All posts by Dan Vander Lugt

How Can You Determine If a Group Is a Cult?

Some simple criteria are listed below for examining a group’s beliefs, attitudes, and actions.

CRITERION ONE: Rejection of the doctrine that has been passed down from the beginning through the apostles and the inspired authors of Scripture (2 Timothy 1:13-14 Titus 1:9 )

Jesus said:

I tell you the truth, the man who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber (John 10:1).

Does the group accept the Bible as the written Word of God, or does it consider other documents of equal or greater importance than Scripture? Does Scripture provide the basis for its doctrine and the values of its members, or do leaders arbitrarily set the standards? The principles of Christian liberty and the priesthood of the believer can only be honored when Scripture is the ultimate judge of values.

A group that denies such basic doctrines as the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the reality of a bodily resurrection, and salvation by grace alone through faith in Christ is clearly a cult.

CRITERION TWO: Unbiblical leadership

Jesus said:

Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them (Matthew 7:15-20).

A healthy Christian group has leaders of good character who uphold biblical standards for church discipline ( 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 ). Leaders of integrity “produce fruit in keeping with repentance” (Matthew 3:8 ; Mark 4:20 ; Luke 6:43-49 ; Ephesians 5:1-11 ; Colossians 1:10 ). Although no leaders are perfect (2 Corinthians 4:1-7 ), good leaders:

  • Aren’t arrogant and authoritarian but are open to admonishment and correction ( Mark 10:15 ; John 13:12-17 ; Galatians 2:11-16 ).
  • Aren’t enslaved to obvious vices ( 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 ; 1 Timothy 3:1-7 ; 2 Timothy 3:1-7 ).
  • Are growing in faith, wisdom, and allegiance to the truth ( Exodus 18:21 ; Ephesians 4:11-16 ).
  • Aren’t tolerant of wickedness ( Psalm 15:1-5 ;Ephesians 5:11 ).

Superficially, cult leaders may appear trustworthy. However, on closer examination they are disturbed men or women of questionable motives and methods—unscrupulous, manipulative, authoritarian, and immoral. They claim excessive personal authority, deny the principles of Christian liberty and the priesthood of the believer, and ignore the pattern Jesus established for settling conflicts within the church ( Matthew 18:15-17 ). Closer observation usually reveals that they are enslaved to sin in some obvious way: adulterers, liars, intimidators, slanderers, sexual addicts, substance abusers.

CRITERION THREE: Unhealthy group pressure and hostility to the truth

No group of people is perfectly dedicated to the truth. The corruption of the “the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does” ( 1 John 2:16 ) infects every congregation to some degree. Further, because every church is made up of a variety of people with a wide range of backgrounds, interests, and capacities, each will have a unique perspective. Differences in viewpoint and occasional errors are to be expected. But beyond such predictable imperfections, there are reasonable expectations that any legitimate church should fulfill.

A healthy church will deal with criticism or questions regarding its point of view openly, honestly, and patiently. (Some churches can be cult-like in their rigidity and defensiveness without being full-blown cults.) Cults, on the other hand, are defensive, evasive, or belligerent to an extreme when reasonable questions are raised. They foster an atmosphere of spiritual bondage through legalism and group intimidation ( 2 Peter 2:1-20 ). Many cults forbid their members to read literature that questions or disagrees with their own unique point of view. 1

CRITERION FOUR: Does the group separate itself from outsiders on the basis of arbitrary, unbiblical standards?

A healthy Christian group practices biblically defined separation from the world ( Matthew 5:20; John 17:15 ;1 Corinthians 5:9-13 ). Cults,in contrast, often encourage their members to isolate themselves from the world in unbiblical ways. They will often encourage members to avoid contact with other Christians or even family members who don’t belong to their particular group. They will define membership on the basis of an arbitrary list of “do’s and don’ts.” Anyone not willing to agree to the list is treated as an outsider.

The apostle Paul expressed a biblical attitude toward cultural truth when he said:

Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible (1 Corinthians 9:19).

All the standards listed above are important, but some are more essential than others. The first is crucial. Any departure from confidence in the authority of Scripture, orthodox doctrine, or salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone is a sure sign of a cult. Groups that fail the first test will almost always fail the last three as well. On the other hand, some groups that are not cults in the strictest sense due to their formal adherence to the first standard might be seriously deficient in one or more of the last three. In such a case the group should still be considered “cultic” or “cult-like,” and avoided.

  1. These are some key things to consider:
    • Does a group allow examination of its own history, or does it threaten to discipline or dismiss members who study it too closely?
    • Does the group permit examination of its teachings in the light of Scripture?
    • Does the group encourage discussion of its distinctives? ( Luke 1:3 ; 2 Timothy 3:10-15 ).
    • Has the group set up a system of salvation by works?
      Back To Article
Did this answer your question?
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (6 votes, average: 3.83 out of 5)
Loading...

What Is Buddhism?

What does Buddhism teach, and how does it differ from Christianity?

Legend tells us that Buddha was a powerful young prince who gave up his earthly position and possessions in order to seek enlightenment and salvation. Buddha lived in India approximately 600 years before Christ. He was concerned with the terrible things that were being done within the Hindu tradition, so he developed his own religious system.

Buddha taught that the question of God’s existence is meaningless. His conception of salvation is radically different than that taught by Christianity.

Buddha believed in reincarnation. He taught that every evil thing we do ties us more tightly to the cycle of rebirth. Buddha taught that a person can escape the cycle of reincarnation and enter nirvana only by following the “Noble Eight-fold Path,” a strict ethical system.

Buddhist teachings include dedication to meditation. Meditation involves emptying one’s mind of all content and learning to drift away from a consciousness of this world. Thus, it is part of the process by which a Buddhist frees himself from his attachments to this world and the cycle of reincarnation.

We should not confuse nirvana with heaven, however. For the Buddhist, nirvana is simply an escape from the world of suffering. It is like a candle that had been burning with a hot flame (representing our suffering in the cycle of reincarnation) being suddenly extinguished. Once a flame is out, there is no point in questioning where it went. To the classical Buddhist, to attain nirvana is simply to be out of existence.

Buddhism is clearly a very different religion from Christianity. It offers no personal salvation. It stands against sin and immorality, but it ignores the issue of God’s existence and our need for redemption. At its root, Buddhism is a form of agnosticism or at least practical atheism. It provides no answers about the ultimate meaning of existence. By denying the ultimate meaningfulness of life, Buddhism provides its followers with little motivation to conquer evil or to work for justice. Jesus Christ, in contrast, confronts us with the need to become right with God and to introduce a new order into the world, an order He called “the kingdom of God.”

Did this answer your question?
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (7 votes, average: 2.86 out of 5)
Loading...

Why Is New Testament Christianity Opposed to War?

Although most Christians agree that war is sometimes necessary in self defense (See the ATQ article When Is a War Just?), and nominal “Christians” have often wrongfully launched or participated in wars of aggression, genuine, New Testament Christianity would never be the cause of war.

The New Testament is neither hostile towards non-Christians, nor does it rationalize aggression against them.

Christianity’s core beliefs are clearly defined by the New Testament:

1. Humanity is sinful and needs redemption.

2. God loves the entire human race, regardless of race, gender, or cultural background.

3. The perfect life and atoning death of Jesus Christ provided our redemption.

4. Jesus is the “firstborn of many brethren” (Romans 8:29), the model for Christian living (John 17:16-26).

The New Testament views all people—including Christians—as sinners in need of forgiveness and calls on them to repent their sins, accept God’s free gift of salvation through Jesus Christ, and live gratefully, lovingly, and obediently with Jesus as their model. It portrays all people as equal in spiritual worth, whether rich, poor, male, female, slave, or free (Acts 17:26; Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:9-11; 1 Peter 2:9). It also separates spiritual authority from governmental authority (Mark 12:16-17, John 19:11, John 18:36-37).

The New Testament requires Christians to be concerned for their enemies (Matthew 5:44; Luke 6:20-34; Acts 7:60; 1 Corinthians 13:1-3, 13; Ephesians 5:1-2); to shun self-righteousness (Matthew 7:3-5; John 8:3-11; Romans 5:8-11; Galatians 6:1); to repudiate the idols of ethnic pride and privilege (Matthew 8:5-13; Luke 10:30-37; Luke 17:11-19; John 4:9); to refrain from judging other people’s hearts (Matthew 13:24-30); to realize that one’s responsibility to God is of a higher order than one’s responsibility to the state (Mark 12:13-17); and to forgive repentant sinners and forswear revenge against them (Luke 23:34; Romans 12:14-21; Ephesians 4:31).

Only when flagrantly distorted and misapplied can the words of the New Testament be taken to imply that Christians should forcefully impose their faith on others. The gospel of Jesus Christ commands Christians to overcome evil with good; realize that love and forgiveness are essential to the establishment of God’s kingdom; be conscious of the distinction between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of the world; and be humble as sinners who have not only been forgiven but graciously given the power to live an obedient life.

Did this answer your question?
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (3 votes, average: 3.67 out of 5)
Loading...

When Is a War Just?

Most Christians agree that it is sometimes right for Christians to serve in the military. This consensus is based on the fact that the New Testament declares the legitimacy of government, the necessity of its use of force against evil (Romans 13:3-4; 1 Peter 2:13-14), and the responsibility of Christians to cooperate with the legitimate power of government (Matthew 8:5-9; Luke 3:14; 6:15; 14:31; Acts 10-11).

During the church’s first 300 years, very few Christians served in the military. The obvious reason for their reluctance to serve was that the Roman government was corrupt, and the military was often used to persecute their own fellow believers. The questions of the degree to which Christians should support war, or the standards by which they should determine whether any particular war is just or unjust only became major issues after the conversion of Constantine and his endorsement of Christianity as the empire’s dominant religion. Following the Edict of Milan (ad 313), Christians began to share in the power of government, and the church’s association with political power soon brought corruption. Rather than continuing to view the teachings of Jesus Christ as their ethical model, many Christians began to look to the Old Testament for analogies that falsely identified Rome with Israel and viewed its wars against pagan enemies as a continuation of Israel’s wars against the Canaanites.

Thoughtful Christians like the influential Augustine of Hippo stood against such rationalizations and declared: “War should be waged reluctantly and with tears in one’s eyes.” Following Augustine,1 the church fathers carefully developed a set of standards for a “just war” based on biblical principles. Here is a summary of these principles:2

Just War Principles

War cannot be just unless all nonviolent options have been tried and have failed.

Just war can only be waged by legitimate authorities, not private individuals and groups.

Just war can be waged only in response to an injury suffered (e.g., an enemy attack) with the motivation of appropriate compensation for the wrong suffered. (In other words, an aggressive war of conquest is by definition unjust.)

War can be just only if there is a reasonable degree of likelihood of victory. To shed blood in unwinnable conflicts is never just.

A war can be considered just only when the peace it seeks to establish will be better than the peace that already exists.

A war is just only when violence committed against the enemy is proportional to the violence suffered at the enemy’s hands. Excessive force is never just.

Just wars never target civilians. The deaths of civilians in a just war must be the unavoidable consequence of attacks on military targets.

Just war principles have always been violated in war. Soldiers caught up in the emotions of battle and hatred of the enemy have murdered, pillaged, and raped. However, Christian just war principles at least tempered the effects of war in the West until modern times.

Tragically, with the rise of secular national states, “just war” theory was swept aside on a massive scale, first in Europe during the Napoleonic conquests, and then in North America during the Civil War. The scale of national violence continued to mount through the 20th century, and Christians have become accustomed to participation in wars that have little concern for justice, proportionality, and safety of civilian populations.

The writer of the epistle of James stated:

What causes wars, and what causes fighting among you? Is it not your passions that are at war in your members? You desire and do not have; so you kill. And you covet and cannot obtain; so you fight and wage war. You do not have, because you do not ask. You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions. Unfaithful creatures! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God (4:1-4).

Christians must guard against allowing earlier Christian collaboration with unjust war to serve as a precedent for their own support of unwarranted violence. Great wars have always involved the tragically flawed decisions of men who turned away from peaceful options, and the violations of just war principles that occurred in these wars always set the stage for further escalation of evil.

It is tempting for Christian citizens of powerful nations to shrug their shoulders and say: “Times have changed. Modern weapons and terrorism have made the principles of just war untenable.” Tragically, many evangelicals have become so accustomed to “total war” that they assume any war their government initiates is necessary.

As we exit a century that has been savaged by human violence and atrocity on a scale far greater than anything the world had seen before3 and enter a new century with even more potential for conflict and destruction, it is high time that evangelical Christians repent their blind nationalism and worship of Caesar and return to their calling as peacemakers (Matthew 5:9; Philippians 2:15; James 3:17-18).

Genuine patriots have never offered unquestioning, unqualified support to leaders who lead them into war. Jesus’ simple statement to Peter in the Garden of Gethsemane still applies to individuals and to nations of our day: “Put your sword back in its place, . . . for all who draw the sword will die by the sword” (Matthew 26:52).

  1. In his treatise Against Faustus the Manichean, Augustine declared: “The real evils in war are the love of violence, the cruel passion for revenge, the blind hatred of the enemy, the sometimes insane uncontrolled resistance to attack, the lust for power and other things of this sort.” Back To Article
  2. “The just-war tradition is as old as warfare itself. Early records of collective fighting indicate that warriors used some moral considerations. They may have involved consideration of women and children or the treatment of prisoners. Commonly they invoked considerations of honor: some acts in war have always been deemed dishonorable, whilst others have been deemed honorable. Whilst the specifics of what is honorable differ with time and place, the very fact of one moral virtue has been sufficient to infuse warfare with moral concerns. The just war theory also has a long history. Whilst parts of the Bible hint at ethical behavior in war and concepts of just cause, the most systematic exposition is given by Saint Thomas Aquinas. In the Summa Theologicae, Aquinas presents the general outline of what becomes the just war theory. He discusses not only the justification of war, but also the kinds of activity that are permissible in war. Aquinas’s thoughts become the model for later Scholastics and Jurists to expand. The most important of these are: Francisco de Vitoria (1486-1546), Francisco Suarez (1548-1617), Hugo Grotius (1583-1645), Samuel Pufendorf (1632-1704), Christian Wolff (1679-1754), and Emerich de Vattel (1714-1767).” (“Just War Theory,” The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy) Back To Article
  3. Zbigniew Brzezinski estimated that during the past century, 167,000,000 to 175,000,000 lives were “deliberately extinguished by politically motivated carnage.” See the Discovery Series booklet, Violence: Why It Happens Back To Article
Did this answer your question?
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (2 votes, average: 3.00 out of 5)
Loading...

Does Claiming God’s Forgiveness Relieve Us of Obligations?

God’s Word assures Christian believers of the forgiveness of any sin through Christ’s sacrificial death on their behalf.

Christians no longer face damnation — the eternal consequences of their sins. But they still face sin’s earthly consequences. For Christians, the earthly consequences of sin don’t exist as the punishment of an angry God. They remain as reminders of the fact that we live in a flawed, fallen world. The effects of sin still remain. The fullness of our redemption still lies ahead.

A person who has been a drunkard for many years, for example, may suffer irreversible liver damage that will remain following his conversion. A father who has neglected his family will continue to see the effects of his neglect. Sometimes we can make amends in this life for our sins, other times we cannot.

The Holy Spirit strengthens and renews Christians, even though they continue to be haunted by the earthly consequences of sin. The character of Christ Himself becomes established within them ( Romans 8:29 ), so that they will be empowered to live consistently with the truth. The Old Testament prophet Micah wrote, “He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God” ( Micah 6:8 ).

Did this answer your question?
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (2 votes, average: 4.50 out of 5)
Loading...