I have lost good friends, including my father in Christ, because I have refused to label the Roman Catholic Church as an out-and-out cult.
Now, don’t get me wrong; I don’t for a second consider Rome to be a healthy church, by any stretch of the imagination. I don’t consider it to be an institutionally faithful church, either.
But I don’t consider it to be a cult.
Sorry.
For those who kick and scream and demand otherwise, you’ve got problems. No less an authority than Jesus Himself (you know… the whole “God in the flesh” guy, Creator of the universe, Head of the Church, etc., etc…) said that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against [the church].“
For over a thousand years, the only coherent institutional expression of the church that existed on the planet were the Roman and Orthodox churches (which has problems all its own). Sure, there were other groups, but they were almost universally heterodox in their own right. So, either Jesus was wrong and you (who insist on calling Rome a pseudochristian cult) are right and the church really did cease to exist as an identifiable body for a period of nearly a thousand years, or you’re wrong and Jesus is right, after all.
Guess who I’m voting for?
Again, please don’t misunderstand; I’m not saying that the RCC is a healthy or Biblically faithful expression of the Body of Christ – it isn’t. But neither do I for a second believe it is a cultic body on par with the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
Roman Catholicism (at least in its official doctrine) teaches all the cardinal truths of Scripture:
- The Trinity
- The full Deity and full Humanity of Jesus
- Salvation through Jesus’ death alone
- The authority and reliability of Scripture
- etc.
(BTW, please understand – I’m not saying that the RCC teaches these and other cardinal doctrines of the Faith with equal, necessary clarity and Scriptural faithfulness, only that these core doctrines, though often buried in a thick muck of often weird, deeply settled doctrinal hooey, are still there. This article from CRI was actually a very balanced, very well done treatment of the issue which I think successfully navigated the treacherous doctrinal waters between the Scylla of false ecumenism embodied in the trend to “go along to get along” and turn a blind eye to Rome’s massive doctrinal and praxis failures, and and the Charybdis of carte blanche, universal condemnation of all things Catholic and if you don’t agree with me that the Pope eats Protestant babies for breakfast then you’re one of them and you’re a foul, foul apostate aaaah, aaaaah, aaaaaaaaaaa – you get the point.)
The problem arises that Rome has accreted a gob of doctrinal detritus that often obscures and obfuscates the core orthodoxy that is still there.
In other words, I believe it is entirely possible to be genuinely saved and yet still a Catholic.
I even believe it is possible that there are {{gaaaaasp!!!}} genuinely saved priests who truly love the Lord Jesus and are trusting in His merits alone to save them.
In light of all this, I found it refreshingly interesting to read this entry in my e-Sword commentary on Revelation 18 while studying to teach that chapter tomorrow morning here on the Lakeshore. From the People’s New Testament, I read:
This invitation is given to the people of God yet in captivity, lest by remaining they should be involved in her destruction. As God once had a captive people in the old Mesopotamian Babylon, so he has a people in the spiritual Babylon. Ever since the Reformation began his voice has called on them to come out of her. Nor can it be doubted that he has many true and earnest worshipers still who have found enough of Christ in the mazes of the Papacy to have given him their hearts. The condemnation of the great spiritual despotism is not a declaration that all whom she has enslaved are the children of the devil.
I concur wholeheartedly.
Without diminishing the fact that the doctrinal corruptions of Rome truly do constitute a near-endless series of “mazes” surpassed only, perhaps, by Mormonism, and that it is admittedly difficult to see Jesus’ finished work clearly through the thick fog of extra- (and often contra-) Biblical hogwash that Rome’s gone and gathered around the simplicity of the doctrines of Christ and salvation, the fact remains that there is still enough of the “deposit of faith” in the deep labyrinths of the Roman Church that – I’m utterly convinced – there are yet some (and even possibly many) of God’s kids still within the institutional bounds of the Holy See.
To summarize: I believe it is impossible to be Mormon, or Jehovah’s Witness, or a Christian Scientist, or the like, and be genuinely saved. But whereas I would never encourage anyone to remain in the Catholic church, and I would never recommend the RCC as being a Biblically faithful representation of the Body of Christ, I believe it is entirely possible to be Catholic (or part of one of the Orthodox communions) and be genuinely saved.
As I’d stated at the outset of this blogpost: I’ve lost many friends I’d counted dear over this issue – including the very man the Lord used to bring me to faith in Him in the first place back in my Navy days. This is not an easy, cost-free stand to take.
I’ll go ahead and close with an apropos quote from Luther:
Here I stand. I can do nothing else. God help me. Amen.
January 20, 2008 at 9:15 am
Mike,
What’s a “cult” anyway? I mean how do you define where a “cult” begins and an aberration/dead orthodoxy/liberal doodoo/etc. begins? Walter Martin, for one, didn’t think the RC was a cult.
If a person converts to RC and they are told to keep the sacraments of the church and that it is through the keeping of the sacraments that you receive grace and ultimately salvation if you receive last rites and are prayed out of purgatory, does this constitute the church being a cult?
There must be in the church a preaching about the importance of a personal Savior and “getting saved,” but if this is not, is the church a cult? If so, all of the liberal churches are cults…
Hummm, I’ll be interested to hear what others say.
January 20, 2008 at 9:34 am
Mike,
I’m going to drill down to a deeper level. Why is it important that we agree upon a label in the first place? Especially if the label is not even defined for us in the scripture? And is it a capital ‘C’ cult or a small ‘c’ cult (or cultish or cultishness). Are we being cultish by defining non-biblical labels?
what is important is to discern from scripture what is right and wrong, what is healthy and unhealthy, what is aberrant and what is sound, etc. and do that…
$.02
January 21, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Mike you are right when you say that Christ is the head of the Church. But the Catechism of the Catholic Church says otherwise…
Can any Church have two heads?
The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains why the Church is hierarchical, with the Pope at its head.
552 Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Our Lord then declared to him: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.” Christ, the “living Stone”, thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it.
January 21, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Vee – yep; that’s one of the accreted doctrines which obfuscates the core of orthodoxy which is still there.
Like I’d said: I in no way want to give the impression that the RCC is a healthy or Biblically faithful church; it isn’t.
My point is that that’s not the same thing as saying it’s a cult.
To answer part of Jim’s question earlier, I’m using the term “cult” in its modern/technical meaning, often employed by groups like CRI.
This statement, from 1991, summarizes my own position better than I could:
A good working definition of a cult from a theological perspective is any modern-day religion that claims to be Christian while explicitly denying one or more of the essential doctrines of the historic Christian faith — such as the Trinity or the unique deity of Jesus Christ. Thus, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and Christian Scientists qualify as cultists in a theological sense.
Since Roman Catholicism is not a modern-day religious movement, it can hardly be categorized as a cult. And, far from denying the essentials of the historic Christian faith, Roman Catholicism affirms such basic doctrines as the Trinity, Christ’s deity and humanity, His virgin birth, physical atonement, bodily resurrection, and second coming. In fact, with regard to these essentials, evangelicals have more in common with conservative Roman Catholics than they do with liberal Protestants. For these and other reasons, it would be patently inaccurate and unfair to classify Roman Catholicism as a cult.
Now, having said that, let me hasten to add that just because I believe it is inaccurate to label the Catholic church a cult does not mean I am soft on Catholicism. But if we are to fault Roman Catholicism (or any group for that matter), we should do so for the right reasons.
For example, I have no hesitation in asserting that Roman Catholicism compromises and confuses the doctrine of salvation — that is, justification by grace through faith in Christ. Classical Catholicism holds the view that salvation involves a combination of faith and infused righteousness. In other words, God’s grace is said to give us the capacity to become righteous by washing away our sins and enabling us to perform good works through which we are then justified.
Biblical Christianity, by contrast, teaches that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone (Eph. 2:8-9). To put it in perspective, we are saved by grace and by grace alone; but we are saved unto good works (2 Cor. 9:8). Justification comes first; good works follow.
Besides confusion on the doctrine of salvation, Catholics embrace a number of unbiblical doctrines such as the belief in purgatory and penance. Many even go so far as to consider Mary, the human mother of Jesus, to be coredemptrix with the Redeemer, Jesus Christ — although they clarify that it was Jesus alone who bought our redemption with His blood (see Elliot Miller’s two-part series, “The Mary of Roman Catholicism,” in the CHRISTIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL, Summer and Fall 1990). Furthermore, while Catholics support the authority of the Bible, they also assert that the traditions of the Roman church are as authoritative as the revealed Word of God. That is precisely the reason why scores of practices and beliefs having no basis in Scripture are accepted by Catholics as “gospel truth.”
So, once again, let me affirm that I am not at all being soft on Catholicism, nor am I giving Catholicism a clean bill of health. CRI has always forthrightly spoken out against the aberrations within Roman Catholicism. Yet, we have also steadfastly refused to paint Catholicism into the same corner with the cults. Avoiding the broad strokes of a broom, we have attempted to paint the picture of contemporary Catholicism with the precision of an artist’s brush.
If we are not accurate in our definitions, terminologies, and concerns, we run the risk of alienating and losing those we are trying to reach. They will more than likely write us off if they perceive us as speaking out of the abundance of our ignorance rather than in a well-reasoned fashion.
REF: CRI ARTICLE
January 21, 2008 at 11:04 pm
Let me explain it this way:
You cannot be Mormon and born again at the same time.
You cannot be Jehovah’s Witness and born again at the same time.
You cannot be Christian Science and born again at the same time.
You cannot be Unity School of Christianity and born again at the same time.
You cannot be Unitarian Universalist and born again at the same time.
Those are cults – their doctrine denies foundational orthodoxy, and to adhere to their teaching is to damn the soul.
Roman Catholic doctrine, while horribly muddied by centuries of extra- (and often contra-) Biblical offal, does contain a core of orthodoxy which a true cult denies. It is entirely possible to be Catholic and born-again at the same time – though again, please please please understand me, I’m convinced that if you are a born-again Catholic, if you’re growing in grace and in the knowledge of the Word you’ll eventually and inevitably grow out of the RCC and into a Biblically healthy and faithful church.
But the core of orthodoxy is still there, unlike a real cult, which by its nature denies the cardinal truths of the Biblical Christian faith.
January 21, 2008 at 11:41 pm
My main point in questioning why it is so important that we agree upon the exact definition of a technical term such as what constitutes a “cult” was in reference to your having stated that you had lost your father in Christ over your RC position. How could fellowship with another believer be lost over something of so little real importance?! Friendships in Christ should be for life, they are that important.
I’m not against using or defining the term ‘cult’ as it does help to identify groups whose beliefs are more dangerous than others.
I would say though that you can’t really say that a person in any group could never come to know Christ. We had a couple in our Seattle church once who had come to faith in Christ as Lord and Savior while in the Mormon church. Their leaving the Mormon church only occurred after a few years when the Lord had cleared up their doctrinal understanding from the scriptures.
January 22, 2008 at 6:35 am
Aye, Jim; my point is that this couple became born again in spite of Mormonism’s teaching, not because of it. Mormonism’s doctrine categorically denies foundational elements of saving faith – in contrast to Roman Catholicism, which doesn’t deny these elements, but instead obscures them; which is why I will never say that Catholicism is a healthy or Biblically faithful expression of the Body of Christ – but not a cult in the sense of (for instance) Mormonism.
This article by CRI I think is probably the most helpful in comparing Catholicism with both Biblical Christianity and true out-and-out cults.
January 22, 2008 at 6:48 am
I saw the Cult in concert when I was in High School. I’m not sure if any of those guys were Catholic. They might have been.
January 22, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Having grown up Catholic, I was very (probably overly) harsh on the Catholic Church once I became an Evangelical Christian. I bought into some of the Jack Chick/Dave Hunt stuff that basically had Satan himself running the whole thing. I still have major issues with them–but I’m not as quick to jump into the whole church lady thing….”Did you know that the Catholic Church is actually another way of saying…SATAN!!!!!”
I’m torn a bit here. I could never recommend a Catholic Church to someone, but I’m at least encouraged by their orthodox statements on the essentials. They certainly deserve a higher place than even the Liberal Churches of today.
Pastorally, I treat all people the same–whether they come from a Catholic, Liberal, Southern Baptist, or Calvary Chapel background. My conversations are always going to go towards Christ, His Gospel, the Word of God, etc.
Having a common background with them allows me to be a bit more direct though. I usually try to go to the heart of the matter–making it clear that it’s not an “us” versus Catholic thing, but to point them to what the Word teaches on issues like Justification by Faith, how to be made right before a Holy God, etc. I take them to Romans 5:1 and camp out a bit.
Here’s how I have it in my mind, from worst to best:
Cults (both sociological and theological)
Liberal Churches (theologically)
Pseudo-Evangelical (word-faith, market driven churches, “touched by an angel” folk, “doctrine doesn’t matter” folk)
Catholic/Orthodox
Evangelical/Reformed/Arminian–Churches that love God and His Word and try to be faithful to both. Gospel focused churches.
Notice that the Catholic Church is closer to the Evangelical than even the Liberal or Word-Faith churches. In the old days, I would put the Catholic Church much higher on the list (worse). Things have changed on this.
That’s my 2 cents.
Shane
January 22, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Shane: You’ve absolutely nailed it.
That’s my opinion exactly.
January 22, 2008 at 10:18 pm
I found this about sects and the true Church…certainly liberal churches fall into this category. But does Catholicism?
The first of the doctrinal standards of the Christian Reformed Churches is the Confession of Faith. It is usually called the Belgic Confession because it originated in the Southern Netherlands, now known as Belgium.
Article 29 – The Marks of the True and the False Church
We believe that we ought to discern diligently and very carefully from the Word of God what is the true Church, for all sects which are in the world today claim for themselves the name of Church. We are not speaking here of the hypocrites, who are mixed in the Church along with the good and yet are not part of the Church, although they are outwardly in it. We are speaking of the body and the communion of the true Church which must be distinguished from all sects that call themselves the Church.
The true Church is to be recognized by the following marks: It practises the pure preaching of the gospel. It maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as Christ instituted them. It exercises Church discipline for correcting and punishing sins. In short, it governs itself according to the pure Word of God, rejecting all things contrary to it and regarding Jesus Christ as the only Head. Hereby the true Church can certainly be known and no one has the right to separate from it.
Those who are of the Church may be recognized by the marks of Christians. They believe in Jesus Christ the only Saviour, flee from sin and pursue righteousness, love the true God and their neighbour without turning to the right or left, and crucify their flesh and its works. Although great weakness remains in them, they fight against it by the Spirit all the days of their life. They appeal constantly to the blood, suffering, death, and obedience of Jesus Christ, in whom they have forgiveness of their sins through faith in Him.
The false church assigns more authority to itself and its ordinances than to the Word of God. It does not want to submit itself to the yoke of Christ. It does not administer the sacraments as Christ commanded in His Word, but adds to them and subtracts from them as it pleases. It bases itself more on men than on Jesus Christ. It persecutes those who live holy lives according to the Word of God and who rebuke the false church for its sins, greed, and idolatries.
These two Churches are easily recognized and distinguished from each other.
Vee
January 23, 2008 at 12:39 pm
It could be argued that when The Catholic Church, at the Council of Trent, condemned Justification by Faith Alone (and all who follow after the Protestant folly) actually ceased to be a true church? RC Sproul stated this before. What think ye?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Trent
January 23, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Mike, I think you have done an excellent job in clearly defining what and who you believe Roman Catholicism to be. I do not agree with every single point you are making, but do agree with your premise and conclusion.
My disagreement has to with how I view the effect Roman Catholic additions and perversions have on the Orthodox doctrinal confessions that exist within Roman Catholic doctrine.
You state that Roman Catholicism “confuses” the truth that if affirms. I would state that it “corrupts” that truth.
Nevertheless I see no reason to separate from you but I see every reason to join together with you in order to reach, rescue and build up the people who comprise the church of Jesus Christ and warn existing believer’s of the dangers of falling under it’s spell.
You have a great service in opening up intelligent discussion on the real issues by removing the “cult” label.
January 30, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Mike – setting aside the label issue for a moment, you said, “For over a thousand years, the only coherent institutional expression of the church that existed on the planet were the Roman and Orthodox churches (which has problems all its own).”
Are you saying that the church which the gates of Hell will never prevail against has to have a coherent institutional expression? It seems to me that that would contradict much of what you have said in the past.
The church is the people. It’s the body of Christ. The ecclesia is the called-out-ones. It has nothing to do with coherence or an organized institution. Looking at it historically, the RCC had as much to do with with what the Bible teaches as the phone book does. If this is true, then why does it matter if the RCC stood or fell in light if Jesus’ words about the church prevailing? If it’s the people, there will always be a remnant, part of His body in existence, organized or not.
(Personally, and this is a side issue to the main point, I think that that passage about the rock and the gates of hell has little to do with Peter’s confession and Hell. What makes much more sense is that Jesus was using the location as an object lesson. They were at Caesarea Philippi where there was a massive rock where people worshipped idols. There was a cave called “the gates of Hell.” With that geographical and cultural/spiritual context, it makes much more sense. Jesus was saying that even in such a place as this, where people practice paganism and idolatry, my church will exist. There is no place where it cannot prevail. As Jews they were used to thinking in a Jerusalem or Temple-centric way, that there was only one place to worship. Jesus was saying, even in a place like this I can and will build my church. But I digress.)
January 31, 2008 at 12:40 am
Absolutely.
And that remnant existed most notably within the institutional bounds of the RCC during the thousand-year reign of the Vatican prior to the first inklings of the dawn of the Reformation. Historically, most of those who were self-consciously outside the bounds of the RCC were in fact heterodox, while some (and probably in fact many) within her were Biblically orthodox to a passable degree.
My point was not to hash out the etymology or explore the theology of either “gates,” “hell,” or “institution” (or “onomatopoeia,” or “skabulon,” or “the infield fly rule,” for that matter). It was instead to point out that though there are serious praxis and doctrinal issues which separate Catholicism from Biblically faithful Christianity – while I in no way endorse, am enthusiastic about, or even like the RCC – neither can I label it a “cult” in the modern usage of the term.
February 3, 2008 at 6:39 pm
1 John 4:2-3
“By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.”
I don’t necessarily know if I agree with that (ie. Muslims and Mormons believe Jesus came in the flesh, and they’re not of God), but it felt relevant.
…I’m not sure what I just said. Did I just say I disagreed with a scripture verse?
…a little help here? Maybe I need to go into the Greek to really understand this one, because I don’t think John could be wrong… Perhaps that just has to be taken in time-context, in which it was just the Church vs. the Gnostics. In that case it would be relevant only to that case, and the RCC wouldn’t be covered by it.
So in other words this post was completely canceled out by itself. Whoo!
February 3, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Ah, but Jim-bo, you actually wound up hitting it on the head.
Every spirit that confesses that “Jesus has come in the flesh” confesses the core of orthodoxy – the essence of saving faith. The very thing that real cults deny. The very thing that actual false religions (like liberal Christianity) deny. The very thing which groups which (again, it must be emphasized in this context) aren’t very healthy spiritually speaking like Roman Catholicism still wind up affirming nonetheless – which is why I can’t find it in me to label Catholicism (or Eastern Orthodoxy, or even Calvinism) as being cultic or “false religion.”
Unhealthy (at least in the case of the first two, there… ;D ) to be sure – but that’s another subject entirely.
February 4, 2008 at 7:49 am
What about Muslims and Mormons? They confess that Jesus was here in the flesh…
February 11, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Yes, but with caveats.
The “Jesus” who came in the flesh in Mohammedan theology is just a man – and a lesser man than Muhammad.
The “Jesus” who came in the flesh in Mormonism (and by “Mormonism” I’m assuming we’re speaking of LDSers or the sundry splinter groups thereof) is an alien space being from near the star Kolob, literal brother of Lucifer, physical offspring of an incestuous adulterous relationship between “Elohim” (another alien space being who is the father of all the spirits of those who eventually became humans on our Earth – incluing, by logical extension, Mary) and Mary, while she was engaged to Joseph.
…neither of which are the Jesus of the Bible, Who is Very God of Very God, and in the Incarnation fully and eternally Man.