 |
Gospel Ministries PO Box 9411 Boise, ID 83707
Featuring the Radio Transcripts of |
|
WHAT'S A CULT? by Pastor Bob Hallstrom WHAT'S A CULT PART 1 You know, I am sick and tied of government, the news media, and mainline Christianity labeling denominations such as this one with four letter words such as "cult" or a "sect," and just because we believe that the Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and kindred peoples of the earth are the literal descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But the fact of the matter is that every denomination within Christianity is a sect, and I will prove this during the next three broadcasts. What I want to know is, do the people that so blatantly throw these four letter words around even know what the words mean? After reading the definition for these words, it can only be concluded that they do not. For example, I have before me my Webster's Dictionary, and it defines Cult as: "1. A system of religious worship or ritual. "2. devoted attachment to, or extravagant admiration for a person, principle, etc., especially when regarded as a fad... "3. a group of followers; sect." The first definition given by Webster covers every religious form of worship that exists in the whole wide world. The first definition of "a system of religious worship or ritual," covers the Catholics, the Mormons, all the Protestants, and even the Jews, just to mention a few. So why hasn't the media referred to all of those groups as "cults?" They certainly fit the definition. In the second definition we find a little narrower definition because now we are given "admiration for a person, principle, etc." Well most denominations we are familiar with are "devoted to, attached to and admire, our Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus. So again the majority of religions are "sects." Of course, some will try to extend this admiration to a religious leader. So the Lutherans admire Martin Luther, so I guess they are a cult. The Mormons admire Joseph Smith, so I guess that makes them a cult. The Saturday Adventists admire Ellen White, so I guess that makes them a cult. The Presbyterians admire Calvin, so I guess that makes them a cult. But you see, I, as a believer in Anglo-Israelism, do not admire Calvin, Martin Luther, Ellen White, or Joseph Smith as those religions do, as my admiration is to the Living God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and yet I am among those being labeled as a cult. I simply do not understand. Webster's third definition says a Cult is "a group of followers; sect." A group of followers. My goodness, the Masons are a group of followers. The Elks are a group of followers. The Shriners are a group of followers. The democrats and the Republicans are both groups of followers. But the media is not calling them cults, but I follow no one but Christ, I do not have or belong to a group of followers, and yet because I believe that the Anglo-Saxon peoples are Israelites, I am classified as a cult. Again, I fail to understand. In that third definition we were also given a synonym. Please notice that is was that other nasty four letter word "sect." Webster says of the word sect: "1. A group of people having a common leadership, set of opinions, philosophical doctrine, etc. "2. Any group holding certain views, political principles, etc. in common. "3. A religious denomination especially a small group that has broken away from an established church." Let's look at these definitions one by one. The first definition states: "1. A group of people having a common leadership, set of opinions, philosophical doctrine, etc. This definition makes reference to a group "having common leadership" but does not define nor make any distinction between groups. So, again, I would refer you to the Democrat and Republican parties. They are certainly a group of people and they certainly have a common leadership. This definition also makes reference to a common "set of opinions," and again I would refer you to the Democrats and the Republicans. And in this first definition we see that it finally does make reference to a group of people having a "common philosophy." The word "philosophy" in its purest meaning, again according to Webster, relates to the "Love of wisdom or knowledge." Webster goes on to tell us that it is the study of principles of law that regulate the universe and includes such things a logic, ethics, and metaphysics. Not to mention the philosophy of economics. And finally when we do get to a type of religious application to the word philosophy, it states that philosophy is a study of human morals, character, and behavior. Please, notice that philosophy is a study of things, whether or not the things studied are agreed with. In other words, philosophy is not limited to a study of the Bible or biblical activities. So as we look at the first definition of this four-letter word "sect," we see that it could be applied to any group of people who share like opinions, like leadership, or like doctrines. Which, by definition, includes any and all organizations, be it the boy scouts or Catholicism. Now I really like Webster's second definition. Remember it stated: "2. Any group holding certain views, political principles, etc. in common." There is no question that this definition encompasses all political parties -- the Democrats, Republicans, Populists, Libitarians, and every other political party. And of course this definition could be applied to every organization out there, again from the Catholics to the boy scouts. This brings us to Webster's third definition which states: "3. A religious denomination especially a small group that has broken away from an established church." I also really like this definition. Notice is says that a sect is "a religious denomination," and without qualification. That is, the definition does not say that a sect is a religious denomination which adheres to a doctrine different from a particular religion or churches. And of course the definition cannot include such statements, because who is going to determine which religion being deviated from is the right one. Yes, my brethren, all religious organizations are "sects." But we do see the words "especially a small group that has broken away from an established church." The word "especially" does not negate the fact that all religions are sects, but does imply that small splinter groups would especially be considered as sects. So now, we begin to see how this word "sect" came to be applied to other than mainline denominations. But if we go back to Webster's 1st edition we find no such reference. For there it stated a sect was: "A body or number of persons united in tenets, chiefly in philosophy or religion, but constituting a distinct party by holding sentiments different from those of other men. "Among the Jews, the principle sects were the Pharisees, Sadducees, and the Essenes." So in the original definition, there was no such thing as "especially those," and that was because every religious group was called a sect, much in the same manner we call religions groups denominations. That all groups were considered sects is seen very clearly in the definition which stated, "Among the Jews, the principle sects were the Pharisees, Sadducees, and the Essenes." Please notice that these were not all the sects, only the "principle" sects. What it amounts to in the 20th century, is that our society today only wants to recognize certain mainline denominations, among them the Catholics, Mormons, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Adventists, etc., etc, etc. But let a group of people splinter from one of these mainline "sects," by adding some little, and even possibly trivial piece of doctrine to any one of these mainline denominations and they are immediately labeled as a sect. And when the government, the media, and mainline Christianity labels those people as "a cult," it imparts to the people in our society an understanding that: "Those people are different than we are, they must be bad, wicked, and evil." Well we have seen how Webster's dictionary defines the two four-letter words "cult" and "sect," and have determined that by definition every denomination in America is a "sect," and a cult." Now I began this broadcast telling you that I was tired of being among those called a sect or a cult because of my beliefs; however, I won't complain anymore if they will call all denominations in America a cult or a sect, but if not, then please don't call me a sect or a cult. Won't you please just refer to me as another denomination running around out there, and if you want to label this ministry with a title, call it a kingdom ministry. WHAT'S A CULT PART 2 In our last broadcast I began by stating that I am sick and tied of government, the news media, and mainline Christianity labeling denominations such as this one with four-letter words such as "cult" or a "sect," and just because I believe that the Anglo- Saxon, Celtic and kindred peoples of the earth are the literal descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. People who believe that the Anglo-Saxon and kindred peoples of the earth are the Israel people of the Bible should never be spoken of as a sect, nor be called a cult. Whoever makes such statements manifests a great deal of ignorance as to the proper use of words, as well as the nature of the Anglo-Israel belief. Many people, in their ignorance, refer to us as belonging to the British-Israel sect. But let me assure you that I am an American. I am not, and I have never been a British citizen, so I should never be called a British-Israelite. If I have to be labeled, label me as an Anglo-Israelite who teaches the kingdom message, the same message that Christ taught to His disciples and the people of that day. But back to the four-letter words. Let us examine the word "sect" and we shall see that Anglo-Israel believers are not a sect, because, as I have already explained, the older definitions in Webster's Dictionary show that kingdom ministries cannot be called a sect or a cult unless all denominations are likewise called sects and cults. But let's look at a newer Dictionary, because the later generations of writers have changed the definitions to suit their own ends. For example, Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines a "sect" as: A. "A party dissenting from an established or parent church;..." B. "One of the organized bodies of Christians; a denomination." So in the second definition, Webster confirms what I have been saying, and that is every denomination is a sect. But it is the first definition which presents the problem before us. Before proceeding, I should point out that the word "sect" comes from the word "section" meaning part of the whole. Just as one slice of an orange is a section of the whole orange, so the various denominations are part of the whole Christian community of Christian believers. The reason each slice or denomination is still part of the whole orange is because mainstream Christianity is based on certain principles upon which they all agree. For example: 1) We believe in the living God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; 2) We believe in the Biblical account of creation; 3) We believe Scripture is the word of God; 4) Christ is the Redeemer of Israel & Saviour of all creation; 5) Christ died for the remission of our sins; 6) Salvation is by grace, and only through Christ. There are probably many more things that mainline Christians would agree upon but this is enough to show that, in this regard, they are all of the same basic religion, or they all come from the same orange. Yes, all of these things are believed by mainstream Christianity, and guess what: We Anglo-Israel believers also believe all of these things, so I ask you: how can we possibly be a sect unless all who believe these things are members of a sect? Dr. Mordecai F. Ham, under whom Billy Graham was converted, was a Baptist; Dr. G. Campbell Morgan, "the prince of expositors" was a Congregationalist; Bishop Jonathan Holt Titcomb was an Anglican; Dr. Dinsdale T. Young and Dr. Clarence True Wilson were great Methodist ministers; Evangelist F. F. Bosworth belonged to The Christian Missionary Alliance; but all of these men had one thing in common beyond the things I have listed above: They believed that the Anglo-Saxon people are Israel. So it is a gross abuse of words to call Anglo-Israel believers a sect without referring to all denominations as sects. Likewise, we should never be called a cult. The same Webster's dictionary quoted from above says: "a cult is a sect." But, once again, the use of the word has broadened out in its meaning. A professor of a seminary, who majored in comparative religions and cults, was once asked how he would define a "cult," and he defined it as: "A professed Christian movement which had departed from the "mainstream" of evangelical Christianity." In this regard I can positively and absolutely tell you that Anglo-Israel believers have not departed from the "mainstream of evangelical Christianity" and therefore cannot be called a cult. Yes, we are evangelical Christians. We believe in the inspiration, the infallibility and the authority of Scripture. In fact, we probably understand these things better than most of our brethren in mainline Christianity. We also believe in the Deity of Jesus Christ. We believe in His virgin birth, His resurrection and ascension. And of course we look forward to the day of His second coming to judge this world in righteousness. We believe that His death on Calvary was for our redemption and as a sacrifice for sins. We believe in the necessity to be saved, or converted, and the work of the Holy Spirit. We believe all these things and if this is the evangelical position, then we have not departed from the mainstream of evangelical Christianity -- have we? No we have not. In fact we add to, or go beyond the tenets of mainline Christianity to enhance those positions. We believe in Calvary, as does mainline Christianity, but we also see in Calvary a confirmation of the great covenant promises made to the fathers of Israel. We see in His shed blood the ratification of those great promises and an opening up of the flood gates allowing the literal fulfillment of those promises. You see, the Anglo-Israel believer believes everything that mainline Christianity does, and even more -- not less. Yes, our understanding of Scripture is consistent with the evangelical position, but we do add to or supplement it. But what's wrong with that? What is wrong in having an opinion that is not in harmony with the whole? Certainly we do not require that all churches in mainline Christianity hold to the same positions, do we? No we do not, for there are varied views among the Christians in mainline Christianity on baptism, election, the millennium, and church government, and so now we Anglo-Israelites have added the subject of Israel to the many varied views within Christianity. For example, mainline Christianity is divided on the subject of baptism, as some pour, some sprinkle, and some immerse. And there are even a few that do without baptism altogether, but none of these groups refer to the others as a cult. Yet when we say that we are Anglo-Israelites, we are sometimes labeled as a cult. Then there are the great theological differences between Calvinists and Arminians, but neither of these groups refers to the other as a cult. Yet when we say that we are Anglo-Israelites, we are sometimes labeled as a cult. As to the millennium, there are three -- at least three -- views: Post-millennialism, A-millennialism, and Pre-millennialism, but again, none of these groups refer to the others as a cult. Yet when we say that we are Anglo-Israelites, we are sometimes labeled as a cult. And I would also suggest that there are almost as many views on church government as there are churches. There are all of these differences, and more, between denominations within mainline Christianity and likewise, when it comes to the subject of Israel, there are three major views considered by Christians. (1) The view promoted by the reformed churches that the church is the inheritor of Israel's promises; (2) the view that the Jews constitute all Israel; and (3) the position that Israel is found in the Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, and kindred peoples. Now I have a question for you. Why, is it considered honorable for one denomination to say the Church is Israel, and why is it honorable for another denomination to say that Jews are Israel? Especially since these positions are about as far apart as day and night. Since these positions are honorable, why then is it dishonorable when we say that the Anglo-Saxon peoples are Israel? Why is it that only our position becomes heresy and the formation of a cult? This seems especially odd in view of the fact that 90% of all Christians and the larger amount of Jews reside in Anglo-Saxondom. Anyone who will seriously stop and think for a minute can only come to the conclusion that government, the news media, and mainline Christianity has created a double standard: One for mainline Christianity, consisting of those who do not hold to our views, and another standard which they apply to us because of our view on Anglo-Israelism. No my brethren, we Anglo-Israel believers are neither a sect nor a cult, but a well-reasoned and growing school of interpretation. Our understanding explains world conditions of yesterday and today as no other view of Scripture has, or ever will explain them. If you do not understand that the Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, and kindred people are indeed the literal descendants of Israel, write for information to the address given at the end of this broadcast. WHAT'S A CULT PART 3 In our last two broadcasts we have been looking at the subject of "cults." I have began each broadcast stating that I am sick and tied of government, the news media, and mainline Christianity labeling denominations such as this one with four letter words such as "cult" or a "sect," and do so just because I believe that the Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and kindred peoples of the earth are the literal descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I want to once again tell you a fact: by definition, the Methodists are a sect. The Mormons are a sect. The Presbyterians are a sect. The Baptists are a sect, and in the days of Christ and the apostles, the Pharisees, Sadducees, Nazarenes, and even the doctrine which Christ taught was a sect. That's right -- every denomination within Christianity is a sect. Now don't get mad at me, just hear me out, as I am going to prove this to you, and do so from the Word of God. For example: Acts 5:17 refers to the sect of the Sadducees, Acts 15:5 refers to the sect of the Pharisees In Acts 24:5 reference is made of Paul as being a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes: In Acts 26:5 Paul describes his involvement with Judaism saying, "after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee." When Paul says that he was "after the most straightest sect of our religion," he is saying the that the Pharisees were one sect of many among Judaism, and we have seen that others included the Sadducees and the Nazarenes. When Paul was in Rome, he called together the leaders of the religion of Judaism to talk with them. They said to Paul in Acts 28:22: "But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest: for as concerning this sect, we know that every where it is spoken against." This sect the religious leaders were referring to was the doctrine Paul was teaching, and this doctrine was the teaching of Christ, so what we today call Christianity was a sect at the time of Paul. The point being that the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Nazarenes, and the doctrine of Christ were all called sects. Today we call the doctrine of Christ Christianity, and within Christianity there are many sects, but we call them denominations such as the Methodists, Presbyterians, Catholics, Mormons, Adventists, etc. Thus all denominations of Christianity are sects. However, when the press or the government turns against a denomination, it now uses the words "sect" or "cult" in order to destroy its credibility in the eyes of the people. Now it is time to look at the history and development of any denomination. Did you know that every great Christian movement has had to fight its way to popular acceptance? This was true even for Christianity -- you see, for two hundred years after Christ, the Christians were still being persecuted for their beliefs. There are three stages though which most movements have passed: First, that of ridicule; second, persecution; third, recognition as a legitimate branch of the Christian church. This does not mean that the stages are well marked and defined so that you can tell where one stops and the next begins, for they often overlap or happen simultaneously. But all religious movements did have ridicule, persecution, and other abuses before they were finally recognized. Those who have not studied church history do not realize that some of the most honored and respected denominations of today were once terribly ridiculed and persecuted in their early history. The Anglo-Israel believers have been no exception to this rule. Many years ago, Dr. H.C. Morton, a great Methodist minister of international renown, and Editor of the Fundamentalists, and who is not an Anglo-Israel believer, expressed himself as being shocked at the persecution which Anglo-Israel believers have received in this country, and mostly from our Christian brethren. But there is evidence that Anglo-Israelism is entering or merging into the third stage of Christian movements. For example, as far back as 1954 Dr. Horton Davies wrote a book called "Christian Deviations," in which one chapter is on the Anglo-Israel position. When this book was reviewed in "The Churchman" for September 1954, by Rev. J. Stafford Wright, M.A., Principal of Tyndale Hall, Bristol, he took issue with Dr. Davies in calling us a deviation, and pointed out that we accept the evangelical position. After citing how we accept the Deity and Lordship of Jesus Christ, he said further: "In fact, I myself could never group B.I. [Anglo- Israelites] with others; it would be fairer to recognize it as a particular interpretation of prophecy within the orthodox Church of Christ." In another case, Dr. F. Townley Lord, Editor of "The Baptist Times," wrote an article on "The British Israelites" for February 16, 1956, in which he also said many complimentary things and admitted: "from what I know of them, [they are] fervent and devoted to evangelical Christianity." Dr. James Black, an outstanding Presbyterian minister and former moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, also says some complimentary things about us in his book, "New Forms of the Old Faith." After outlining our position, he states: "Note (1) it does not involve any question of Christian orthodoxy or heresy. It is . . . a view which many Christians add on to their ordinary faith. (2) It does not involve any breach or schism in the church itself; its members belong loyally to all churches. (3) Those who accept it say that it gives them a new view of their responsibility to bring the world under the rule of God; and they claim that it gives them a new vocation, and a sense of our national destiny and responsibility." (pp. 266-267) He went on to say: "Many good Christians whom I know and respect do keenly believe it. Its acceptance does not entail any heresy, or involve any less interest in the Church." Ibid Back in 1953 Dr. Oswald J. Smith, Founder of The People's Church, in Toronto, Canada, published a book called "Who Are The False Prophets?" This book has one chapter against the Anglo-Israel position, and went though many reprints. In 1962 and 1964 this book was republished and copyrighted under the title "The False Prophets." It contains the same chapters against some of the popular religious so-called cults of today, but the chapter against the Anglo-Israel position was deleted. Could it be that Dr. Smith finally saw the light? We think so because we do know that while Dr. Smith was pastor of the great church he founded, there were three great evangelists who held meetings for him. They were Drs. A.P. Gouthey, Luke Rader and F.F. Bosworth. And, now listen to this: all three of these men were committed to the Anglo-Israel position. Furthermore, Dr. Smith admitted to the late Dr. Luke Rader that the greatest evangelistic crusades ever held in his church were held by Gouthey and Bosworth -- both Anglo-Israelites. What is really interesting is that some churches in England do not ascribe to our position, and yet will allow the teaching. Several Pentecostal preachers from England have stated to a pastor from this country that kingdom identity could be preached in their churches. Remember this is in England, and they would allow it as long as you were a gentleman about it. That is, if you are Christian and show tolerance toward those who do not see it your way. Another Englishman, the late Principal George Jeffreys, well known to all Pentecostal churches of Britain, was the founder of two Pentecostal churches of Britain: The Elim Church and the Bible Pattern Church. Until the Billy Graham era, probably no minister in England in modern times ever spoke to larger crowds than did George Jeffreys. At his death all his Brethren paid high tribute to him as one of God's chosen servants for this day and generation. But please remember he was fully committed to a belief in the Anglo-Saxon identity as the Israel people of the Bible. There was no doubt as to his position on this subject, and we only wish the Pentecostal churches in America had the same grace, light, and understanding that their Brethren in Britain have. As I stated in our last broadcast, anyone who will seriously stop and think for a minute can only come to the conclusion that government, the news media, and mainline Christianity has created a double standard: One for mainline Christianity, consisting of those who do not hold to our views, and another standard which they apply to us because of our view on Anglo-Israelism. And once again I say unto you, my brethren: we Anglo-Israel believers are neither a sect nor a cult, but a well-reasoned and growing school of interpretation. Our understanding of the kingdom message explains world conditions of yesterday and today as no other view of Scripture has or ever will explain them. And finally, if you do not understand that the Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, and kindred people are indeed the literal descendants of Israel, write for information to the address given at the end of this broadcast.
|
Go Back to Gospel Ministries Index Page, or
Return to G.O.A.L. Home Page?