less of a chance of questioning those views and getting out of their situation when they are rightfully called out for being in a cult/cult-like group. this is why the word cult needs to be better defined in the broader population.
@@abaddon2148 So does the term racist. Real racists rejoice as they can hide in a crowd. We all know what a cult is...over the last 40 years we've had plenty of examples. Trying to attribute the term to sects we don't agree with is incorrect, insulting, not based on any authority to expand the term. Let's just stick to using the term for Jim Jones and Waco.
Correct. I've heard many different religions called cults. From the ones that stand outside the mainstream; Mormons - JWs .....to even nominal christian congregations. And of course, I've seen many call 12 step groups like AA & NA cults. For these people cults simply means a group they are not a part of that has its own teachings, meetings & verbiage.
You can use the BITE model to determine if any organization, group, club, or gathering of people is a cult. The bite model measure control of behavior, information, thought, and emotion. There are definitely christian sects that strongly fill in on all 4 of those characteristics and there are sects that hardly fit the bill at all. Having one in each category doesnt necessarily mean one is in a cult. But having all of them definitely does.
A question anyone calling other group a cult should be able to answer where they get the authority to define what is a cult. If you say that a church denies a fundamental belief about Christianity, you must be able to show that your church has some authority to define what is and isn't fundamental.
I'm a part of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. (Mormon) And that always seems to be the pons asinorum of the allegations. Especially, as this video mentioned, even mainstream Christian sects like Catholics and Protestants call each other cults often. There has to be some authority on the question in the first place.
@@KnuttyEntertainment That authority is found only in the word of God and no other books that claim to have been inspired. The Bible says in several places not to "add to His words" yet that is exactly what all false religions that claim to be Christian do, almost without exception. The Bible is crystal clear on who the Lord Jesus Christ is, but the Mormon church denies He was literally God in human form and equal to the Father and the Holy Spirit in every way. You use other books that you claim are equal to the word of God and treat them as though they were inspired and they are not inspired. Mormon doctrine differs greatly from Biblical doctrines and adds books that were not inspired from God. To reject the deity of Jesus Christ is make certain you will spend eternity in hell in eternal torment. Salvation is made possible only because God Himself became a man in the person of Jesus Christ and died on the cross as our atoning sacrifice. Salvation was so great a task that no ordinary man could have performed it so God had to take it upon Himself to do it. I know you don't believe a word I just typed, but your eternal destination is at stake. I don't say these things just for the sake of argument, but because I do believe in eternal punishment separated from God for eternity. I want nobody to go there, including you. The scriptures, by that I mean the Bible, are the ONLY inspired words of God. No other book on this planet has any claim to be inspired of God, NONE. The Bible is crystal clear on Who Jesus Christ is and that He alone did the work for the salvation of man. It is through our believing in simple, child like faith that we are forgiven our sins and gain eternal life as a free, unmerited gift by grace. No human merit plays any part in salvation whatsoever according to many plain passages such as Titus 3:5,6, and Ephesians 2:8,9 and many others. You get salvation only through Christ, but the Person of Christ as deity, God in the flesh, is equally important to What He did on the cross by shedding His sinless blood as the "unblemished Lamb of God" who sacrificed Himself for the sins of all humanity. Faith alone in that fact is the only thing that will save a person.
@@randyd9805 Indeed, there is authority in the word of God. (There is also priesthood authority, but most christians think that has died out and hasn't been restored.) But who has authority to say what is and isn't the word of God, and whether those books really are inspired or not? We are not adding to his words, they are the same words, and the same teachings, simply different people. If that's not allowed then you might just say that every sermon that wasn't a verbatim reading of the bible is "adding to his words." I certainly wouldn't say that C.S. Lewis's insights that have brought millions closer to God and better understand his teachings is heresy. The book of mormon is "another" witness of Jesus Christ, says so in the title. It's corroborating, not retconning. That's like saying that providing eye witness testimony in addition to security camera footage is the same as editing the footage. Afterall, Jesus has sheep that are "not of this fold." So they should have records of his teachings to them too. Do you think that everyone except for the few people in the middle east were excluded from hearing Jesus's words and enjoying his blessings? And we don't reject Jesus's divinity. That's just silly. Don't know where you heard that. Here are videos showing how our doctrines are compatible with the early church: ruclips.net/video/7rV6gUipBu0/видео.html ruclips.net/video/NLxNqnP7j7M/видео.html
@@KnuttyEntertainment Your own statement, "But who has authority to say what is and isn't the word of God, and whether those books really are inspired or not?" The answer to that statement is in the Bible itself REPEATEDLY. I don't have to force any strange interpretation on what it says about itself either. Honestly, I seriously doubt anything I can say to you will make any headway. I'm not trying to convert you to any specific denomination so I have nothing to gain. Christianity revolves around not only what the Lord Jesus Christ did on the cross, but WHO He is. Reject the deity of Jesus Christ and you absolutely beyond any shadow of a doubt will spend eternity in hell and yes, I believe in a literal hell with literal fire with a literal torment for a literal forever. God, Who became a man through the miraculous birth of Jesus Christ, died on the cross to pay your sin debt that you can never pay. He paid a debt He did not owe for us sinners who owe a debt we cannot pay. " For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin (the Lord Jesus Christ); that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." Corinthians 5:21All religions of any kind that place human merit into their theology for salvation are cults. All religions who deny the deity of Jesus Christ are cults. All religions that say there are other inspired books other than the Bible are cults. I know you don't like it, but your eternal destination depends on what you believe about the Bible and about Jesus Christ.
@@randyd9805 First off, I agree with everything you've said about Jesus. We in no way deny the divinity of Christ. I have no idea where you're getting that from. We're on the same page here as far as that is concerned. as for the bible being the only inspired book. What about the Torah, or the inspired books that existed before the bible and new testament existed. Was the Pentateuch not inspired because it didn't have the words "Old Testament of the Bible" printed on the cover. Were the scriptures Jesus himself quoted not scripture because they were not yet compiled into the bible. What about the scriptures that were included in ancient Jewish scriptures, but were lost and couldn't be included in the bible. Here's a fun activity. Open your own bible, go to the bible dictionary, and go to the 'lost books' section. Many Christians look to the apocrypha and the dead sea scrolls for wisdom. Are they not worthy simply because they weren't discovered until after the bible was widespread? The Sadducees said that the Pentateuch was the only inspired book, whereas the Pharisees used the whole old testament. Jews today say that revelation ended with old testament. Christians say it ended with the new testament. Muslims say it ended with Mohammed, and only accept parts of the new testament. Where in this 6,000 year timeline--full of large gaps--does revelation end, and why? It's not after Jesus died, the old testament came after that. When the prophets died? Well that can't be it because there have other large spans of time when prophetic authority had been lost, only to return. Why is the new testament dispensation the last dispensation? Why wasn't Moses's dispensation the last one. Prophetic authority was lost not too long after his death too. It was certainly lost in the time between the old and new testament, when Jesus had to come and restore it. Why can't it be restored again now? I believe God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He has always spoken his will through prophets who clarify the words of scripture for the special situation of the people at that time and place. Otherwise, the scriptures will get corrupted and lose meaning over time as we get farther away from the original context. Why would he stop now? Why should we be exempt from the blessings and miracles that were available in old and new testament times. God is no respecter of persons. (Romans 2:11) All of God's children get the opportunity to partake of his glory equally. But just because I wasn't born 2,000 years ago, I can't get those blessings, I can't receive personal revelation and clarification when I stumble? You know a lot of scripture is just then current prophets giving their commentary on older scripture. Their commentary wasn't considered scripture at the time they first said it. They were teaching scripture, not writing it. And yet time and time again you see this pattern in the old and new testament where the sermons of today become the scripture of tomorrow. Why does that pattern abruptly stop? Why does the buck end with the bible? Last time I checked, the word bible doesn't actually appear in the bible. Jesus never says the bible is divinely inspired, because the bible wasn't created until long after he died, resurrected and ascended to heaven. He only ever says things like "my words," or, "the word of God." The bible is just a record of the teachings of old prophets. Who's to say that new prophets can't teach the same doctrines, and then the teachings of those prophets be considered as scripture. Who has the authority to canonize? Because the bible wasn't canonized by anyone with the priesthood, because all those people were dead before the bible was compiled. And if you're not catholic, then you probably don't think the pope has the authority to canonize scripture either. So who has the authority to say what can and cannot be excluded. If the bible is the only authority, then how's this: It says "do not add to His words" in Proverbs 30:6 so everything after the book of proverbs is adding to His words and is therefore not scripture. Say goodbye to the whole New Testament then. The book of mormon is true, there is plenty of evidence for this.
I have always considered the Reformed Church in the US to be a cult (not to be confused with the Reformed Church in America). They fit everything defined at 15:00, except instead of strong leadership I'd say dictatorial leadership. That church seeks to control everything in your life, including how you vote, how men wear their hair, what lifestyle you live, husband is to force the wife to attend church even if she doesn't want to, etc. Do anything they don't like and you are threatened with discipline or erasure. However, when I tried to leave, they wouldn't let me go either. You only leave when they say you can leave and was harassed. I actually thought I was going to have to claim some kind of sexual affair, then they would have kicked me out immediately. The RCUS is a true cult.
Found your channel, and I was extremely interested in many of these videos for the substance: your precise and yet concise classification and histories of various Protestant groups was something I, being a traditional Catholic with limited detailed knowledge of the later schisms and regroupings after the original ruptures in 16th Century, benefitted from. I know about Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and I know the evangelical/mainline distinction, but didn’t know where all these modern groups came from and how they related to one another. Thanks for piecing it together. Also like your neutral presentation style...which you in another video candidly admit is not ultimately “right” but is a helpful first step. You have to know what it is before you can make a judgment about it. Dare I say it is a Scholastic approach? I suppose Aquinas himself would be impressed by your methodology, especially in this medium, although he would then set about systematically breaking down your own beliefs, which you covered in another video. This video, too, was great. I think it could be made better (although even longer) by also explaining the neutral usage of “cult”: cultus, culture. A common cult...in this benign usage...is necessary for a common culture. And still in proper and technical Catholic usage, “cult,” means something different...not sociological at all. You would probably find the movements and changes in the Catholic Church beginning in the late 19th century, and especially after 1958 fascinating. If you can cover the nuances of Eastern/Oriental Orthodox history with such alacrity, treating the modernist and traditionalist battles within the Catholic Church would be a cinch for you.
This discussion is made more difficult by even older uses of the term. In the Ancient World, or when discussing it, cult can just mean a religion. In Catholicism, “cult” is used in a positive manner when referring to devotion to a saint or, more commonly, someone who might be recognized as a saint in the future. Though, to avoid confusion, we often use the Latin “cultus” instead.
The Problem I have with the BITE model is the fact that any Repentant Christian will Control their own behavior, Thoughts, and Emotions. Used incorrectly, the Bite Model can categorize ALL Christians as Cultists. This is the danger with worldly practices. Understanding that it should be applied to organizations, the Bite model CAN make sense, though shouldn’t ALL Churches (Heretics or not) attempt to assist their congregates in controlling Sinful behaviors?
There is so much arrogance within our ranks. So many lack humility that we should have in our beliefs. I like how this channel objectively researches and describes various aspects of Christian beliefs. But I’m still waiting on a video on the denomination of which I am a member- the Missionary Church :)
Seventh day adventist believe in a literal hell but it doesn't exist yet until all is fulfilled in prophecy and God creates hell for the devil and his angels and those who are lost. Also they believe hell is not eternal.
I'm independent catholic. I thought I would share our most common position: There are no fundamental doctrines of the faith because there are no issues on which christians cannot disagree in good faith, though some disagree in bad faith. A christian is defined as part of a historical christian community engaging in christian orthopraxy. Anybody who would accept protestants as christians (and some independent catholics don't) would probably have no problems with mormons. Some more liberal independent catholics even accept Christian Atheists (God doesn't exist but Jesus was a cool dude) as real christians.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is a Christian church. Not merely because its members claim to be Christian, but because its doctrine teaches that Christ was the messiah and holds his actions as depicted in the New Testament as exemplary and necessary for exaltation. And it fits all five of the fundamentals you laid out. It’s a shortcoming to limit its Christianity categorization to the desires of its members to be categorized as such.
Mr Smythe, LDS are not monotheistic, per LDS, God of the Bible is only one of many gods. True blue Mormons can become gods of their own planet. Jesus is the physical son of God the father and Mary. Satan and Jesus are half brothers. Joe Smith was a polygamist, over 30 wives, against clear teachings in the NT. I’ve seen videos showing that Mormons on their 2 yr mission show clear cult like (per Steve Hassan method) behavior. Not so much for other Mormons.
I like the idea of reserving "cult" for the most abusive and controlling groups. Heretical sect is probably the most appropriate term for most groups that are not nearly as abusive but are simply out side what many consider "orthodox" beliefs. In many cases, theological "cults" (heretical sects) are just the infancy stage of a new religion. That's how I view the LDS and similar groups. How LDS uses the term "Christian" and how other groups use the term are (mostly) mutually exclusive. Yes, some liberal groups would lump LDS in as Christians but the LDS would, in turn, reject them as Christians - since LDS (at least officially) only see Mormons as true Christians and everyone else as apostate (unless a recent Prophet has updated something since I last attended).
11:05 The Seventh-Day Adventists don't deny a literal Hell, we deny that sinner's will live forever. The fire is eternal, but the sinful are not. We believe they will surely die. For our God is a consuming fire.
The BITE model gets criticism because almost ANY group you could align yourself with (political, clubs, churches, alcoholics anonymous) fit the model. It's overly generic and is used more a weapon against less favorable faiths than it is as a genuine tool to help people.
I would use cult to mean any group that purposely errs from the core principles of an original doctrine. This would mean they are or have transmuted into a doppelganger of the original. I think that 1. in many cults being FORCED into being physically separate from society to continue is the point that you make this leader your god or direct conduit. That leader would then become your god or religious king(even if [s]he doesn't say so), because [s]he then controls you like a mother/father figure would a small chjId. And, 2. to be honest, sometimes, it manifests itself as a leader that does something or makes decrees atypical of the faith, like disrespect of holy items or places, openly claims or acts as if (s)he can do anything (s)he wants, causes the people to err, rebels openly, orders the punishment of individuals, etc.
Thank you so much for your wonderful channel. All your research and hard work, to share, help, educate, discern, etc. My partner and I love watching your videos together. When I saw that this video only had 22k views, I was honestly baffled. I hope you get more exposure, friend. Thank you.
After watching your video I am convenienced ferther into thinking NO one knows what a cult is. Defentions are so many & diverse they seem to me nothing more than opinions, likes or dislikes, what's comfortable or not personally, and based such differing base lines it is impossible to be sure for one's self. Obviously there clear groups that could have some kind of label like Jime Jones, David Korish etc.
I tend to agree that Catholicism shouldn't be classified as the same religion as Protestant denominations. Of course denying Catholicism represents Christianity, but Protestantism does, requires claiming that Christianity began five hundred years ago rather than two thousand years ago.
IMHO: Joshua, methinks this was a tough topic for you to take on. "Cult" is a word in the English language, a word with no Biblical word for it that I know of. So shud we confine ourselves to the OED definition(s) or Merriam-Webster? Do we indeed need a general word for groups which claim to be Christian, but their doctrine is such indicate the person who believes it, is not a begotten-again (GENN-) Christian, not regenerate, not saved, never having been transformed, & not having eternal life -- then we add to that 1) believing that the Bible means only what the leadership says it means; 2) everyone in the group must adhere to a long list of beliefs (little room for doctrinal disagreement) which are uncommon beliefs of professed Christians (like one may not get a blood transfusion). Also, aside from 1 & 2, a group where the leadership exercises strict control over the personal lives of its members, qualifies for inclusion in the descriptive word (e.g. cult). Was my Bible College a cult for its rules on students? Like no beards; can't get engaged or married without their permission.
Lifelong Catholic here, and I've never heard of Marian Horvat before. "No one who dissents from the Roman Catholic Church can be a Christian." Wow, she sound like a real. . . um, insert your favorite vulgar term there. People such as her are the reason why something so simple as reunification of the Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican Churches will not happen.
I find it slightly easier to put everything into two groups. High vs low demand religions. If we’re talking in broad strokes, that distinction is a better starting point as cult vs religion.
The simple definition of a cult that separates itself from a method of slander (ie labeling SBC, KJV only Baptists, A of G): When most Christian churches are centered on the teachings of Jesus Christ (the only infallible human who ever lived - though also divine) a cult (although may call themselves "Christian") are centered on a mortal person or committee who are never to be questioned or disagreed with - for such idolatrous group elevates such leaders to that of god
In China, the word that translates to cult is used specifically used for religions that causes disruption to society. From what I have heard, following such a cult, whether or not you personally disrupt society, is by itself illegal. We use a different word of groups like Mormons and JW. I'm not sure if these groups are legal there because the church is China is tightly controlled.
I personally use "cult" only in the context of the sociological definition of cult and, yes, churches that might otherwise be orthodox to whatever denomination they're a part of, can still be a cult because of it. The usefulness of the term is to discuss abusive, manipulative, and controlling practices of an institution (or movement). I'd recommend that those Christians who think the doctrinal beliefs of other self-professed Christians to be errant to the point of wanting to exclude them from their own boundaries of Christendom use the term "heretic" or "heterodox", because that points to the dividing line of theological difference that would exclude that group from their own in-group.
I personally believe that a Christian based cult/heretical sect usually involves dismantling the trinity in some way. The trinity is the core principle of orthodoxy, and what sets the Christian faith apart from the world. imho
@@joshpotter9261 as we all know, the jews sure did love jesus! John 5:17: But He answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working.” For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God. Matthew 28:18-20 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
@@lol-st7561 Lets unpack, that shall we? The wording is pointing to the Jews' viewpoint of what Jesus was saying. If Jesus were actually publishing that he were equal to God, then how do you explain John 5:19 where he says that the Son cannot do anything of his own initiative except for what he sees the Father doing (or what the Father allows, or is in accord with the will of the Father)? Furthermore Jesus continues at John 14:28 The Father is greater than I. Nowhere does Jesus himself declare himself to be God or in an equal position. You're misapplying John 5:18 as Jesus did observe the Sabbath, yet the Jews were claiming that he didn't, Jesus was saying that he was God's Son, the Jews were trying to misconstrue his words saying that he claimed equality with God. It's all in the context.
The problem is who decides what is a heresy. “But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers” The trinity doctrine is not taught by the Apostles. Is that a heresy?
Yeah, my biggest problem with the "cult" moniker is that most of the definitions used apply equally well to early Christianity. If your definition can be used to describe Jesus, Peter, and Paul as cult leaders, your definition is probably bad.
Cults by biblical definition is that thing prioritized over or instead of Christ, which is “anti” Christ… which is one of the definitions of Satan, “against” /“instead of” Cults develop precepts and doctrines out of heresy, instead of the bibliocentric standard. Cults deviate from scriptural norm out of comfort zones, we see this replete as a theme in scripture Cults, currently operating with clout in America, although they are completely apostate: 1. Catholicism in any of its forms except Lutheranism which is, technically reformed Catholicism… many of the rites and rituals performed by Catholic tradition come straight out of historic paganism…. The veneration of Mary came from ancient Astroth or Queen of Heaven worship, along with Bâ-äl worship… which saw Zeus converted to Peter and Apollo converted to Paul… all in the name of adopting a defection that took place after a half dozen third century church elders were ejected from the actual real Christian church, they floated over to aid and abet Constantine II Who wanted to introduce heresies into Christianity, which is where the Nicene council came from in 325AD, to codify scripture so they would know where the counterfeits came later, that same year not to take one on the cheek - the Roman catholic church was established in 325 A.D., the only reason any flavor of Christianity got into it, are those ejected church elders who defected. 2. Mormonism, is a cult, I have heard the lamest defenses for trying to inculcate it into the ranks of Christianity… which are utterly preposterous by the way - just because you blasphemously label it the Jesus Christ church of Latter Day Saints, does it mean Jesus has anything to do with it. 3. Scientology, probably the creepiest out of all of them, because you are required to give up everything to belong to it. Once you get out of cultism, the next downgrade from that is mysticism which is growing in America, sadly.
I think of the word cult to be a spectrum where any denomination could be considered to have some degree of beliefs or practices that stand in the way of or stand beside acceptable Christian practices and beliefs.
Cult is when they take away your free will and discourage rational discernment. It is narrow minded, assume they are the most supreme. It’s controlling and usually has pressure to recruit.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to label them all as cults. The age, and public acceptance of fundamentally damaging practices and beliefs shouldn't be grounds for exclusion from a category into which one meets the criteria.
When asking yourself, "Am I in a cult?" the first thing to ask yourself is, "Does the leadership of my group, or my group has a whole, seek to awaken the Great Old Ones from their ancient slumber, causing the earth to flame with a holocaust of ecstacy and freedom, where men will learn new ways to shout and kill and enjoy themselves?" If yes, you're in a cult.
😂😂😂😂😂
That is a good starting point.
Cthulu would approve if you ever managed to register on his consciousness
As a Roman Catholic, I never liked labeling other mainstream Christian groups as cults. I firmly believe they’re theologically incorrect, some more so than others, and it’s okay to just I say “I believe this group is theologically wrong.” But the term cult should really be reserved for exploitive and manipulative groups that work to entrap and control. The word should be reserved for those groups that pose a clear threat to their members.
i agree, and tend to use the word "heterodox" for those whom I think mistaken on matters of Theology.
Glory to Jesus Christ!
I’m a very staunch LCMS Lutheran and it always befuddled me when Catholics calls it a cult. I have many Catholic friends and have attended Catholic masses before and I can confidently say that we believe the vast majority of the same things and go about it the same as well. Unfortunately there are obviously a couple of sticking points that lead Catholics and Lutherans to be at each other’s throats and turn our attention away from the real enemies
There are different definitions for "cult" for Catholics. There is the "cult of Mary" in Catholicism. That only means veneration of Saint. That is different from cults like JWs or Mormons.
They are heretical sects, not necessarily cults.
I think the BITE model is a bit more succinct when defining what is a cult:
B - behavior control
I - Information control
T - thought control
E - emotion control
This is great! Can I use this model too?
I've been studying the Amish and, to my surprise at the time, they are a perfect fit for this standard.
Definitely Jehova's Witnesses then.
@@artix548 they do rumspringa though
Very good definition
Joshua, so much of what you say is a breath of fresh air. Too many people throw around the word “cult” simply to describe those with whom they have disagreements. But it’s SO much more than that.
I wish I could give this video to so many people I’ve met in my life. I’ve legit had people tell me a certain denomination is a cult because they use a guitar in worship. That was it, the entire belief system was the same except for the use of a guitar. There is so much conversation that can happen between people if you’re willing to look at things the way you’ve laid them out in the video.
Gee. If using a guitar makes a cult, then my Catholic parish would have come under that category because our former choir had a guitarist in it, along with the organist, and I played mandolin in it for awhile. The presence of musical instruments does NOT signify a cult! A lot of mainstream churches would qualify for the cult label, if that was the only criteria used.
The problem is that the term cult can get a variety of definitions.. To me by now, it is actually a term used to disparage.Often a loaded term... And loading the language is typically. There is however things to look out for, when dealing with a a group. And that's control by leadership or group, and well leadership looking to obtain wealth on the groups expense. To some degree that is the case with virtually all the Churches. It wasn't the case with the ecclesia in the New Testament, although there were some problems with some ecclesias as well as Paul pointed out several times.
How about calling the "people" who told you that as a cult?
@@jrnfw4060 Tbf the Orthodox Catholic Church doesn't allow instruments and its been that way for almost 2000 years now.
As someone who was legit raised in an ACTUAL cult by ANY of the definitions given in this video, I also say that the BITE Model is a wonderful tool for figuring out what is a cult and what isn’t a cult.
Or the C Model. C - Control
@@danielmaher964what counts as “control”? Nearly every example you give can be countered by a very similar example in a mainstream denomination
@@Michael-bk5nz I didn't give any examples
@@danielmaher964 you didn’t but I have had this conversation many times before my point is that it is very difficult to draw a distinction legitimate and abusive means on control, the same with parents, what is the difference between abusive controlling parents and non abusive ones? It is very difficult to define
@Michael-bk5nz I was not clear, I thought you were reacting to OP, not me. I was suggesting through my ad aburdum comment that a definition of cult which can be reduced merely to control is an insufficient definition.
My home church was Pentecostal. Great place - full of love and miracles. Then suddenly the pastor announced she was the reincarnation of Jeremiah and none of us would get to Heaven except on good report from her. The love was gone - the miracles ceased. Most of the church officers left. I hung on - hoping she'd snap out of it. But she only got worse - turning paranoid and suggesting we bring guns to service so to protect her from the community. That's when I left. So I got a glimpse of how a ministry becomes a cult.
@@Godissogoodallthetime And I think it's best that they're male. But churches follow the lead of the world.
The fact that your "pastor" was a woman was the first red flag.
Pentecostalism is ripe for it.
@@brianrich7828 It's indeed imperfect and could use some revision. Meanwhile I hope you're speaking from experience and not ignorance. And where else are you going to go to get healed or delivered?
@@SelectCircle healed? A hospital. Delivered? A hospital.
Healed spiritually? From the Bible.
Delivered? By faith alone through grace alone in Jesus Christ the Lord and Savior.
Please keep up the good work. This is a chronically under-noticed channel and I hope that changes soon.
This is one of my favorite channels. I started watching before I came back to the Lord. Even as a non-believer, this stuff was fascinating, but now it is such a help in clarifying questions I have as a Christian. Thoroughly researched, and clearly presented; keep up the hard work.
Thank you! I am glad to hear the videos have been helpful to you.
Once I saw an ad on a bus listing the signs of an abusive relationship. It made me realise the leader of the cult I was in was doing all those things to someone but only one or two of them to anyone in particular. That's when I started calling him out.
I recently discovered and subscribed to this channel and have been watching each video as I have time. Thank you for providing non-biased clarity on the differing beliefs of the various religions.
You may want to include Steve Hassin's BITE model. Very helpful in determining a high contol organization.
This may not clear up what the video was saying about "Christian cults". Pentecostals (implicitly) ask their congregation to participate in 3+ church sponsored events a week. Baptists have something similar. Then there are fundamentalists that think that if you don't adhere to the Bible everyday, then you have no right calling yourself a Christian. All these would be part of high-demand groups... But would they be cults in practice. I don't think the BITE can be used when looking at denominational differences imo.
Steven Hassan is highly criticized by his peers. he has no credentials in the field of Cults and has never been recognized as a court ordered expert. Please read the following link which is a critical look at his book by an expert in the field
cultnews.com/2012/08/third-installment-of-steven-hassans-trilogy-adds-little-understanding/
Not particularly no.
His application of what it means to control behavior is far too broad.
@@marcopollo366 yes we shouldn't mistake honest devotion for cultism.
@marcopollo366 oh it definitely can be used. Important to understand that even individual congregations can vary on their bite model analysis.
It is all about how groups control members. That group can be huge and geographically well spread out, or it can be a small group of 5 to 10 people even.
The bite model is about behaviors. So yeah denominations can be generally assessed with the understanding that each congregation could vary
11:09 Seventh-Day Adventists absolutely do NOT deny a literal hell. They just don't believe hell is eternal. They believe that the unrighteous will burn and be tormented in hell for a period of time but that the individual will eventually be burned up--not be tormented endlessly. Texts such as Revelation 14:11 where "forever and ever" is used is understood by SDAs to be hyperbolic language such as "I've been waiting forever and ever to get a pay raise."
The justification for a limited time in hell is based on texts such as Malachi 4:3 which refer to the wicked as becoming "ashes". SDAs believe that souls can only live eternally if they have salvation in Christ; a wicked person's soul is unable to live eternally based on texts such as Ezekiel 18:20 which indicates that the soul that sins shall die.
Daniel 12:2
[2]And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and EVERLASTING CONTEMPT
Matthew 25:45-46
45 Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’
46 And these will go away into ETERNAL PUNISHMENT, but the righteous into eternal life.
Revelation 20:10, 14-15
And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be TORMENTED DAY AND NIGHT FOREVER AND EVER. . . . Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
@@StephenJoshParreño Thanks for responding. "Everlasting contempt" and "eternal punishment" do not conflict with the idea of wicked people being ultimately burned up. A wicked person's fate is final, everlasting, and eternal since they made the decision to be lost. There is no second chance after death, so there is no conflict there to me.
I've addressed the language of "forever and ever"--Scripture sometimes uses that term to mean an indefinite long period of time. Exodus 21:6, for example, uses the word "forever," but it is does not mean an endless period of time in the very literal sense.
The Bible has verses that indicate the wicked will die and turn into ashes (Ezekiel 18:20, Malachi 4:3, etc), implying burning will not last literally forever, and but there are other verses that you and I both quoted that indicate that hell could potentially be forever in a literal sense. I have no issue with fellow Christians who hold to one view or the other as the text is open to being read either way. However, I do not believe a person's soul is immortal and that is the only way they can burn forever in the literal sense. I Timothy 6:16 says only God has immortality. A person who burns forever in the literal sense would mean he has eternal life too. Our Lord is clear that the wicked will be destroyed in hell in Matthew 10:28, so to me, this means there is an end of the burning at some point.
I take the position that the unrighteous will burn in hell for a long, extended period of time, but at some point during that burning, the wicked will be burned up and destroyed. It is the only possible way I've seen that we can reconcile all the verses that the Bible provides for us.
New to your videos, I am thankful I found someone giving unbiased information on other religions. As a member of the churches of Christ, I have heard that we are a cult. To myself: any group that adds or subtracts from "Bible only" and any group calling themselves christian but have a different version of Jesus Christ are cultish. Times have changed and we are not alone, that think it is our way or the highway, but those who fall under the above sentence - study for yourself and let God determine the rest. Do however beware of groups where human leaders (individuals or governing bodies) demand obedience to their teaching and not to God's word alone.
I'm a Christian also and have to laugh at the ignorance of anyone who calls the churches of Christ a cult. Unfortunately, I have to cry at those who worship at building labeled "YYY Church of Christ" who have devolved to think they are the only Christians. To think such is to forget the very basis of the Restoration Movement -- that is completely casting aside labels so that we place no barriers between restorationists and any who Jesus has called his own. We are not only unqualified to be judges, but explicitly commanded not to judge. One of my favorite writings of the restoration is en.wikisource.org/wiki/Last_Will_and_Testament_of_The_Springfield_Presbytery
The entire concept is to discard barriers among Christians. Building our own new ones is just stupid.
I'm not saying Christian cults and false teachers don't exist. They most certainly do. I just am wary of classifying doctrinal differences as disqualifying someone as a Christian. In most cases, making such pronouncements is beyond my paygrade.
...when it comes to being called "a Cult"... maybe one should just consider the source...the earliest Christians wore it as a badge of honor...
I want to thank you for another balanced and well-researched presentation. As a Catholic Christian, I have often been accused of being a member of a “cult”. Given that I live in the south this is no surprise because my Protestant brothers and sisters often learn half-truths and misconceptions about the Catholic Church. When someone badmouths the Catholic Church, my automatic assumption is that they are doing so in good faith based upon misinformation they received from someone they trusted. The indiscriminate use of the word “cult” has only cheapened the word and made a general slur against anyone having opposing beliefs. We see the same thing happening with the word “racist”.
As for the quote attributed to Mariam Horvat (timestamp 11:53) I would urge you and your viewers to dismiss her comments. She presumes to speak for the Catholic Church but the pure and simple fact is she has no authority to do so. She is obviously entitled to her fallible nonauthoritative opinion but that is all it is regardless of how many letters follow her name. I read the entire article where the quote was lifted and it is very clear to me that she has selectively pulled from Catholic teaching to make her assertion. She wants to label every Protestant as a “heretic”. The Catholic Church does not do that. That word is used for a very specific situation and does not apply to Protestants in general. In short, it applies to someone who is/was Catholic and obstinately denies or doubts a core doctrine of the Catholic Faith. For example, Martin Luther was referred to as a heretic, whereas modern-day Lutherans are not. If someone was born into the Lutheran faith they are not willfully denying or doubting the Catholic Faith because quite often they don’t know the Catholic Faith. The same would be true of a myriad of other Christians in various denominations that do not know or understand the Catholic Faith. They are operating in good faith and doing the best they can to live a good Christian life with the knowledge they have been given.
It might have been helpful to discuss the evolution of the word “cult”. An examination of history shows that the word “cult” shares an origin with other words like “culture” and “cultivate”. These words emerged from the Latin “cultus” which had a range of meanings like tilling, cultivation, training, education, and even worship. Given that English is a living language, the word “cult” has evolved through a series of different meanings. As noted in the video, the vernacular use of the word “cult” refers to a person or group that uses psychological, physical, emotional, and other forms of manipulation to control others.
Within the Catholic Church, the word “cult” has positive, neutral, and negative connotations.
As a positive example, the Catholic Church is comprised of six different liturgical rites, and within those rites, there are twenty-four particular Churches. The word “cult” denotes the followers of specific liturgical forms. All of these liturgical forms and churches are considered part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and are in communion with each other. It is perfectly acceptable for a Catholic Christian can attend any of these liturgical forms and/or churches.
Another positive example is the “cult of the saints”. This practice goes back to the earliest days of the church when victims of persecution were commemorated and honored for their witness and fidelity to Jesus Christ.
A neutral example can be found in the marriage law of the Catholic Church. A Catholic Christian is required to secure a dispensation if they desire to marry an unbaptized person. The dispensation is needed for what is called “disparity of cult,” which simply means they are not operating at the same level of worship. It is not intended as a derogatory word toward the unbaptized person. It’s simply an acknowledgment of the disparity in their worldviews and the complications associated with that type of marital union. It requires particular attention on the part of the couple and their pastor because the disparity requires even greater circumspection.
A negative example can be found in moral theology. The Catholic Church requires its members to have respect for the life of the body but does not blindly make it an absolute value. It rejects the “cult of the body” which it regards as a neo-pagan notion that tends to idolize physical perfection and success at sports. By its selective preference of the strong over the weak, such a conception of human life often leads to the perversion of human relationships.
Anyway, those are my thoughts and I hope to view more of your videos in the future.
I see Catholics saying that people just don't understand Catholicism. It seems to me like that's just how Catholics deal with the criticisms. No one "gets" it. I don't think that's entirely true. The more you understand, the more it seems wrong.
@@Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr Can you provide a specific example?
@@edwardlucas3575 Mary worship?
@@Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr Is it your understanding that Catholics worship Mary?
@@edwardlucas3575 My understanding is that Catholics say they do not worship Mary.
Absolutely brilliant dissection, and to see you do it all in one take without losing pace or suffering shortness of breath is astonishing- well done is all I can say good sir.
Thanks for the vid! I apreciate you being respectful to the different Christian types.
I'm a Seventh-Day Adventist. I just wanted to point out that we do believe in literal hell. We just believe hell happens after the judgement and is like Sodom and Gomorrah with eternal effects. The Bible says in Malachi 4 that the wicked will be ashes under the feet of the righteous.
I've just discovered this channel and subscribed. I like how you present things and try to be neutral.
Hi. I've always been a bit confused about what you guys believe. Could you give me an explanation of your doctrine of 'investigative judgement' and what that actually means in practical terms?
@@jeyoungryou3585 Earlier this year Secrets Unsealed, a SDA ministry, held a symposium on this very subject with many speakers. While all the speakers are good Pastor Bohr is one of my favorite teachers within the SDA church. I'm posting a link to this summit and two other on different subject matter that are central to the doctrine of the SDA church. I encourage you to check out Secret Unsealed many video's.
ruclips.net/p/PLIWJyuxBfZ7j7PgsPG6ISEE1jUVs8mWce
ruclips.net/p/PLIWJyuxBfZ7j2ZmfBeMgnSTHpweV4Pf0n
ruclips.net/p/PLIWJyuxBfZ7gaf0xBKeSpFs4KGndRI_8q
I think he means, that we believe in an ultimate annihilation of evil, sin and the devil. As opposed to a realm where people are constantly tortured.
@@jeyoungryou3585 Hello, that is a wonderful question. This link should help. This is the churches 100% teaching and belief. Please let me know if you can see the link. Thank you for your time. God bless! 🤗 ruclips.net/video/_qObLoRXFsg/видео.html
The investigative judgement is sometimes also called the pre-Advent judgement. A good resource for information on this and other SDA beliefs is the ministry Amazing Facts with pastor Doug Batchelor.
Good video. Thanks!
Thanks for dropping in and watching! Funny thing is, I was going to make a video years ago when I had
@@ReadyToHarvest thanks! Yeah, that group is wild. Very litigious.
Shincheonji is another Soutth Korean false religion that really needs to be dealt with more.
Yes, I want to make a video on Shincheonji also, but there's very little primary information, most things in English about them are from people not in the group.
@@ReadyToHarvestWhere would you put the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?
Your words scratch an itch, thank you!
Can u do a video on seventh day Adventist Calvinist and messianic Jews
I'd love to see a video on Messianic J*ws.
@@brooksdurham5285 why censor Jews?
@@oat5662 because messianic "jews" are not jewish-- they are christian. Their entire beliefs system and identification goes entirely against the definition of judaism in both a religious and ethnic sense, I say this as someone raised orthodox jewish.
If it wasn't for their constant attempts to enter and affect jewish communities I wouldn't care (religious freedom baby, good stuff and definitely important for us jews), but it's an important distinction to make because of that behavior.
There will be a video on SDA release near the end of December 2021.
@@TweedleDeedleyDee You're ridiculous. Jesus was the messiah from Isaiah. Most or all of the earliest Christians were jews. For you to say they're not Jews while being part of the synagogue of Satan is disgusting.
As a Catholic I think I can add something that really defines if a strong religious leadership system (like the one we have) is a cult or not. And i'm going to do in the most Catholic way I can, a story.
So, one time at mass the Deacon was going to give a homily, and was about to give a reading and said the wrong prayer before it. We replied and he just laughed at himself "wait that's not right". He called himself out, and showed, he was wrong. Clearly not a cult leader, a cult leader would most likely try to say everyone heard him wrong or something else.
Or with the Pope's last letter about TLM masses (a very VERY touchy subject within Catholicism), there is mass outcry and most Catholic social media groups are either in flame wars over this, or are out right commending what was done.
That's the thing, that's why the Pope is not a cult leader. We are allowed to, without fear, disagree with him. Sure there are rare times when you really can't, but nothing really culty. The Pope can still be blamed.
I think that is a key word many folks forget when trying to say what is or is not a cult. Blame. Can you blame the leader? If no, the chances of something being a cult sky rocket, it might not be a cult per say. But you better check around and see if their is any kool aid.
This is a nice video, pretty comprehensive. I'm mormon, so I've been called a cult member before, and I think it's important to look at doctrinal differences in a logical and sober manner so that we don't fall into dogged tribalism. Afterall, it's critical to remember the two great commandments to love God and love thy neighbor when trying to define who is Christian--or better yet who is a part of the kingdom of God in general. (As there are many great and Christ-like people who abide by the teachings of Jesus, without themselves being Christians, Ghandi is one example that comes to mind. The old testament Jews also apply as they couldn't be Christians since Christ had not yet come, but are still firmly in the Kingdom of God.)
Dude, Mormonism fits almost every definition of a sociological and heretical cult that he listed in the video. Also Ghandi was suuuper racist and pro South African apartheid.
@@isaacselway3449 Haven't that about Ghandi before, doesn't detract from the good he did though, plus it's just an example.
And no, Mormonism is a theological movement, not an organization, and therefore cannot be an oppressive organization. As for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, (the predominate Mormon sect) I think the state of Utah would disagree with you. You know there's more Mormons than Jews, right? And that they contribute billions in humanitarian aid? Or that on average Mormons are smarter, healthier, and live over 8-11 years longer than the general population? Very sketchy indeed.
as for accusations of heresy, here's a nice video showing how just about all of our doctrines existed in the early church, and that we've merely restored them, just like we've claimed to: ruclips.net/video/7rV6gUipBu0/видео.html
@@isaacselway3449 mormons are wrong, but i would not call them a cult
@@realpunkfruit Thank you.
If a group uses something outside of Bible to create your theology, then I would not consider that group Christian.
As a Lutheran pastor I'm confused by the statement on Lutherans believing baptism to be necessary for salvation. Lutherans believe that baptism is a means of Grace. However, Luther taught that it is not the lack of the sacraments which will condemn but, rather, contempt for the sacraments. That baptism is not necessary for salvation is explicitly mentioned in official statements by the LCMS, WELS and ELCA.
Well done, thoughtful and enlightening!
Bro. Joshua, you're a blessing to the body of Christ. 👍
Member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints here!
I would recommend searching RUclips for “is the Latter-day Saint religion a Cult saints unscripted”. It’s a good watch!
Amen.
Today, a cult is any group that is different from your group.....
As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints - the logic and fairness used in untangling the term cult in this video was refreshing to hear. As we lack the conclusive evidence to put an end to this cult calling game, I think we need to have love and patience as we wait for the One to divide the sheep from the goats. When He with total authority can end the matter once and for all. I think he can judge a person, mind, body, and heart to go to the left or the right side.
Honestly, from the perspective of a non-religious person, y’all are treading dangerously close. Not quite there, but close.
@@dewilew2137 fr
@@dewilew2137 I'm curious; what do you know about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? I have many times heard people talk about my religion very inaccurately, so I can readily caution people about giving too much credence to the gossip. Have you ever visited a worship service with us, or do you have any other firsthand experience?
@@michaelmcd8325 I'm curious about your experiences with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also.
@00Fisher00 It's a false church which teaches a complete false doctrine
The last line of this video is essential across several topics. Great job!
I've watched a number of your videos and I have to say 'wow' - very informative, straight up information that isn't colored one way or the other. Something you don't expect from a religious person describing Churches and belief sets. As an atheist I do have a fascination with religious thinking and the varieties of 'truth' as believed by various religions. It's hard to keep track but you and Bart D. Ehrman are pretty good at providing straight up knowledgable information. Thanks.
As an anthropologist, (not the kind that studies cults specifically tho) I would say that a cult isn't really about things being taught as much as how the people are treated. The Luz del Mundo church teaches weird stuff that no other Christians believe but so do LDS Christians. But with Luz del Mundo, there's rampant sexual abuse , behavior control and social isolation. I would say this constitutes a cult. LDS, as far as I am aware, does not have these features so I dont think it is.
I would strongly disagree with the idea that the Nation of Islam is a cult tho. My Muslim homies dont see them that way
There are a lot of social control elements to the LDS church that give it a cultish feel, but I think to label mainstream Mormonism as a cult is wrong (there are legitimate cults within Mormonism, however, such as the FLDS).
The Nation of Islam, however, is absolutely a cult. I’m surprised that your Muslim friends would say it isn’t, given the fact that its doctrine is so incredibly different from actual islam (which doesn’t necessarily make it a cult, but they’re about as far from Muslims as Scientologists are to Christians). Furthermore, their founder believed himself to be a prophet, and fostered a cult of personality around himself, which has continued with later leaders of the sect. Add on the fact that the Southern Poverty Law Center labels them as a hate group, and I think it’s fair to say that at best they’re cult-like and at worst a full blown cult.
Sooo. As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I belong to a Heretical Sect instead of a Cult. Cool 😎. Thanks for information. Seriously, it was interesting information. Keep up the good work.
As an otherwise nonsecterian Mere Christian, I agree with your assessment. Mormons are my favourite heretics, but you're obviously christians, unlike Muslims, who are Christian believers, but deny the salvific factors of our shared faiths.
I also don't see our differences as something that need get in the way of mission and charity; we can live together despite competing.
I mean... the founders are dead, not living, so by the end definition, apparently. I'd say that JWs are in the same boat.
I'm Catholic and we have cults of certain things. For example, a cult of service to the poor.
Technically speaking, and just asking now...
Couldn't the LDS be considered "Christian", and everyone be a "Heretical Sect"?
@@MichaelMoore99 but like most mainstream Christianity the head of our church is Jesus Christ. Our prophet is just his top representative.
"Mormons" or rather members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints don't merely claim to be Christians. The Church's claim is that it is the same organization that Christ established before his death and resurrection. The Church makes the claim to the same priesthood keys and authorization Christ gave to the Apostles. The Church also believes that authority was lost when the Apostles were killed and thus lost and thus had to be restored. 2 Thessalonians 2:3. I would also note, that the Church does not say a person who is not a member of the Church but claims to be a Christian isn't a Christian. To a member of the Church, to say that of a person who believes in Christ but who isn't a member would seem Pharisaic or rather...rude. However, the Church does deny that any other church has the priesthood authority of Jesus Christ/Heavenly Father.
Yep, just about covers it. Here's an interesting video on the topic: ruclips.net/video/7rV6gUipBu0/видео.html
@@KnuttyEntertainment Ya that is a good video...wish the audio was better. This guy does good work too. ruclips.net/channel/UCJgEls1xaRLC-np8xiwI1yA
I'm starting to feel a bit contentious. Maybe we should start asserting that those who are not part of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are 'non-christian cultists'.
@@GldnClaw indeed. But no sincere follower of Christ would do that, now would they ; )
The changing of the connotation of the word cult makes things difficult. As mentioned in the video, cult was just another word for religion. This also happened with the word ‘propaganda’. It used to be a neutral word that described the attempt to propagate ones beliefs; ads, apologetics, and even education would all fall under this definition. Unfortunately, propaganda developed a negative connotation, so now good/moral propaganda becomes a contradiction and confuses the issue. Cult in the popular vernacular just means a religion/theological interpretation I don’t particularly like.
A friend of mine is a lecturer in Religious Studies, and she said that the term 'cult' is not generally used in academia.
This is such a well put together video that really gives you a full appreciation for the subject. I hope so many more can see this!
Well done young man I wish I could subscribe to your channel twice, I hope I live long enough to see you when you become my age, and that's meaning a lot coming from me, as one that had no other choice but to leave all of these so-called churches and I've tried them all and listen to all of their Doctrine and theology, I am commanded by the scriptures to withdraw myself from these denominations, but I would really love to sit down at a home fellowship with you and encourage each other in the fullness of the scriptures of God, let no one despise you in this calling you have in the Lord little brother.
I have no theological background or consider myself religious. But I am interested to hear your take on the historical perspective: whether these standards can be applied to the historical movements that are connected with Christianity, like Gnosticism or “heresies” like Arianism.
I would apply them the same way, though knowing whether some of those historical "heretical sects" were also sociological cults could be difficult, because of limited historical information, and because in many cases the only records we have are from the opponents of those positions who would have an interest in painting their opponents as poorly as possible.
Journalists using any word carefully, that would be the day.
Very well done.
I thought that Seventh Day Adventists did believe in hell, but they just didn't believe that it was eternal.
Correct. But permanent and final.
You shall know them their fruits and Not just what they say, Love God, love of neighbors and self at last. Jesus Christ as Lord first Amen
I really enjoy your content! Keep up the great work mate! God bless!
Can you do a video on freewill Baptist vs independent Baptist?
Thank you so much for your time and work GOD BLESS YOU
Everyone who just commented on the most recent video of this channel about non-trinitarian groups to the effect of “how many cults can you name” should give this oldie another watch.
I like your channel! New subscriber
Most often, what I see from people is simply "I'm the good one because I say I am and you're the bad one because I say you are". When pressed for clarity on why they often give contradictory if not outright irrational claims and become hostile rather than open to discussing in greater detail.
We should, I think, be far more concerned with sociological cults than with labeling each other theological cults as the latter serves to blur and almost protect the former.
Unfortunately, the use of the term "cult" is used similarly to how the term "racist" is used these days. Basically meaning a person or group who disagrees with you. It completely disregards the actual definition of the word.
and i feel like the watering down of which has made it so cult members and people holding extreme or "cultish" views in general have even less of a chance of questioning those views and getting out of their situation when they are rightfully called out for being in a cult/cult-like group. this is why the word cult needs to be better defined in the broader population.
@@abaddon2148 So does the term racist. Real racists rejoice as they can hide in a crowd. We all know what a cult is...over the last 40 years we've had plenty of examples. Trying to attribute the term to sects we don't agree with is incorrect, insulting, not based on any authority to expand the term. Let's just stick to using the term for Jim Jones and Waco.
Correct.
I've heard many different religions called cults. From the ones that stand outside the mainstream; Mormons - JWs .....to even nominal christian congregations.
And of course, I've seen many call 12 step groups like AA & NA cults.
For these people cults simply means a group they are not a part of that has its own teachings, meetings & verbiage.
It's like "I don't like" your group so you're a "cult."
@@rconger384
That's exactly what it is.
Even nominal Christian churches are called cults by atheists
You can use the BITE model to determine if any organization, group, club, or gathering of people is a cult.
The bite model measure control of behavior, information, thought, and emotion.
There are definitely christian sects that strongly fill in on all 4 of those characteristics and there are sects that hardly fit the bill at all.
Having one in each category doesnt necessarily mean one is in a cult. But having all of them definitely does.
@bubbles581 sounds like something a cult leader or member would say
A cult is what the big congregation calls the little congregation.
A question anyone calling other group a cult should be able to answer where they get the authority to define what is a cult. If you say that a church denies a fundamental belief about Christianity, you must be able to show that your church has some authority to define what is and isn't fundamental.
I'm a part of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. (Mormon) And that always seems to be the pons asinorum of the allegations. Especially, as this video mentioned, even mainstream Christian sects like Catholics and Protestants call each other cults often. There has to be some authority on the question in the first place.
@@KnuttyEntertainment That authority is found only in the word of God and no other books that claim to have been inspired. The Bible says in several places not to "add to His words" yet that is exactly what all false religions that claim to be Christian do, almost without exception. The Bible is crystal clear on who the Lord Jesus Christ is, but the Mormon church denies He was literally God in human form and equal to the Father and the Holy Spirit in every way. You use other books that you claim are equal to the word of God and treat them as though they were inspired and they are not inspired. Mormon doctrine differs greatly from Biblical doctrines and adds books that were not inspired from God. To reject the deity of Jesus Christ is make certain you will spend eternity in hell in eternal torment. Salvation is made possible only because God Himself became a man in the person of Jesus Christ and died on the cross as our atoning sacrifice. Salvation was so great a task that no ordinary man could have performed it so God had to take it upon Himself to do it. I know you don't believe a word I just typed, but your eternal destination is at stake. I don't say these things just for the sake of argument, but because I do believe in eternal punishment separated from God for eternity. I want nobody to go there, including you.
The scriptures, by that I mean the Bible, are the ONLY inspired words of God. No other book on this planet has any claim to be inspired of God, NONE. The Bible is crystal clear on Who Jesus Christ is and that He alone did the work for the salvation of man. It is through our believing in simple, child like faith that we are forgiven our sins and gain eternal life as a free, unmerited gift by grace. No human merit plays any part in salvation whatsoever according to many plain passages such as Titus 3:5,6, and Ephesians 2:8,9 and many others. You get salvation only through Christ, but the Person of Christ as deity, God in the flesh, is equally important to What He did on the cross by shedding His sinless blood as the "unblemished Lamb of God" who sacrificed Himself for the sins of all humanity. Faith alone in that fact is the only thing that will save a person.
@@randyd9805 Indeed, there is authority in the word of God. (There is also priesthood authority, but most christians think that has died out and hasn't been restored.) But who has authority to say what is and isn't the word of God, and whether those books really are inspired or not?
We are not adding to his words, they are the same words, and the same teachings, simply different people. If that's not allowed then you might just say that every sermon that wasn't a verbatim reading of the bible is "adding to his words." I certainly wouldn't say that C.S. Lewis's insights that have brought millions closer to God and better understand his teachings is heresy. The book of mormon is "another" witness of Jesus Christ, says so in the title. It's corroborating, not retconning. That's like saying that providing eye witness testimony in addition to security camera footage is the same as editing the footage. Afterall, Jesus has sheep that are "not of this fold." So they should have records of his teachings to them too. Do you think that everyone except for the few people in the middle east were excluded from hearing Jesus's words and enjoying his blessings?
And we don't reject Jesus's divinity. That's just silly. Don't know where you heard that.
Here are videos showing how our doctrines are compatible with the early church:
ruclips.net/video/7rV6gUipBu0/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/NLxNqnP7j7M/видео.html
@@KnuttyEntertainment Your own statement, "But who has authority to say what is and isn't the word of God, and whether those books really are inspired or not?" The answer to that statement is in the Bible itself REPEATEDLY. I don't have to force any strange interpretation on what it says about itself either. Honestly, I seriously doubt anything I can say to you will make any headway. I'm not trying to convert you to any specific denomination so I have nothing to gain. Christianity revolves around not only what the Lord Jesus Christ did on the cross, but WHO He is. Reject the deity of Jesus Christ and you absolutely beyond any shadow of a doubt will spend eternity in hell and yes, I believe in a literal hell with literal fire with a literal torment for a literal forever.
God, Who became a man through the miraculous birth of Jesus Christ, died on the cross to pay your sin debt that you can never pay. He paid a debt He did not owe for us sinners who owe a debt we cannot pay. " For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin (the Lord Jesus Christ); that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." Corinthians 5:21All religions of any kind that place human merit into their theology for salvation are cults. All religions who deny the deity of Jesus Christ are cults. All religions that say there are other inspired books other than the Bible are cults. I know you don't like it, but your eternal destination depends on what you believe about the Bible and about Jesus Christ.
@@randyd9805 First off, I agree with everything you've said about Jesus. We in no way deny the divinity of Christ. I have no idea where you're getting that from. We're on the same page here as far as that is concerned.
as for the bible being the only inspired book. What about the Torah, or the inspired books that existed before the bible and new testament existed. Was the Pentateuch not inspired because it didn't have the words "Old Testament of the Bible" printed on the cover. Were the scriptures Jesus himself quoted not scripture because they were not yet compiled into the bible. What about the scriptures that were included in ancient Jewish scriptures, but were lost and couldn't be included in the bible. Here's a fun activity. Open your own bible, go to the bible dictionary, and go to the 'lost books' section. Many Christians look to the apocrypha and the dead sea scrolls for wisdom. Are they not worthy simply because they weren't discovered until after the bible was widespread? The Sadducees said that the Pentateuch was the only inspired book, whereas the Pharisees used the whole old testament. Jews today say that revelation ended with old testament. Christians say it ended with the new testament. Muslims say it ended with Mohammed, and only accept parts of the new testament.
Where in this 6,000 year timeline--full of large gaps--does revelation end, and why? It's not after Jesus died, the old testament came after that. When the prophets died? Well that can't be it because there have other large spans of time when prophetic authority had been lost, only to return. Why is the new testament dispensation the last dispensation? Why wasn't Moses's dispensation the last one. Prophetic authority was lost not too long after his death too. It was certainly lost in the time between the old and new testament, when Jesus had to come and restore it. Why can't it be restored again now? I believe God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He has always spoken his will through prophets who clarify the words of scripture for the special situation of the people at that time and place. Otherwise, the scriptures will get corrupted and lose meaning over time as we get farther away from the original context. Why would he stop now? Why should we be exempt from the blessings and miracles that were available in old and new testament times.
God is no respecter of persons. (Romans 2:11) All of God's children get the opportunity to partake of his glory equally. But just because I wasn't born 2,000 years ago, I can't get those blessings, I can't receive personal revelation and clarification when I stumble?
You know a lot of scripture is just then current prophets giving their commentary on older scripture. Their commentary wasn't considered scripture at the time they first said it. They were teaching scripture, not writing it. And yet time and time again you see this pattern in the old and new testament where the sermons of today become the scripture of tomorrow. Why does that pattern abruptly stop? Why does the buck end with the bible? Last time I checked, the word bible doesn't actually appear in the bible. Jesus never says the bible is divinely inspired, because the bible wasn't created until long after he died, resurrected and ascended to heaven. He only ever says things like "my words," or, "the word of God." The bible is just a record of the teachings of old prophets. Who's to say that new prophets can't teach the same doctrines, and then the teachings of those prophets be considered as scripture. Who has the authority to canonize? Because the bible wasn't canonized by anyone with the priesthood, because all those people were dead before the bible was compiled. And if you're not catholic, then you probably don't think the pope has the authority to canonize scripture either. So who has the authority to say what can and cannot be excluded.
If the bible is the only authority, then how's this: It says "do not add to His words" in Proverbs 30:6 so everything after the book of proverbs is adding to His words and is therefore not scripture. Say goodbye to the whole New Testament then.
The book of mormon is true, there is plenty of evidence for this.
I have always considered the Reformed Church in the US to be a cult (not to be confused with the Reformed Church in America). They fit everything defined at 15:00, except instead of strong leadership I'd say dictatorial leadership. That church seeks to control everything in your life, including how you vote, how men wear their hair, what lifestyle you live, husband is to force the wife to attend church even if she doesn't want to, etc. Do anything they don't like and you are threatened with discipline or erasure. However, when I tried to leave, they wouldn't let me go either. You only leave when they say you can leave and was harassed. I actually thought I was going to have to claim some kind of sexual affair, then they would have kicked me out immediately. The RCUS is a true cult.
SDAs believe in a literal hell, we just don't believe that it is eternal.
Found your channel, and I was extremely interested in many of these videos for the substance: your precise and yet concise classification and histories of various Protestant groups was something I, being a traditional Catholic with limited detailed knowledge of the later schisms and regroupings after the original ruptures in 16th Century, benefitted from. I know about Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and I know the evangelical/mainline distinction, but didn’t know where all these modern groups came from and how they related to one another. Thanks for piecing it together.
Also like your neutral presentation style...which you in another video candidly admit is not ultimately “right” but is a helpful first step. You have to know what it is before you can make a judgment about it. Dare I say it is a Scholastic approach? I suppose Aquinas himself would be impressed by your methodology, especially in this medium, although he would then set about systematically breaking down your own beliefs, which you covered in another video.
This video, too, was great. I think it could be made better (although even longer) by also explaining the neutral usage of “cult”: cultus, culture. A common cult...in this benign usage...is necessary for a common culture. And still in proper and technical Catholic usage, “cult,” means something different...not sociological at all.
You would probably find the movements and changes in the Catholic Church beginning in the late 19th century, and especially after 1958 fascinating. If you can cover the nuances of Eastern/Oriental Orthodox history with such alacrity, treating the modernist and traditionalist battles within the Catholic Church would be a cinch for you.
This discussion is made more difficult by even older uses of the term. In the Ancient World, or when discussing it, cult can just mean a religion. In Catholicism, “cult” is used in a positive manner when referring to devotion to a saint or, more commonly, someone who might be recognized as a saint in the future. Though, to avoid confusion, we often use the Latin “cultus” instead.
The Problem I have with the BITE model is the fact that any Repentant Christian will Control their own behavior, Thoughts, and Emotions. Used incorrectly, the Bite Model can categorize ALL Christians as Cultists. This is the danger with worldly practices.
Understanding that it should be applied to organizations, the Bite model CAN make sense, though shouldn’t ALL Churches (Heretics or not) attempt to assist their congregates in controlling Sinful behaviors?
There is so much arrogance within our ranks. So many lack humility that we should have in our beliefs. I like how this channel objectively researches and describes various aspects of Christian beliefs. But I’m still waiting on a video on the denomination of which I am a member- the Missionary Church :)
Seventh day adventist believe in a literal hell but it doesn't exist yet until all is fulfilled in prophecy and God creates hell for the devil and his angels and those who are lost. Also they believe hell is not eternal.
"The Leader is good, the Leader is great, we surrender our will as of this date" 🤣🤣🤣
“Are y’all with this cult?”
“It’s not a cult. It’s an organization that promotes love and-“
“This is it.”
I'm independent catholic. I thought I would share our most common position: There are no fundamental doctrines of the faith because there are no issues on which christians cannot disagree in good faith, though some disagree in bad faith. A christian is defined as part of a historical christian community engaging in christian orthopraxy. Anybody who would accept protestants as christians (and some independent catholics don't) would probably have no problems with mormons. Some more liberal independent catholics even accept Christian Atheists (God doesn't exist but Jesus was a cool dude) as real christians.
Could you please explain what you mean by "Independent Catholic"?
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is a Christian church. Not merely because its members claim to be Christian, but because its doctrine teaches that Christ was the messiah and holds his actions as depicted in the New Testament as exemplary and necessary for exaltation. And it fits all five of the fundamentals you laid out. It’s a shortcoming to limit its Christianity categorization to the desires of its members to be categorized as such.
What? Jesus, the Devil's brother, died to exalt us? That's your pitch for Mormonism being Christian?
Mr Smythe, LDS are not monotheistic, per LDS, God of the Bible is only one of many gods. True blue Mormons can become gods of their own planet. Jesus is the physical son of God the father and Mary. Satan and Jesus are half brothers. Joe Smith was a polygamist, over 30 wives, against clear teachings in the NT. I’ve seen videos showing that Mormons on their 2 yr mission show clear cult like (per Steve Hassan method) behavior. Not so much for other Mormons.
I like the idea of reserving "cult" for the most abusive and controlling groups. Heretical sect is probably the most appropriate term for most groups that are not nearly as abusive but are simply out side what many consider "orthodox" beliefs. In many cases, theological "cults" (heretical sects) are just the infancy stage of a new religion. That's how I view the LDS and similar groups. How LDS uses the term "Christian" and how other groups use the term are (mostly) mutually exclusive. Yes, some liberal groups would lump LDS in as Christians but the LDS would, in turn, reject them as Christians - since LDS (at least officially) only see Mormons as true Christians and everyone else as apostate (unless a recent Prophet has updated something since I last attended).
To me entering a religious group should be as easy as leaving it, for cults it's very easy to enter, extremely hard or impossible to leave.
14:00 that was a great introduction if ever there was one
Thanks much for this video.
Great video! What's the deal with the railroad tracks? I love trains, but I don't get how it fits in with this video.
11:05 The Seventh-Day Adventists don't deny a literal Hell, we deny that sinner's will live forever. The fire is eternal, but the sinful are not. We believe they will surely die. For our God is a consuming fire.
Stephen Hassan defines it according to the "control" they exert. Behavior, Information, Thought, and Emotion........it is very practical.
The BITE model gets criticism because almost ANY group you could align yourself with (political, clubs, churches, alcoholics anonymous) fit the model. It's overly generic and is used more a weapon against less favorable faiths than it is as a genuine tool to help people.
@@dekuthedog Cults, like the Church of Christ are spiritually and emotionally abusive as well.
I grew up in a CoX Cult!
Tremendous, very clearly explained.
Can you give your testimony sometime how you came to Christ?
@@silentservant_ He's an independent baptist
@Ready to Harvest how would you classify the SDA church?
유익하네요!
Ok. I believe God. He will straighten it all out one of these days. ❤
I would use cult to mean any group that purposely errs from the core principles of an original doctrine. This would mean they are or have transmuted into a doppelganger of the original. I think that 1. in many cults being FORCED into being physically separate from society to continue is the point that you make this leader your god or direct conduit. That leader would then become your god or religious king(even if [s]he doesn't say so), because [s]he then controls you like a mother/father figure would a small chjId. And, 2. to be honest, sometimes, it manifests itself as a leader that does something or makes decrees atypical of the faith, like disrespect of holy items or places, openly claims or acts as if (s)he can do anything (s)he wants, causes the people to err, rebels openly, orders the punishment of individuals, etc.
Yes a singular leader that is himself worshipped is a must. Separating the congregants from society is the next most important descriptor.
Thank you so much for your wonderful channel. All your research and hard work, to share, help, educate, discern, etc. My partner and I love watching your videos together. When I saw that this video only had 22k views, I was honestly baffled.
I hope you get more exposure, friend. Thank you.
After watching your video I am convenienced ferther into thinking NO one knows what a cult is. Defentions are so many & diverse they seem to me nothing more than opinions, likes or dislikes, what's comfortable or not personally, and based such differing base lines it is impossible to be sure for one's self. Obviously there clear groups that could have some kind of label like Jime Jones, David Korish etc.
I tend to agree that Catholicism shouldn't be classified as the same religion as Protestant denominations. Of course denying Catholicism represents Christianity, but Protestantism does, requires claiming that Christianity began five hundred years ago rather than two thousand years ago.
IMHO: Joshua, methinks this was a tough topic for you to take on. "Cult" is a word in the English language, a word with no Biblical word for it that I know of. So shud we confine ourselves to the OED definition(s) or Merriam-Webster? Do we indeed need a general word for groups which claim to be Christian, but their doctrine is such indicate the person who believes it, is not a begotten-again (GENN-) Christian, not regenerate, not saved, never having been transformed, & not having eternal life -- then we add to that 1) believing that the Bible means only what the leadership says it means; 2) everyone in the group must adhere to a long list of beliefs (little room for doctrinal disagreement) which are uncommon beliefs of professed Christians (like one may not get a blood transfusion). Also, aside from 1 & 2, a group where the leadership exercises strict control over the personal lives of its members, qualifies for inclusion in the descriptive word (e.g. cult). Was my Bible College a cult for its rules on students? Like no beards; can't get engaged or married without their permission.
How does the International Churches of Christ fit the sociological definition?
Lifelong Catholic here, and I've never heard of Marian Horvat before. "No one who dissents from the Roman Catholic Church can be a Christian." Wow, she sound like a real. . . um, insert your favorite vulgar term there.
People such as her are the reason why something so simple as reunification of the Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican Churches will not happen.
14:32 David Koresh was not the founder of the branch davidians.....they were founded in 1929 by Benjamin Roden.
I find it slightly easier to put everything into two groups. High vs low demand religions.
If we’re talking in broad strokes, that distinction is a better starting point as cult vs religion.
The simple definition of a cult that separates itself from a method of slander (ie labeling SBC, KJV only Baptists, A of G): When most Christian churches are centered on the teachings of Jesus Christ (the only infallible human who ever lived - though also divine) a cult (although may call themselves "Christian") are centered on a mortal person or committee who are never to be questioned or disagreed with - for such idolatrous group elevates such leaders to that of god
In China, the word that translates to cult is used specifically used for religions that causes disruption to society. From what I have heard, following such a cult, whether or not you personally disrupt society, is by itself illegal.
We use a different word of groups like Mormons and JW. I'm not sure if these groups are legal there because the church is China is tightly controlled.
I personally use "cult" only in the context of the sociological definition of cult and, yes, churches that might otherwise be orthodox to whatever denomination they're a part of, can still be a cult because of it. The usefulness of the term is to discuss abusive, manipulative, and controlling practices of an institution (or movement). I'd recommend that those Christians who think the doctrinal beliefs of other self-professed Christians to be errant to the point of wanting to exclude them from their own boundaries of Christendom use the term "heretic" or "heterodox", because that points to the dividing line of theological difference that would exclude that group from their own in-group.
I personally believe that a Christian based cult/heretical sect usually involves dismantling the trinity in some way. The trinity is the core principle of orthodoxy, and what sets the Christian faith apart from the world. imho
Jesus was a Jew, the Jews didn't believe in the Trinity. Jesus never taught the Trinity. Satan doesn't believe the Trinity.
@@joshpotter9261 as we all know, the jews sure did love jesus!
John 5:17:
But He answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working.” For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.
Matthew 28:18-20
And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
@@lol-st7561 Lets unpack, that shall we? The wording is pointing to the Jews' viewpoint of what Jesus was saying. If Jesus were actually publishing that he were equal to God, then how do you explain John 5:19 where he says that the Son cannot do anything of his own initiative except for what he sees the Father doing (or what the Father allows, or is in accord with the will of the Father)? Furthermore Jesus continues at John 14:28 The Father is greater than I. Nowhere does Jesus himself declare himself to be God or in an equal position.
You're misapplying John 5:18 as Jesus did observe the Sabbath, yet the Jews were claiming that he didn't, Jesus was saying that he was God's Son, the Jews were trying to misconstrue his words saying that he claimed equality with God.
It's all in the context.
John 10 Jesus clearly refutes their false accusation. He said he is God's Son, NOT God.
Even the RCC and so called Orthodox scholars have pointed out Matthew 28 is a corrupted Scripture used to support the trinitarian cult.
The problem is who decides what is a heresy. “But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers” The trinity doctrine is not taught by the Apostles. Is that a heresy?
What is an inordinate amount of time?
Based Jim Jones
Would you say that the terms heretical sects and aberrant church are interchangeable according to how you're defining it?
Yeah, my biggest problem with the "cult" moniker is that most of the definitions used apply equally well to early Christianity. If your definition can be used to describe Jesus, Peter, and Paul as cult leaders, your definition is probably bad.
Are you thinking of verses like Luke 14:26 and Matthew 10:37?
Cults by biblical definition is that thing prioritized over or instead of Christ, which is “anti” Christ… which is one of the definitions of Satan, “against” /“instead of”
Cults develop precepts and doctrines out of heresy, instead of the bibliocentric standard. Cults deviate from scriptural norm out of comfort zones, we see this replete as a theme in scripture
Cults, currently operating with clout in America, although they are completely apostate:
1. Catholicism in any of its forms except Lutheranism which is, technically reformed Catholicism… many of the rites and rituals performed by Catholic tradition come straight out of historic paganism…. The veneration of Mary came from ancient Astroth or Queen of Heaven worship, along with Bâ-äl worship… which saw Zeus converted to Peter and Apollo converted to Paul… all in the name of adopting a defection that took place after a half dozen third century church elders were ejected from the actual real Christian church, they floated over to aid and abet Constantine II Who wanted to introduce heresies into Christianity, which is where the Nicene council came from in 325AD, to codify scripture so they would know where the counterfeits came later, that same year not to take one on the cheek - the Roman catholic church was established in 325 A.D., the only reason any flavor of Christianity got into it, are those ejected church elders who defected.
2. Mormonism, is a cult, I have heard the lamest defenses for trying to inculcate it into the ranks of Christianity… which are utterly preposterous by the way - just because you blasphemously label it the Jesus Christ church of Latter Day Saints, does it mean Jesus has anything to do with it.
3. Scientology, probably the creepiest out of all of them, because you are required to give up everything to belong to it.
Once you get out of cultism, the next downgrade from that is mysticism which is growing in America, sadly.
Poor Kool-aid man. It was flavor-aid that Jones used. :)
You are so cool man! you talk fast! thank you I love how much info you cram into short videos what an intro
After theses 13 points I'm confused about LDS. The half cult? Some are right, some not. Idk anymore
We certainly attempt to teach people our beliefs and we encourage people to join Christ’s church, but we are hardly a cult.
I think of the word cult to be a spectrum where any denomination could be considered to have some degree of beliefs or practices that stand in the way of or stand beside acceptable Christian practices and beliefs.
Cult is when they take away your free will and discourage rational discernment. It is narrow minded, assume they are the most supreme. It’s controlling and usually has pressure to recruit.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to label them all as cults. The age, and public acceptance of fundamentally damaging practices and beliefs shouldn't be grounds for exclusion from a category into which one meets the criteria.