Marks of a Cult is the latest in a series of DVDs produced by The Apologetics Group and hosted by Eric Holmberg. Previous titles have included Amazing Grace: The History & Theology of Calvinism and Hells Bells 2: The Power and Spirit of Popular Music, both of which I have reviewed in the past (and both of which are well worth viewing). This latest presentation seeks to answer some of the following questions: Why are Baptists properly considered Christians, but Mormons are not? Why is the Jehovah’s Witness religion classified as an anti-Christian cult while Presbyterians, Wesleyans and Pentecostals are simply seen as denominations within the Christian faith? How does one differentiate between true Biblical Christianity and an aberrant religious movement? And just what are the marks of a cult?
The presentation describes cults through the four marks developed originally, I believe, by Watchman Fellowship. These marks are easy to remember and are helpful in forming a framework around which we can differentiate a cult from a church. The marks are as simple as add, subtract, multiply and divide.
Add: Cults add to Scripture. The revelation of God provided in the Bible is never sufficient for a cult. Thus they must add to the written revelation of Scripture, usually with additional scriptures or with their own translation of the Bible. In this way we have books such as The Pearl of Great Price of the Mormons and the New World Translation of the Bible produced by the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Since the Bible claims exclusivity as the written revelation of God, we must see that other books, even if the followers of cults claim that they are equal to the Bible, must actually be over and above the Word of God.
Subtract: Cults subtract from the person of Christ. Cults cannot tolerate the divinity and exclusivity of Jesus and thus usually reduce Him to being a created being. In some cases they make Jesus only a manifestation or mode of God. In either case, the role of Jesus as revealed in Scripture is diminished.
Multiply: Cults multiply the requirements of salvation. Salvation, as it is presented in the Scriptures, is by God’s grace through faith alone. Cults continually add to the requirements of salvation, always adding human works as a necessary prerequisite to salvation. No cult teaches or endorses justification by faith alone. Thus all cults reject the very heart of the gospel.
Divide: Cults divide the loyalty of believers. Each cult believes that it has exclusive revelation and understanding of God that ensures its followers are either exclusively God’s people or are somehow more blessed than others. Cults always seek to divide believers against each other based on the previous three marks. Thus cults are, by their very nature, divisive.
Each of these four marks receives a good deal of attention within the presentation. Each one is proven to be true within the belief systems of several different cults including the Seventh Day Adventists, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons), Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Scientists, The Moonies, and Oneness Pentecostals (or the Jesus-Only Movement). Each receives the attention of a large group of highly-regarded Christian apologists. Those who were consulted in the making of this film are:
- Dr. James R. White, Alpha & Omega Ministries
- Dr. E. Calvin Beisner, Knox Theological Seminary
- Dr. R. Fowler White, Knox Theological Seminary
- James Walker, Watchman Fellowship
- David Henke, Watchman Fellowship
- Dr. Steve Cowan, Apologetics Resource Center
- Craig Branch, Apologetics Resource Center
- Clete Hux, Apologetics Resource Center
- Jerry Johnson, The Apologetics Group
As with the previous DVDs released by The Apologetics Group, Marks of a Cult is well-researched, well-made and the facts presented are well-documented. This is a rational, measured, convicting examination of the marks of a cult as they stand against the claims of Scripture. It clocks in at almost two hours which is just enough time to do justice to the topic. It moves quickly and should easily capture the attention of adults and teens. In fact, my only disappointment was in the bonus features which included nothing more than a list of recommended websites and a second list of recommended books dealing with each of the cults. Nevertheless, that is but a small complaint and I am glad to recommend this DVD to you. It would be a valuable addition to any personal or church library.
The DVD is available from Monergism Books.
Comments (69) »
1. Leslie
May 9, 2006
11:12 AM
Tim,
A very helpful post. Thank you.
Leslie
2. Jay Sanders
May 9, 2006
12:05 PM
Tim,
Thanks for the review. I have been considering whether or not to show this to my church. Do you think it could be broken up into weekly segments or is it best to just view it for the full two hours non-stop? Thanks again and congratulations on the baby.
Jay
3. Brian Thornton
May 9, 2006
1:28 PM
I am curious how Catholicism would measure up to these marks…below each quote from Tim’s post are some things that describe Catholicism:
1. Adding to Scripture:
“Add: Cults add to Scripture. The revelation of God provided in the Bible is never sufficient for a cult. Thus they must add to the written revelation of Scripture, usually with additional scriptures or with their own translation of the Bible.”
-Apocrypha
-Infallability of the pope
-New revelation from popes
-Placing the Catholic Church above the Scriptures
2. Subtracting from the person of Christ:
“Subtract: Cults subtract from the person of Christ.”
-Mary as co-redeemer and able to influence what Christ does
3. Adding to the requirements for salvation:
“Multiply: Cults multiply the requirements of salvation. Salvation, as it is presented in the Scriptures, is by God’s grace through faith alone. Cults continually add to the requirements of salvation, always adding human works as a necessary prerequisite to salvation.”
-Infant baptism
-Justification by faith PLUS works
4. Claims of exclusive revelation:
“Divide: Cults divide the loyalty of believers. Each cult believes that it has exclusive revelation and understanding of God that ensures its followers are either exclusively God’s people or are somehow more blessed than others.”
-No true church but the Catholic Church
Shouldn’t the Catholic Church be included in the list of cults? If not, why not? This is more of a question than a declaration…I would be curious to know why some think Catholicism does NOT qualify under these categories.
There seems to be an unspoken fear sometimes to mention Catholicism in the same breath as Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses. Why is that if they distort the gospel?
Thanks.
4. Tim Challies
May 9, 2006
1:28 PM
“Do you think it could be broken up into weekly segments or is it best to just view it for the full two hours non-stop?”
I think you could do it all in one go, depending on the context (ie. how much time you’ve got) but it would also work fairly well in segments. You could do it in 3 segments perhaps:
intro and add
subtract and multiply
divide and conclusion
Or you could do it in 4 or 6 segments, depending on how much time you cared to take.
I think the DVD is right at about 1 hour 50 minutes in length, though you could trim a couple of minutes by skipping the early introduction which is a bunch of sound/video bites that get replayed later on.
5. Danny Haszard
May 9, 2006
2:03 PM
Up close and personal Jehovah’s Witnesses can be wolves in sheep’s clothing.
Think about this-When the devil comes knocking on your door he may not have the ‘dark goth look’.They could be smartly dressed and wielding the Christian Bible.
I have Jehovah’s Witnesses family in the usa who practice the Watchtower JW enforced ritual shunning that i have not seen or heard from in 15 years.
The central CORE dogma of the Watchtower is Jesus second coming (invisibly) in 1914 and is a lie.Jehovah’s Witnesses are a spin-off of the man made Millerite movement of 1840.
A destructive cult of false teachings, that frequently result in spiritual and psychological abuse, as well as needless deaths (bogus blood transfusion ban).
Yes,you can ‘check out anytime you want but you can never leave’,because they can and will hold your family hostage.
The world has the Internet now,and there are tens of thousands of pages up from disgruntled ex-Jehovah’s Witnesses like myself who have been abused by the Watchtower cult.
Jehovah’s Witnesses are often a mouth that prays a hand that kills.The Watchtower is a truly Orwellian world.
——
Danny Haszard Jehovah’s Witness X 33 years and 3rd generation www.dannyhaszard.com
6. Joel
May 9, 2006
2:31 PM
I am curious how Catholicism would measure up to these marks…
Funny… I was wondering how many comments it would take before somebody brought that up. Sort of like counting the licks in a Tootsie Pop.
Brian, I’m not going to hijack this thread into Catholic apologetics, except to note that if we’re a cult, then there are no “real” Christians. Like it or not, we were here first, and you came from us. If you don’t want to share the Christian umbrella with Catholics, then you’ll have to get out from under it.
If you’d like to discuss the particulars of your post, I’ll be happy to do it privately, or in some other thread. (That’s a friendly invitation, not an attempt at an argument.) You seem to have some misconceptions there, and they deserve answers. But I think others are beginning to weary of us Papists leaping to our own defense here. :)
7. Joel
May 9, 2006
2:33 PM
BTW, Leslie, it’s good to see you again. It’s been almost a year since you posted to your blog.
8. Brian Thornton
May 9, 2006
2:44 PM
Which came first, the Catholic or the Christian???
“Brian, I’m not going to hijack this thread into Catholic apologetics, except to note that if we’re a cult, then there are no “real” Christians. Like it or not, we were here first, and you came from us. If you don’t want to share the Christian umbrella with Catholics, then you’ll have to get out from under it.”
Some very interesting comments and claims, Joel. Thankfully, I don’t have to live by your ultimatum as it relates to me being a Christian…
I am curious about one thing, though: if everything is right with Catholicism, then why would you think someone would bring it up as a possible cult?
9. Leslie
May 9, 2006
3:08 PM
Hi Joel…
an unfortunate thing happened to my site. My web site administrator who shall remain nameless, misplaced my log in ID and could no longer access the site. I too, forgot the ID. So, I started a new blog:
www.anewcreationinchrist.blogspot.com.
I post various and sundry things a few times each week.
Joel, thanks for remembering me!
Blessings,
Leslie
10. Joel
May 9, 2006
3:24 PM
I am curious about one thing, though: if everything is right with Catholicism, then why would you think someone would bring it up as a possible cult?
Because I know that there are a good many readers here who think it IS one. As soon as I saw the title, I thought “here we go again!” Was I wrong? :)
Leslie, I’ll have a look. Thanks!
11. Dallas Pymm
May 9, 2006
3:36 PM
“Shouldn’t the Catholic Church be included in the list of cults? If not, why not?”
Same thing crossed my mind Brian.
“There seems to be an unspoken fear sometimes to mention Catholicism in the same breath as Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses. Why is that if they distort the gospel?”
I have seen this too. Even in Walter Martin’s Kingdom of the Cults, Catholicism is missing. Your point of distorting the gospel seems like an obvious reason to label any organization that calls itself Christian a cult. It seems to qualify under these conditions mentioned by Tim, but I guess people just don’t want to start trouble with the Catholics even though they have no problem starting trouble with other religions they may feel is a cult. The world may never know.
12. Tim Challies
May 9, 2006
4:47 PM
“Like it or not, we were here first, and you came from us. “
That is just a ridiculous claim. I’d wager that the early church bears a much stronger resemblance to Reformed Protestantism than it does to Catholicism. The “Protestant” group may have diminished for a while, but that does not mean that we came from you. We came from Christ and the Apostles!
13. Kenny Archbold
May 9, 2006
5:11 PM
Lets throw protestants in there as well. Man - centered, seeker sensitive, purpose driven , armenian Churches. The gospel of me me me me me
Adding: carnal worldly methods to preaching
Subtracting: the sovereignty of God in salvation
Multiplying: well they really don’t multiply the
requirements of salvation. All that is required is that you check the “yes” box for Jesus.
Dividing: Throwing out all the elderly in favor of drawing the young
14. Joel
May 9, 2006
6:44 PM
That is just a ridiculous claim. I’d wager that the early church bears a much stronger resemblance to Reformed Protestantism than it does to Catholicism.
It’s a wager you’d lose, Tim. It doesn’t take long reading the early fathers to see that there was very little resemblance to Protestantism, except in things it has in common with Catholicism. Although the Eastern Orthodox probably have a stronger resemblance than either of us to the early church, in externals if nothing else.
This is an honest question, BTW, not an argumentative one: How much reading have you actually done in the church fathers? I don’t recall you mentioning them in your posts, but that doesn’t mean much, as it’s not really your focus, either. I’m curious to know what familiarity you have with them. I have known Protestants who were fairly conversant with early church writinngs.
Kenny, you seem to have hit the nail on the head. It seems to me that it’s not hard to make those criteria fit any group you disapprove of.
15. Kenny Archbold
May 9, 2006
6:53 PM
Kenny, you seem to have hit the nail on the head. It seems to me that it’s not hard to make those criteria fit any group you disapprove of. Joel
That wasn’t my point. Reformed Protestantism as defined by the Bible and expounded in the Westminster confession (or the Baptist confession of 1689) practiced in such a way that does not contradict any of the above mentioned teachings would never fall into any of these categories.
I believe such churches exist somewhere. (not where I live though)
16. Tim Challies
May 9, 2006
7:26 PM
“How much reading have you actually done in the church fathers? I don’t recall you mentioning them in your posts, but that doesn’t mean much, as it’s not really your focus, either.”
Some directly and a whole lot in bits and pieces through secondary sources. But when I do read them I don’t review them. Seems to me there isn’t a lot of benefit in reviewing a 2000 year-old book! :)
17. Brenda Lee
May 9, 2006
8:42 PM
One of the first things people say to me after reading my book, “Out of the Cocoon” is, “I guess I never thought of Jehovah’s Witnesses as a cult.” The second thing they say is, “But your book really opened my eyes!” Personally, I believe that they are a cult, but I also believe that how you label something is far less important than how IT leaves its mark on the world. Toxic organizations like the Watchtower are responsible for “family genocide.” Granted, everything has some good and some not-so-good in it. What’s important is that you educate yourself so you can protect yourself and your family. My mother was ignorant of what a cult looked like. That’s why she opened the door when Jehovah’s Witnesses paid her a visit. I’m hoping my story will encourage people to educate themselves about the devastation that the Watchtower levies on the lives of individuals (correction, entire families).
Brenda Lee, author: “Out of the Cocoon: A Young Woman’s Courageous Flight from the Grip of a Religious Cult” www.outofthecocoon.net
18. gamullet
May 9, 2006
8:55 PM
Tim,
I think Baptists should be considered a cult. After all, they are submursive!
Dad
19. Brian Thornton
May 9, 2006
10:16 PM
Well, if the Baptists should be included, then I think the Peoples’ Front of Judea should also be added…or is it the Judean Peoples’ Front…I forget.
Joel,
Comparing how much of the ECF’s you have read compared to Tim is of no consequence to the absurdity that Protestants came from you Catholics, and therefore if we won’t share the “umbrella” of Christianity with you, then we have to “get out from under it”.
Forget the Early Church Fathers…let’s go all the way back to the Apostles and Prophets and see how, from them, you come up with justification from other than grace alone through faith alone…let’s see where you get that baptism at infancy regenerates…let’s see where you get transubstantiation…indulgences…purgatory…a co-redeemer…infallible popes…stations of the cross…praying to Mary…infused righteousness…
Tradition…my RC friend…your foundation is primarily on tradition, and a sandy one at that.
The ultimate question is: Where does your hope lie? Who do you put your faith and trust in to save you? Have you repented of your sin, turned to Christ, and trusted in Him ALONE for your salvation? Have you trusted in His righteousness ALONE, imputed to your account, to wash away your sin?
Jesus Christ came and lived a sinless life and fulfilled all righteousness, and died on the cross as a substitute for all those who repent and trust in Him…He did NOT die to provide a way…He bled and died to pay the penalty of sin, once and for all.
Trust in Christ alone for your justification, Joel…trust in Christ alone…not in popes or councils or even Mother Church…trust in Christ ALONE.
20. Kelly
May 9, 2006
11:16 PM
WOW! I LOVED this movie! I watched it twice now… franticly taking notes the 2nd time and also have been promoting it to anyone who will let me tell them about this AWESOME video!
On a side note… I want to thank you SOOO much for your AWESOME site! I have about 7 books now that I “have to read” as a result of your site and perhaps you might want 3 titles from me to review… 1. Preparing Catholics For Eternity by: Mike Gendron 2. Playing With Fire (How The Bible Ignites Chance In Your Soul) by: Walt Russell 3. Tell The Truth (Revised & Expanded version) by: Will Metzger.
Thank you again for all the reviews! I am LOVING them!!!
Much love IN Christ to you!
Kelly
21. diablaazul
May 10, 2006
12:16 AM
What curious about this set of ‘marks of a cult’ is that it includes no mention of the kind of behavioral modification and brainwashing that occurs in cults. It’s quite possible for a church to be orthodox in what it teaches, from an evangelical point of view, and still be a cult.
Calling Catholicism a cult for the reasons listed above (particularly by Brian) is seriously problematic, and here’s why: many of the criteria Brian lists apply to the early Lutheran, Anglican and Reformed churches (that is, the churches formed during the Protestant Reformation). In case you didn’t know, the King James Bible included the so-called apocryphal (deuterocanonical) books. Early Lutherans certainly believed that their church was the only true church on earth, outside of which there was no salvation. Luther and Calvin both baptized infants, and both believed in the perpetual virginity and sinlessness of Mary. So, were the early Lutheran and Reformed churches cults?
Tim -
Joel’s claim is not ridiculous. Any extensive reading (by which I mean more than just brief quotes) of the Church Fathers will show you just how Catholic and (Eastern) Orthodox they are.
Speaking of the Orthodox, Catholicism is the usual whipping boy around these parts, but I’m curious as to whether those of you who see Catholicism as a cult also see Eastern Orthodoxy as a cult as well? The same principles apply.
22. Allan
May 10, 2006
5:17 AM
(Quote): “What curious about this set of ‘marks of a cult’ is that it includes no mention of the kind of behavioral modification and brainwashing that occurs in cults. It’s quite possible for a church to be orthodox in what it teaches, from an evangelical point of view, and still be a cult. (unquote)
Yes that was my first impression too. They left a large hole there for many Hirelings to slip safely & undetected, through.
There are a LOT of cultish pastors about whose doctrine in the main would be exemplary, but they believe as THEY are ‘The Man of God’, God talks to THEM best, and thus THEY have the superior revelation, and THEY will do all your critical thinking and judging of matters FOR you, THEY will make even some of your personal decisions FOR you, and they will NOT be corrected by YOU, OR YOUR (obviously faulty!) interpretation of Scripture.
23. Joe
May 10, 2006
7:02 AM
For fear of angering everybody, I shall refrain from commenting beyond saying that those are four excellent criteria!
24. SueS
May 10, 2006
8:16 AM
Allan - you pretty much described the current situation at the church I attend. It’s frustrating to see seeker sensitive/purpose driven programs receiving all the criticism while pastors who are placing their congregations under the bondage of legalism are ignored. In my opinion, legalism is far more dangerous than what Warren and Co spew because it is cloaked in statements of, “I believe and teach everything the Bible says”. It promotes an almost slavish devotion to the leadership and intolerance to anything critical of it. Those who leave the church are marginalized as being second class Christian who are no loss to the congregation.
SueS
25. Brian Thornton
May 10, 2006
8:55 AM
blue devil said:
“Calling Catholicism a cult for the reasons listed above (particularly by Brian) is seriously problematic,”
I didn’t call Catholicism a cult…I asked a question that, based on what they believe and teach, why they should NOT be included in the list that is mentioned on the DVD.
Yes, I know the KJV included the Apocrypha up until the 1800’s. In fact, there used to be a fine for anyone who printed a Bible without the Apocrypha…I think it was something like a year in jail and a year’s salary as a fine.
As to the other things you mentioned:
-Infant baptism and the belief that baptism somehow regenerates are two different things.
-Are you SURE that the early Lutherans believed that there was NO salvation outside of the Lutheran church??? Or, did they believe there was no salvation outside of Christ?
-I didn’t list the beliefs of the perptual virginity of Mary or that she was sinless as criteria.
Is it possible that we need two categories to describe certain groups: a) those that are cults, and b) those that are CULTIC?
Is there even a difference? Just a thought.
26. ktc
May 10, 2006
9:22 AM
Brian T.:
Here’s my two cents. A decent case for including Catholicm as a cult could be made on three out of the four points: adding, multiplying, and dividing.
But not subtraction. Jesus is Lord and God in the Catholic Church. I think some Catholics go a little overboard with the flowery Marian rhetoric, but Jesus and His 100% manhood and 100% divinity is absolutely unquestioned in the Catholic Church.
One problem with Catholicism is that so many people write doctrinal stuff that Protestants can’t help but question the (C)hurch’s position. And some positions have shifted over the post-Trent years (no matter what officials claim), so it’s hard to keep a finger on the pulse.
One note on the “Apocrypha”: they are more correctly called the “Deuterocanonical” books. They were once a part of the Hebrew scripture, but were voted out around 100 AD because they either 1) were written in exile; 2) were written after 400 BC; or were written in a language other than Hebrew or Aramaic.
Jerome, like the modern-day Reformers, preferred to leave them out of the Christian bible; however, Pope Damasus and Augustine overruled him and had them included in the canon, where they remained till the Reformers purged them again.
The term “Apocrypha” would be applied more properly to, say, the newly-dredged-up Gospel of Judas.
27. Tim McGilvreay
May 10, 2006
9:22 AM
Regarding the remarks about Catholicism:
What is funny is that this is the first thing I thought of. Immediately, we normally would think of Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses, but Roman Catholicism jumped out at me. I grew up a nominal Roman Catholic and most of my family and friends back home still are. I think what is more frightening is how some movements/ideologies within evangelicalism model at least some of these 4 marks.
Regarding the Jehovah’s Witnesses, there is a member of the family who is involved with them, much to our dismay. She says she is only Bible-studying with them, but when you hear her talk about it you can quickly see a deep alienation from and skepticism toward anything properly Christian. After all… the Christian Church has deliberately conspired to remove the name “Jehovah” from the Bible, didn’t you know? Sad.
I’m looking forward to this DVD. I wonder if she would ever watch it with us? I pray so or that something would come and penetrate.
28. ktc
May 10, 2006
9:31 AM
Brian T.—yes. Maybe “cultic…”, but not a cult. Jesus Christ is the reason and the muscle behind salvation in the Catholic Church. Mary doesn’t figure in at all in the Mass, which is IT—the re-presentation of THE once-and-for-all sacrifice of the cross (NOT the re-sacrifice).
“Cultic”…because it’s so doggone hard to parse out the legitimately-held truth of salvation that all true believers in Christ hold.
BTW, I have a serious Catholic background, for which I am immensely grateful—and now I am a grateful and enthusiastic member of a Sovereign Grace church.
29. Jay Sanders
May 10, 2006
9:31 AM
Thanks again for the help and advice Tim.
Jay
30. Greg in Colorado
May 10, 2006
9:44 AM
On the Catholic issue:
My grandmother is in Hades awaiting her final judgment at the Great White Throne because she was a serious Catholic. My family and I explained the gospel according to I Cor. 15, Epe. 2:8-9, etc. many times. She refused to believe in Christ alone for salvation. PERHAPS…maybe…there are some Catholic churches that don’t emphasize Mary, adding works, purgatory, etc. BUT her church was not one of them. My guess is: some in the Catholic church that are interested in theology or understanding more about Scripture might realize some of the errors and come to faith in Christ alone, BUT probably most are like my grandmother who refused to give up praying to Mary and trusting in a combination of things to get her to heaven.
Jesus Christ is the ONLY Way, Truth and Life, NO ONE comes to the Father except through Him…not by adding, subtracting or anything else.
I continue to pray for those who are dead in their trespasses and sins that God would awaken them to the truth so they do not end up in the same place as my grandmother.
31. ktc
May 10, 2006
10:55 AM
I hear you, Greg.
I just trust God for mercy in judging them: for them to deny some of those (extraneous) things they have known as the way to the Real Lord and Savior since childhood would seem like accepting “another gospel” that Paul cautioned against in Gal. 1: 6-9.
That’s part of the “division” criterion: many devout Catholics view Protestants as “having accepted another gospel than the one that was preached to (them).”
What can you do but pray and trust in His mercy?
32. Joel
May 10, 2006
11:19 AM
I think the problem here is that you can’t really define a “cult” in theological terms, because you end up using your own stance as a yardstick. I could make Calvinism fit those marks too, if I assumed that the default position was Catholic.
Heresy is a theological thing, but a cult isn’t. It seems to me that a cult is more marked by social or ecclesiastical signs, like the single charismatic leader and the extreme “us-and-them” mentality.
33. Brian Thornton
May 10, 2006
11:27 AM
“Heresy is a theological thing, but a cult isn’t. It seems to me that a cult is more marked by social or ecclesiastical signs, like the single charismatic leader and the extreme “us-and-them” mentality.”
You mean, like the pope (single leader)? And the belief that all those outside the Catholic church are apostate (us/them mentality)?
Not trying to bait you or anything…just asking what I think is a valid question in light of your statements.
34. diablaazul
May 10, 2006
12:45 PM
Brian -
Luther *absolutely believed* in baptismal regeneration. Many Lutherans still do today.
As for salvation outside the church, we would do well to remember that Christians 500 years ago were not relativists when it came to doctrine. There was no notion that there could be different “denominations” which could legitimately disagree on doctrinal matters and still be considered Christian. One was either in, or out. Early Lutherans believed that they had restored the Church to what she was meant to be; anyone who rejected the Lutheran Church was, in effect, rejecting God himself, and therefore could not be saved.
I know that you didn’t mention perpetual virginity/sinlessness as an example; I was simply mentioning another point on which Luther and Calvin were closer to the Catholic position than they would be to the present day evangelical position.
Finally, the Catholic Church no longer refers to Protestants as apostates. If anyone has an us/them mentality when it comes to the church, it’s Protestants and Eastern Orthodox, not Catholics.
Greg - no offense intended, but don’t you think it’s a bit presumptuous to assume you know where your grandmother is? Only God can judge her heart. This reminds me of how, growing up, my mother would tell me she wasn’t sure that her father was a Christian. Now, my grandfather was an Anglican archdeacon; he devoted his entire life to the church. But, because he didn’t use the language of evangelical Protestantism - “accepting Jesus as his Lord and Savior,” or being “born again” - my siblings and I were taught to doubt his salvation. The bottom line is, we don’t know. Maybe your grandmother, like my grandfather, was a faithful servant of God and the Church in ways that we cannot see.
35. Kelly
May 10, 2006
12:50 PM
One of the things I liked MOST about the video (am I one of the very few that are commenting one that has actually watched the video in it’s entirety?) was the fact that they express what the word cult actually means… some may think the word cult means “evil” or “horribly off in left field bad BAD teaching” or “pure evil satanic worship” so we need to 1st need to establish what the word “cult” really means… as far as Christianity is concerned…
Ok better yet… here are all my notes… from the video… hope its ok to post them here…
The Marks of a Cult. (All notes here were taken by me from the video)http://apologeticsgroup.com/ecommerce/os/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=3&products_id=299
A Church does not define what Scripture is… Scripture creates the Church!
We have Holy obligation to actively resist and expose all false doctrines!
The Apostles were FAR more concerned about heretical beliefs that would spring up within the church… teachings that have the appearance of being Christian and Biblical but in reality were distortions of the Truth (Acts 20:29-30, 2Peter 2:1, Galatians 1:7, 2Corinthians 11:15)
For something to be True… it must be completely TRUE!
Every time you have the same words but different meanings for that word… it will lead and end in confusion!
How do you define the word “Cult”?
Here is an easy way to help define a Cult… using math symbols…
+ ADD to the 66 books of the Bible
- From the Tri-unity of God by denying the Deity of any One of the 3 Personages of the Trinity
x Works necessary for Salvation
� The loyalties of their followers from God and Biblical Truth of Salvation to focusing on their own religion being the only church that offers truth and salvation
What makes a group a “Cult” … at least according to Christian terminology… is they claim to be Christian and yet they deny the cardinal doctrines of the Christian Faith.
1st a group can be classified as a Cult by adding to the 66 books of the Bible - by new words and or by claiming to have the interpretive key.
Cults have the tendency you say that “we have a new revelation” that “this man is our prophet” or “this woman is our prophet” because they don’t recognize the completion of revelation in Scripture. They are left to be blown by every wind of doctrine.
If anything is contrary to Scripture… it is wrong! If anything is the same as Scripture… its not needed! If anything goes beyond Scripture… it has no authority!
Anything that contradicts Scripture is necessarily false because God does not contradict Himself.
Anything that goes beyond Scripture is not needed and is in fact not authoritative because God didn’t say it and God told us that Scripture was enough! God told us that we are to live by every Word that comes forth out of His mouth… that means I don’t live by other things (writings)!
Salvation is of God. The Church is not God. The Church is what God saves… it is not what saves the people of Christ. The Church is simply the people of Christ.
The Christian church is exclusive in that it states that Jesus is the ONLY way to Heaven! In True Christian (sure there are different denominations but all True Christian denominations) agree on the Deity of Jesus Christ, The Trinity, Salvation by Grace - the ESSENTIALS of the Faith… but Cults are exclusive in a different sense - they alone - their leaders alone - have the “correct” understanding of the Scriptures and therefore their group alone is the exclusive way to God. They will also say that their church is the only “true” church.
What does God warn us about guarding ourselves? And why? To what do you measure what is true? When looking at the evidence at hand for the Christian Faith it is hard to ever deny the Truth… what is easy to fall into is accepting such teachings that “sound” Christian… but clearly are not… for this reason I will always be contending the Faith… as it says in Jude 3 > Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common Salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
36. Brian Thornton
May 10, 2006
1:09 PM
“Luther *absolutely believed* in baptismal regeneration. Many Lutherans still do today.”
So then, he did NOT hold to justification by faith alone as we have been led to believe?
Can you provide some specifics where Luther affirmed baptismal regeneration? I would be interested to see those.
Thanks.
37. Greg in Colorado
May 10, 2006
1:16 PM
RE:
Greg - no offense intended, but don’t you think it’s a bit presumptuous to assume you know where your grandmother is? Only God can judge her heart.
No offense taken…and you are right…only God knows.
BUT…
Romans 10:10
“For with the heart one believes unto righteousness and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.”
My grandmother to her dying day REFUSED to confess Jesus or her need for Jesus’ atoning work on the cross. Trust me, my family begged and tried to convince her of her need. But, she was stubborn and refused to make such a confession.
God does indeed know her heart…
That is what makes my heart weep.
38. Brian Thornton
May 10, 2006
1:29 PM
“There I began to understand that the righteousness of God is that by which the righteous lives by a gift of God, namely by faith. And this is the meaning: the righteousness of God is revealed by the gospel, namely, the passive righteousness with which merciful God justifies us by faith, as it is written, �He who through faith is righteous shall live.� Here I felt that I was altogether born again and had entered paradise itself through open gates. There a totally other face of the entire Scripture showed itself to me.”
This is from Luther’s preface to the complete edition of his Latin writings, Luther’s Works, Vol. 34 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1960), pp. 336-37
If he believed that he was born again as an adult, where does that leave his supposed “regeneration” as an infant when he was baptised?
39. david
May 10, 2006
1:48 PM
Brian,
Having been Lutheran for a little more than half of my life and having been taught the catechism, I can affirm that Luther believed in baptismal regeneration for infants. Juxtaposing that on his firm declaration of justification by faith alone is a confusing process, but it is important to remember that he also did not believe in eternal security.
It sounds strange (and it is), but it is really not much stranger than the Baptist belief in an age of accountability, before which a child is saved without faith.
Anyway, when determining what is truth, I don’t look to what the Reformers or Church Fathers said. I look to Scripture. That needs to be the standard for this discussion.
The Church began with Christ and the Apostles, not the early Church Fathers, or the Reformation, and certainly not with the Papacy.
40. Joel
May 10, 2006
1:57 PM
You mean, like the pope (single leader)? And the belief that all those outside the Catholic church are apostate (us/them mentality)?
Thoise are good points to note, Brian, but the pope doesn’t really qualify as a “single charismatic leader” in the cultic sense I meant. True, the last couple of popes have been charismatic men, but there have been an awful lot of popes that weren’t. The office is that of an admistrator and shepherd, not a demigod. (Although a few popes have thought it was.) The Church’s popularity isn’t centered around the pope; if he died tomorrow and a dull bureaucrat took his place, there wouldn’t be much change.
We have much less “us-them” mentality than a lot of Protestant denominations, really. We regard any validly baptized person (in the name of the Trinity) as a Christian and a brother; although we do consider ourselves the main stem of the Christian Church, we don’t believe that it’s apostasy to be a “cradle member” of a non-Catholic church. (Although the Protestant denominations were originally founded by apostate Catholics, and I honestly don’t know what to make of their status vis-a-vis the Church. I’d like to believe that God had mercy because their errors were committed for love of Him, not for personal power.)
You could probably apply those two criteria to Calvinism as well, although it might be stretching things to consider John Calvin a “charismatic leader” so many centuries after his death. Or Charles Spurgeon, for that matter.
41. Joel
May 10, 2006
2:03 PM
The Church began with Christ and the Apostles, not the early Church Fathers, or the Reformation, and certainly not with the Papacy.
David, I don’t get enough chances to agree with you. :) It started with Christ and the Apostles; where it went after that is a subject for a lot of discussion, but it started there.
But where it went is also the stuff of which cults are made. The word is also used for a religion that breaks away from an established one, as the Mormons and JWs did from Protestant Christianity. But then, that’s how orthodox Jews would view all of Christianity, as a breakaway cult from Judaism. So how long does a “cult” have to exist before it becomes an established religion in its own right, even if it’s a false one? Are the Mormons a religion after a century and a half?
42. david
May 10, 2006
2:36 PM
Joel, I don’t know. The distinction between “cult” and “false religion” is fuzzy, in my mind. I tend to think of cults in terms of brainwashing and isolationism, but that’s just me. I consider the IFBx churches cultic because they warn people not to read non-IFBx authors and consider their pastors to be The Man Of God whom you must obey, no matter what.
I really don’t trouble myself with the difference. False religion/cult may not be po-tay-to/po-tah-to, but it’s definitely Idaho/Russet, if that makes any sense to you.
43. Joel
May 10, 2006
2:56 PM
LOL! It does indeed, David. And I would agree with you about the IFBx churches (although I was a little hesitant to, in case any of them slipped their guardians and read this). And there are other churches I would say were theologically orthodox (certainly by Protestant lights) but that display the isolationism and power games of a cult.
44. Brian Thornton
May 10, 2006
2:58 PM
David,
Thanks for the comments on Luther. You are right about starting with Christ and the Apostles instead of the ECF’s.
It is easy, I think, for us to lose sight of the fact that ANY deviation from truth, no matter how small or insignificant it may seem to us, would have been grounds for sharp rebuke by the likes of Paul.
I think of his examples of those who advocated the abstaining of eating certain foods and forbidding marriage. Instead of reaching out to the ‘brothers’ with some differences of doctrine, he said that they had the doctrines of demons.
I think of his reaction to Peter - who merely began eating with other Jewish brothers instead of with everyone there - and Paul rebuked him to his face for distorting the gospel.
Oh, how much has changed, and how much we are willing to tolerate such heinous error, even within the bounds of orthodox Christianity.
45. Joel
May 10, 2006
3:10 PM
I think of his reaction to Peter - who merely began eating with other Jewish brothers instead of with everyone there - and Paul rebuked him to his face for distorting the gospel.
Rebuked, yes. Anathemized, no. And Peter didn’t even forfeit his position as an apostle by needing to be rebuked.
46. Brian Thornton
May 10, 2006
3:32 PM
Rebuked, yes. Anathemized, no. And Peter didn’t even forfeit his position as an apostle by needing to be rebuked.
HUGE (impossible)hypothetical here:
Had Peter NOT repented, would he have been anathematized?
(Side Question) - Would Paul have been anathematized by Rome for his teaching on justification by faith alone?
47. Lance Roberts
May 10, 2006
3:46 PM
I’m actually amazed that they would consider Seventh Day Adventists a cult. I disagree with plenty with them (Annihilationism, Dispensationalism), but they acknowledge Christ. I guess I don’t define cults as broadly as they do. I haven’t watched the video, but I plan on getting it, since I really like Amazing Grace.
I’m also amazed that so many people can believe in papal infallibility and mariolatry. It just shows how many people don’t read and study their bibles.
How can it be “error” to leave a church selling indulgences, and having a pope that raped women that came to worship.
48. Kelly
May 10, 2006
3:46 PM
Ok… not that anyone is reading my posts… but if one were to ask me if Catholicsm is a cult… I would 1st ask them… what do they teach about Salvation? If they were to answer corectly about what the Catechism says the church believes then I would say… according to the Bible… Catholicsm is teaching a false doctrine when it concerns Salvation… and that is not a doctrine one should mess up in! So I believe Catholicsm is a cult… according to the Catechism that I have read… and I own… just to cross reference with… so yes… I believe Catholicsm is a cult due to there doctrinal error in the Salvation message.
In Him who gives Life,
Kelly
49. Kelly
May 10, 2006
3:46 PM
Ok… not that anyone is reading my posts… but if one were to ask me if Catholicsm is a cult… I would 1st ask them… what do they teach about Salvation? If they were to answer corectly about what the Catechism says the church believes then I would say… according to the Bible… Catholicsm is teaching a false doctrine when it concerns Salvation… and that is not a doctrine one should mess up in! So I believe Catholicsm is a cult… according to the Catechism that I have read… and I own… just to cross reference with… so yes… I believe Catholicsm is a cult due to there doctrinal error in the Salvation message.
In Him who gives Life,
Kelly
50. Brian Thornton
May 10, 2006
4:25 PM
One way to make sure that people read your posts is to post your comments twice. ;>)
51. Brian Thornton
May 10, 2006
4:27 PM
Kelly, I forgot to say that those were very good comments, I thought.
52. Kelly
May 10, 2006
4:35 PM
Ha Ha… post twice… see it does work… however… that was an accident lol
And thanks… I am passionate about this subject!
God BLESS you!
Kelly
53. ktc
May 10, 2006
5:00 PM
David said this above
—I can affirm that Luther believed in baptismal regeneration for infants. Juxtaposing that on his firm declaration of justification by faith alone is a confusing process, but it is important to remember that he also did not believe in eternal security.—
Regarding any doctrinal juggling and backpedaling, I think we’d all do well to remember that Luther was raised Catholic! ;-D
54. Joel
May 10, 2006
5:28 PM
So was Calvin, ktc. :)
However, I still think that these marks for cults reduce the term to a mere pejorative. I agree with David that a cult is marked more by its practices than its doctrines, particularly in terms of brainwashing, manipulation and isolation.
Applying the word indiscriminately to any religious group outside a particular radius of orthodoxy renders it meaningless. “Yeah, well… you’re… you’re a cult! So there!”
55. Kelly
May 10, 2006
6:06 PM
Doctrine is VERY important… and I do believe that if anyone were to ask a Catholic “How does one get to go to Heaven” you will see that they do not trust in Jesus alone… they trust in being good… and works… and Mary… and that is what the church teaches… according to the Catechism… even the late pope John Paul said one could go to Heaven without Christ… can you believe that?
Kelly
56. diablaazul
May 10, 2006
6:46 PM
Kelly,
The pope did not say any such thing. The Catholic position is that it is *possible* that those who have never had a chance to accept Christ might be saved (note all the qualifications), and even that is only made possible through Christ’s passion and resurrection. No one can get to heaven apart from Christ.
Brian,
I see where Paul says that the righteous are justified by faith, but I have yet to find a translation that says by faith alone.
57. Joel
May 10, 2006
6:55 PM
Kelly, I agree that doctrine is very important, but I don’t think the distinction between a religion and a cult is based on doctrines. As for the rest, well, I’ll be happy to discuss them with you (you seem to have some misconceptions), but I don’t want to hijack this thread any farther than I’ve already done. (For which I apologize, BTW.)
58. Anne Ivy
May 10, 2006
7:31 PM
Not that I’m intending to present myself as a defender of the RCC, but I do think calling it a “cult” is a bit rash, and the hallmarks provided above are lacking at least one significant mark, i.e. that a true *cult* is very, very hard to leave.
When I decided to convert to the RCC when in my early 20’s I was surprised when the first response of the priest was “Why?”
I’d rather expected a choir of nuns singing the Agnus Dei to appear and a handy bishop pop out of the closet, instead of which I was given a copy of the catechism, advised to read it, then return if I’m still interested.
A dozen years later when I left the RCC, you know what happened?
Nothing. Not one thing. Though I’d been on church committees, room mother in the church’s school, etc. once we stopped attending we never heard from any priest. (Different parishes, BTW, and to be fair, there’d been turnover in the resident priests and I didn’t really know any of the new ones.)
Point being, the RCC doesn’t solicit new members in the way a true cult does, and one can leave anytime one wishes, unlike in a true cult.
So ISTM for all its faults, the tall and the small, the RCC should be acquitted of qualifying as a “cult”.
59. Brian Thornton
May 10, 2006
7:33 PM
Okay, blue devil, let’s see what the Scriptures DO say:
because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin. -Rom. 3:20
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. - Rom. 3:23-26
For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. - Rom. 3:28
since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one. - Rom. 3:30
Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, - Rom. 5:1
nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified. - Gal. 2:16
Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.” - Gal. 3:11
Behold, as for the proud one, His soul is not right within him; But the righteous will live by his faith. - Hab. 2:4
Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. - Gal. 3:24
and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. - Acts 15:9
“Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.” - Acts 10:43
What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.” Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,” - Rom. 4:1-5
60. Dallas Pymm
May 10, 2006
7:47 PM
Gosh Brian, is that the best you could do? Bad Joke, good job.
Before someone cries James 2:24, it is pretty obvious that our faith is proven by the good works Christ has prepared for us to do (Ephesians 2:10) and not that our works pluss our faith equals salvation. Our faith, our salvation produces good works. Not the other way around.
James 2:18-26
18But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! 20Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? 21Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; 23and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”— and he was called a friend of God. 24You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? 26For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.
61. Kelly
May 10, 2006
9:55 PM
Well perhaps you might comment on the following…
Three Elements of Salvation
by Mike Gendron
First we must understand that there are three tenses in salvation. For believers in the Lord Jesus Christ salvation is past (justification), present (sanctification) and pending (glorification). This is why the Bible reveals that Christians have been saved, are being saved, and will be saved. All Christians have been saved (past tense) from the penalty of sin. Paul writes, “you have been saved through faith…not as a result of works” (Eph. 2:8). At the moment of faith, the sinner is justified and has a right standing before God that is permanent (Heb. 10:14). He cannot be condemned again (Rom. 8:1). After justification, believers begin working out their salvation with fear and trembling (sanctification) by doing the good works God has prepared for them (Eph. 2:10). Sanctification is an ongoing process whereby Jesus is manifested in Christians which saves them from the power of sin (2 Cor. 4:11). Paul wrote: “to us who are being saved, it [the message of the cross] is the power of God” (1 Cor. 1:18). Glorification is still future and will not occur until Jesus saves believers from the presence of sin. The Bible reveals: “Christ…will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for Him” (Heb. 9:28).
Your thoughts?
Much LOVE IN Christ,
Kelly
62. Brian Thornton
May 10, 2006
11:15 PM
Kelly,
That sounds pretty solid.
Ther only thing I would add is that, from God’s vantage point, it’s ALL already been completed:
Check out the past tense in each of these actions…
For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.-Rom. 8:29-30
63. Kelly
May 11, 2006
10:32 AM
Amen Brian!
I have REALLY enjoyed our conversation! Have you clicked on my name btw? Would love for you to join!!!
Wink wink…
In Him who saves!
Kelly
64. Allan
May 16, 2006
5:21 PM
Joel said;
‘Heresy is a theological thing, but a cult isn’t. It seems to me that a cult is more marked by social or ecclesiastical signs, like the single charismatic leader and the extreme “us-and-them” mentality.’
And I tend to agree, and then think of a single Pope, and the Catholic ‘us-and-them’ doctrine that would say that as a person without the catholic sacraments, I am not a member of Christ’s Church.
65. Joel
May 17, 2006
5:25 PM
And I tend to agree, and then think of a single Pope, and the Catholic ‘us-and-them’ doctrine that would say that as a person without the catholic sacraments, I am not a member of Christ’s Church.
Well, the last pope was pretty charismatic, and this one’s shaping up to be a good one, but there have been a lot of them that were either bland or ouutright scumbags. If the Church stood or fell on the pope the way cults stand or fall on their leader, we’d have been on the ash heap of history long ago. And if you’re baptized, you’ve already had the sacrament that makes you a part of Christ’s Church by our lights.
Remember the old saying “There are no strangers, only friends we haven’t met?” Well, you’re not the stranger you think you are (or would prefer to be). As a baptized Christian, we consider you more or less just another Catholic that’s out of communion. :)
66. James
April 13, 2007
7:46 PM
The Danny Haszard Cult now has a few followers.
Danny has adopted the universal cult-leader stance of presenting himself as both a victim, and a type of
savior showing the way to salvation. He is of course successful with only those who reject an honest
investigation and give themselves over to the control and teachings of someone who teaches hate.
These traits, of being a victim and a leader intensely interested in saving others, are of course at the very
essence of Cults and their delusional leaders.
Though offering a pretense of help, however, his offering lacks conciliatory and genuine assistance to
Jehovah’s Witnesses, fellow “victims” for whom surely he must hold some kind of good intent…. But, no,
he sadly and pathetically just tries to create separation and anger, tries to divide families, tries to destroy
happiness, and teaches a withdrawing from and a rejection of the accepted freedoms of speech of our
society.
He suppresses the truth in favor of his own vitriolic hate. His efforts are reflective of a perception of
personal grandeur and a fixation on his own self-worth.
Also a trait of Cult leaders, Danny lacks the fortitude and purpose in life to accomplish good for himself
and others without needing the adulation of others he can dupe. Cult leaders need to build their own self
-esteem and to feed their own personal aggrandisement, and to strengthen their own wobbly beliefs by
grasping for the approval of followers. Anger is so often a front for fear and weakness. It is the weak
person, usually accompanied by weak reasoning, who turns from truth and uses anger and fear as a
motivator. Those similarly inclined or susceptible become followers of cult leaders like Danny Haszard.
He has actually made himself more of a slave to the Watchtower than he ever was as a member - he is
addicted to his fears and anger, addicted to attacking, delusional as to the success of his efforts to tear
down the faith of others, and uses hate as a tool to appeal to those similarly lacking in faith, or honesty, or
dignity, or self-worth, or personal esteem.
Remarkably his entire purpose in life in now linked to a preoccupation with the Watchtower.
This cultish behavior includes efforts to drawing off a following for himself….He has set himself up as an
authority figure who works hard to attract followers.
This is the new Danny Haszard Cult.
67. Joel
April 13, 2007
11:48 PM
James, you seem somewhat unfond of this guy. I’d never heard of him until now, but then, I’m neither a JW nor a refugee from the Watchtower. Are you a Witness, or just someone who took Haszard seriously and got burned? (I ask from curiosity, not with the intent of arguing with you.)
68. Danny Haszard
April 17, 2007
11:58 AM
NOTICE:SPAM COMMENT by ‘JAMES’ IS A JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES STALKER
Who’s Danny Haszard?
Stalking Jehovah’s Witnesses trolls just eaten up with jealousy over Danny Haszard
Troll flamebaiters—Your notions though many are not worth a penny When it gets down to facts, the apologist does not respond back, everything about the Jehovah’s Witnesses troll is deception because you are a supremacist cult who feel no need to be truthful with unbelievers who are all,”gonna die at armageddon anyway”.
This is the Jehovah’s Witnesses troll IP address
james
(c-67-176-38-74.hsd1.co.comcast.net)
James
Aurora, CO
69. Joel
April 17, 2007
12:43 PM
Seems to me that this exchange illustrates the point I made earlier. Words like “cult,” “troll” and “spam” are so fluid that they can simply be applied to anybody you disapprove of.