FEATURED MINISTRY ARTICLE: 8 Characteristics of a Counterfeit Christian Church

[johnmartin]

8 Characteristics of a Counterfeit Christian Church

by Eric Johnson

With the leaders of thousands of different religions and churches attempting to make their beliefs appear authentic, it behooves a person to carefully ascertain truth from error. In fact, many leaders of these faiths may call themselves "Christian" and even attempt to convert Christians into their churches.

After all, Jesus Himself said in Matthew 7:15, "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." This is why John warned the believers in 1 John 4:1 to "believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." And 1 Thessalonians 5:21 adds, "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

Jesus told the Pharisees in Matthew 23:27 that they were "like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness." How can we tell whether or not a particular religious leader (like the Pharisees) ought to be believed, especially when such a person may appear authentic and even claim to be Christian? Let's then consider eight basic doctrinal characteristics of counterfeit groups.

From here the essay should move to direct scriptural evidence for the means to determine the true from the false church. What are those means according to scripture and the history of the church?

1. Denial in the true nature of God. The rejection of fundamental Christian tenets such as the historical definition of God should be a major warning sign to any perceptive believer. Groups that deny the Christian viewpoint of the deity of Christ and the Trinity typically follow in point-by-point succession each of the other characteristics in this article. One example is The Way International, a group founded by Victor Paul Wierwille, (He once served as a former evangelical pastor. In fact, several cult leaders had their start in authentic Christian denominations and churches.) Wierwille's view of God is Unitarian rather than Trinitarian as he denies that there are three persons in the Godhead. He also claims that Jesus was not God, teaching that the deity of Christ was not a Christian teaching for the Christian church's first 300 years. This is a common (though false) assertion of many cult leaders. Because Wierwille and his church deny the very essence of what makes God who He is, this is a group to avoid.

Why is it that evangelical some ministers end up in "cults" and whats the difference between a denomination and a cult? Who or what determines this?

2. Works-emphasis salvation. Although a counterfeit's doctrine may include the idea that God's grace is important in the role of salvation, the leader normally emphasizes the idea that "salvation" ultimately comes through one's own efforts. Take the Hare Krishna devotees, for instance. These dedicated followers believe that they are in the middle stage of their reincarnation cycle. The way for a dedicated devotee to be born into the next level of existence is to deny himself on this earth while performing good works, including the repetition of the Hare Krishna mantra a total of 1,728 times a day. It may take a devotee who wakes up at 4 A.M. several hours a day to maintain this goal. Those who belong to such work-oriented groups are normally told that they can never know if their works are good enough to please God; instead, they are told to keep trying even harder.

This point seems rather odd as every religion known to mankind requires its members to do things. If we classify doing something as a work, then this measure is impossible to use. Some denominations say you only need to have faith to be saved yet the bible calls faith a work as follows.

1 Thessalonians 1:3
constantly bearing in mind your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ in the presence of our God and Father

2 Thessalonians 1:11
To this end also we pray for you always, that our God will count you worthy of your calling, and fulfill every desire for goodness and the work of faith with power,


Therefore every Christian denomination uses works which include faith.

3. The true church. Counterfeit Christian churches often make it a point to cast doubt and suspicion on other churches or denominations, with the leader oftentimes claiming that only his church is true. While many groups hold that the Christian churches do have partial truth, it is taught that full truth has somehow been lost and can now only be found in the "one true church." This may involve utilizing Christian terminology while having a different meaning behind those particular words. An example is the Watchtower Society, also known as the Jehovah's Witnesses. This group, founded by Charles Taze Russell in the 19th century, teaches that those who belong to any church outside of "Jehovah's" church are doomed to annihilation. Only those who belong to the Watchtower organization have a chance to attain "Paradise Earth." This is why Jehovah's Witnesses are adamant in sharing their faith door to door, even attempting to convert those who already attend Christian churches. The Jehovah's Witnesses will often use words that sound reasonable to a nominal Christian (i.e. "Jehovah's Christian Witnesses," "salvation," "Jesus Christ," etc), but they are usually reluctant to tell potential converts that the meanings behind these words are completely different than what has been historically meant.

Well if you are in the true church then why wouldn’t it caste doubt on all other churches? This seems to be obvious to me. In fact if the church was a false church it would be more likely to not care about other churches. This then would be one mark of a false church, that it was indifferent to the others.

4. Authoritative leadership. A group where the leader(s) has an authoritative role, even to the extent that they say they speak for God, is another cause for concern. Such leaders claim to have special revelation with God, and their words hold special precedence over their followers. A classic example is Jim Jones, who led almost 1,000 followers to their deaths in the jungle of Guyana in 1978. When men in his charge killed Rep. Jim Ryan (D-CA), a congressman who was visiting "Jonestown" in response to complaints from the relatives of church members, Jones called for his followers to drink cyanide-laced Kool-Aid. The majority of the people willingly followed his commands because they had come to accept his words as truthful and from God. Those who refused were shot. Trusting someone so much that you listen to any command, even to the point of moving to another country and then taking your own life, is something that God never intended.

So leaders in the true church don't have any authority? Or some authority? If only some then why and where did it come from? If it came from God then it must be total, if from man then at best only partial. Either way it seems necessary that the true church must have some authority with its leaders, otherwise anarchy would reign supreme.

5. Regimented giving requirement. Another heretical trait is when a church regulates the giving of its people or requires a certain amount of financial giving in order to receive certain privileges related to salvation. For example, the Church of Scientology teaches that people need to discover their true nature through a process called "auditing." This is accomplished by "clearing Engrams" from one's life. One Los Angeles Times article on Scientology religion estimated that it would cost a full "Operating Thetan 8" participant between $200,000 to $400,000 from the beginning of the lessons to the completion. Without these courses, the adherent is unable to clear himself of these unwanted "Engrams." Using finances as a requirement to reach salvation goals is much different than what Jesus, Paul, and Peter preached.

Isn’t alms giving biblical? Shouldn’t we give to the poor? What’s wrong with this?

6. Loss of salvation for leaving. Many counterfeit Christian churches insist that if a member decides to leave the group, for whatever reason, they jeopardize their salvation before God. One group with such a belief is the Boston Church of Christ, also known as the International Churches of Christ. The leaders of the ICC teach that there should only be one church in any particular city, which they say is the New Testament model. Members who decide to leave are considered spiritually lost and their salvation is considered negated. This is true even for those who leave because they decide to attend a Christian church outside the ICC network. Since the ICC does not recognize the baptisms of other denominations, and since the doctrine of baptism is considered a necessity in order to receive salvation, leaving the ICC negates the baptism that was given when the person joined the church. Holding a person's salvation hostage in such a way is certainly not biblical.

Well if the church is the true church then to leave it is to move into a false church. But a false church is then either run by men who are not from God or even worse, from the father of lies. How can it be reasoned otherwise?

7. Authority beyond the Bible. Although the Bible is sometimes utilized and even considered beneficial by a number of counterfeit groups, it is not considered as a completely authoritative scripture. Therefore, extrabiblical writings are necessary. Normally these scriptures are considered to have more authority than the dated Bible. The Christian Science religion is one example. Those who inquire into this religion are told that Mary Baker Eddy's 1875 pantheistic book Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures is a "reference book for life," which is needed by a person who hopes to discover "practical, spiritual answers for health and healing, security, and lasting relationships." This book must be studied in order to ascertain full truth. When the Bible contradicts Eddy's book, then the Bible is considered to be wrong or misunderstood.

Everyone has an authority beyond the bible. It is impossible not to do this as the bible doesn’t give us clear instruction in every detail on everything to be practiced in the Christian life. For example there is nothing in the NT stating how often we are to ‘do this’ as commanded by Jesus at the last supper.

8. Unique truths never before revealed. The idea that a hidden mystery or new truth is available through a particular church should be taken as a strong sign that this group is a counterfeit Christian religion. In addition, many such groups may change their doctrines over time. Christians believe that God has very clearly shown His truth through the pages of the Bible; therefore, new or fluctuating doctrine—especially that which contradicts the Bible—ought to be taken with a great deal of caution. The Unification Church (numerous front names include "Association of Families for Unification and World Peace" or "Family Federation for World Peace and Unification") was founded by Korean "Rev." Sun Myung Moon. He teaches that Jesus never fulfilled his mission. Therefore, Moon says that he was commissioned to finish the job that Jesus never finished. Moon's followers (often known as "Moonies") accept Moon as a Christ-like representative on earth whose teachings supersede the Bible. The Unification Church theology has evolved over time, and there may be some drastic changes once he dies in the very near future.

Every religion has unique revelations, that’s what makes each religion different. This criteria is accordingly almost impossible to use effectively.

Conclusion Not all counterfeits may be characterized by every one of these traits. However, a person should be cautious when considering a church that is marked by one or two of these characteristics, especially any of the first three in the list. Churches with three or more of the above characteristics ought to be avoided at all cost. In addition, there are some Christian churches that may not have doctrinal problems but are rather sociological abusers. For instance, some churches have controlling "discipleship" programs or church memberships with high levels of guilt or feelings of inadequacy. These types of groups also ought to be avoided. If you believe that your church has problems in either doctrinal or sociological areas, you would be wise not to get involved. If you are already a member, you need to consider leaving. As John 8:32-33 says, "Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

Lets see you answer the above questions. Take one at a time and develop your arguments accordingly from both reason and the bible.

JM

[Glenn P]

So leaders in the true church don't have any authority? Or some authority? If only some then why and where did it come from? If it came from God then it must be total, if from man then at best only partial. Either way it seems necessary that the true church must have some authority with its leaders, otherwise anarchy would reign supreme.

A few people have reacted to this point in what looks to me like a somewhat reactionary, over-sensitive and visibly defensive manner (but then, I'm no psychologist, that's just the impression I get).

The article is talking about situations in which a leader claims to have a unique authority "to the extent that they say they speak for God." Johnmartin, this is clearly not the same as simply saying that a church leader, or more properly, church leadership, doesn't have "any authority," is it?

In context it looks pretty obvious to me that what the article is referring to is a person who makes themself beyond question, and the denomination is answerable to that person. If, johnmartin, that's how ytou see the Pope (and let's face it, that's what you were leaping to defend), then I think the concern this article raises applies perfectly to him. If that's not how you see the Pope, then relax, don't be so paranoid.

[johnmartin]

A few people have reacted to this point in what looks to me like a somewhat reactionary, over-sensitive and visibly defensive manner (but then, I'm no psychologist, that's just the impression I get).

The article is talking about situations in which a leader claims to have a unique authority "to the extent that they say they speak for God." Johnmartin, this is clearly not the same as simply saying that a church leader, or more properly, church leadership, doesn't have "any authority," is it?

In context it looks pretty obvious to me that what the article is referring to is a person who makes themself beyond question, and the denomination is answerable to that person. If, johnmartin, that's how you see the Pope (and let's face it, that's what you were leaping to defend), then I think the concern this article raises applies perfectly to him. If that's not how you see the Pope, then relax, don't be so paranoid.

Try this simple argument - If God instituted an authority structure in his church and that authority has the power to teach from God, then that authority is infallible. If it is not infallible then it is not from God. So the conclusion is this - You want to find the true church that claims its teaching is from God, then it must claim to be infallible. You want to find a false church from man, then that church will not claim infallibility. This is a simple argument but a very powerful one. I'm interested to see how you answer it. There are only so many positions to take. Either

1. God did not institute any teaching authority in the church.
2. God did institute teaching authority in the church.

The bible and church history as attested by the Catholic and Orthodox churches both teach God did institute such authority. Hence position 1 above is not really tenable. Even if you ignore church history you must then ask what authority did God give men, if not men in positions of authority then it can only be the bible. But the bible doesn't teach this position.

According to men taking positions of authority instituted by God, many of the reformed and post reformed churches deny this doctrine. And why wouldn't they. If they say God did institute an authority then the reformed churches are no longer possibly the true churches as they don't have apostolic origins nor apostolic succession. The only two churches that can be possibly the true church are the Catholic and the Orthodox and as these both have very similar belief systems on just about everything except the papacy and possibly marriage and contraception, then it becomes highly likely that these church must be of Apostolic origin. Once you find out that the Catholic church teaches that its teaching is infallible not only according to the extra ordinary teaching authority of the pope, but also according to the ordinary teaching authority of the church, (in the area of faith and morals) then the game is over. You've found the true church.

I look forward to a powerful answer to rebut this simple proof.

JM

[Glenn P]

"Powerful responses" are only required where powerful arguments have been offered. I suspect the totality of the power of your above post lies in the words "If God instituted an authority structure in his church and that authority has the power to teach from God." What is "the power to teach from God," johnmartin? Everything hangs on that. If you just mean "the power to be infallible," then this is just a case of tail chasing.

[johnmartin]

"Powerful responses" are only required where powerful arguments have been offered. I suspect the totality of the power of your above post lies in the words "If God instituted an authority structure in his church and that authority has the power to teach from God." What is "the power to teach from God," johnmartin? Everything hangs on that. If you just mean "the power to be infallible," then this is just a case of tail chasing.

The very authority of God given to men to teach in the name of God. When God does this he protects those men to whom he gives such power. Fr example the prophets of the OT were given authority to teach, preach the word of God. So too in the NT men were given gifts to preach and teach from God. Such authority was formalized by Jesus fulfilling the OT command of Israel to become a kingdom of priests within a new covenant. The new Israel is the church based on the OT kingdom of David whereby Christ is the king in the place of David and Peter is the prime minister who alone is given the keys and the other Apostles are ministers or Bishops in the New Testament kingdom of priests. The bishops who were in offices specifically ordained by Jesus with the powers from God to teach, govern and sanctify the church through the NT oaths. It is through these oaths that the covenant is made whereby the name of God is sworn to invoke Gods power to effect what is signified by each sacrament. For example -

1. Baptism effects the removal of sin through the action of God and the symbolism of washing. The action of God is made present by swearing to oath in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.
2. Eucharist effects nourishment of the soul by God effecting the symbolic action of bread and wine which become the body and blood of Christ through the swearing of the covenant oaths instituted in the upper room.

The seven sacraments effect the power of ordination to sanctify but what of the other two powers to teach and to govern. Teaching is through the magisterium which is composed of the successors to the first bishops and the first pope which is Peter. Governing is also through the laws of the church as found in canon law.

In summary the power to teach is to teach in the place of God himself. When the bishops teaching in union with the pope or the pope in a definitive manner, or even according to the ordinary teaching magisterium, then such teaching is binding. If this teaching is effected in an official manner to propose doctrine to the church for practice and belief then such teaching is binding because it is God teaching his church through the offices of the bishops and pope..

JM

[Tickle Me Mercury]

Authoritative Leadership is a bad thing? Definately a problem here. There is a difference between an authoritative leader and a cult leader, although the author does not acknowledge that. Simply from experience with authoritative leaders at work or in politics one should realize that they are not each heading a cult.

I think the issue is more of connotation than anything else. If "authoritative" leadership is taken to mean a leader who forces his followers to act against their will or coerces them in some other fashion, than yes, it is a bad thing. If it simple means that a leader is decisive, strong, and is able to effectively wield authority then no. That's what a leader should be.

As far as the word "cult," what is or isn't a cult is entirely subjective, and the word is generally used only as a pejorative by outsiders as a means of ridicule. Denotatively, the word has a meaning that indicates a somewhat closed, autonomous subset of society that is very secretive and shuns outside influence. Also, we generally use the word cult to describe a group where people have been "brainwashed" or "reprogrammed" or are being coerced in some way, as described above—often because the followers have discarded many of the mores of the outside society. Subjectively, people say "cult" about things that they don't understand, things that they fear, or any sub-culture which doesn't jive well with the rest of society. Keep in mind that Christianity, in it's origins, could have easily been described by the Romans as a subversive cult (assuming that had such a word). And in that sense, as I have studied and explored different religious traditions throughout my life I have often been told that I was involved in a cult by some Evangelicals who simply did not understand the idea's of the religion.

[Meh_Gerbil]

Question:
If a Jew were to analyze the early church, circa 35AD, how many items on that list would he be checking off?

[Glenn P]

The very authority of God given to men to teach in the name of God. When God does this he protects those men to whom he gives such power. Fr example the prophets of the OT were given authority to teach, preach the word of God. So too in the NT men were given gifts to preach and teach from God. Such authority was formalized by Jesus fulfilling the OT command of Israel to become a kingdom of priests within a new covenant. The new Israel is the church based on the OT kingdom of David whereby Christ is the king in the place of David and Peter is the prime minister who alone is given the keys and the other Apostles are ministers or Bishops in the New Testament kingdom of priests. The bishops who were in offices specifically ordained by Jesus with the powers from God to teach, govern and sanctify the church through the NT oaths. It is through these oaths that the covenant is made whereby the name of God is sworn to invoke Gods power to effect what is signified by each sacrament.

The rub arises. I suspect the author fo the article has no problem with the claim that the Apostles had a unique authority as spokespeople for Christ, or with the claim that we are all priests of in the New Covenant. But when the baggage starts entering in, like Peter being a "Prime minister," and more important, the unstated parts here, like the concept of there being a successor of Peter who has the same authority, well, you can see where the ways start to part.

In summary the power to teach is to teach in the place of God himself. When the bishops teaching in union with the pope or the pope in a definitive manner, or even according to the ordinary teaching magisterium, then such teaching is binding.

If that's what you meant in your previous post, then it becomes viciously circular. You said that church leaders do have authority because God gave them the power to speak for Him, and now you reveal that what you meant by that is just that they have the God given ability to be infallible. In other words, unless a person accepts apap infallibility, meh, what have you offered them?

[1.61803399]

I think the issue is more of connotation than anything else. If "authoritative" leadership is taken to mean a leader who forces his followers to act against their will or coerces them in some other fashion, than yes, it is a bad thing. If it simple means that a leader is decisive, strong, and is able to effectively wield authority then no. That's what a leader should be.

As far as the word "cult," what is or isn't a cult is entirely subjective, and the word is generally used only as a pejorative by outsiders as a means of ridicule. Denotatively, the word has a meaning that indicates a somewhat closed, autonomous subset of society that is very secretive and shuns outside influence. Also, we generally use the word cult to describe a group where people have been "brainwashed" or "reprogrammed" or are being coerced in some way, as described above—often because the followers have discarded many of the mores of the outside society. Subjectively, people say "cult" about things that they don't understand, things that they fear, or any sub-culture which doesn't jive well with the rest of society. Keep in mind that Christianity, in it's origins, could have easily been described by the Romans as a subversive cult (assuming that had such a word). And in that sense, as I have studied and explored different religious traditions throughout my life I have often been told that I was involved in a cult by some Evangelicals who simply did not understand the idea's of the religion.

The problem is arguing the connotation, without including the denotation. The author's bias is to the mainline Prot denoms, so he makes his list to condemn others. Unfortunatley since he contradicts himself so much, I can't take it seriously.

chris

[johnmartin]

The rub arises. I suspect the author of the article has no problem with the claim that the Apostles had a unique authority as spokespeople for Christ, or with the claim that we are all priests of in the New Covenant. But when the baggage starts entering in, like Peter being a "Prime minister," and more important, the unstated parts here, like the concept of there being a successor of Peter who has the same authority, well, you can see where the ways start to part.

Why wouldn't there be a successor to the head of the church. Peter alone was given the keys in Matt 16 as a fulfillment of Is22 in the OT kingdom of David. The papacy is clearly taught in the church Fathers and throughout church history. Why don’t you believe it? If you believe Peter was head of the church, then why not believe there were successors? If you don’t believe there are successors to the apostles then what authority structure did Christ leave behind if any?

If that's what you meant in your previous post, then it becomes viciously circular. You said that church leaders do have authority because God gave them the power to speak for Him, and now you reveal that what you meant by that is just that they have the God given ability to be infallible. In other words, unless a person accepts papal infallibility, meh, what have you offered them?

No viscous circle at all we have Christ in both Matt 16 and 18 given the apostles the power to bind and loose and that power was considered to be carried into heaven by God. This is an awesome power. Why wouldn't such powers be transferred through succession to today? Goodness knows with mans fallen human nature, we need to be told the truth, we need an authority from God. The OT church had it throughout its history through the chair of Moses, why not continue that through the chair of Peter? It all seems very reasonable and the alternatives seem very unreasonable. You see Protestants disagree on many issues and yet the rest of us are supposed to say all this is from God. The Protestants have no way to resolve the many differences other than to form new denominations. But this is unbiblical. What then did God do to resolve this unresolvable problem. Only the Catholics have the answer which is nothing other than a living magisterium with the Pope as the head.

What say you?

JM

[Glenn P]

Johnmartin, beware of questions like "why wouldn't xyz be the case..." Why WOULD they be the case? You just assume that there was an infallible papacy transferred from Peter, and then based on this assumption you take "the power to speak from God" to mean "the power to speak infallibly," and this just results in the circular tail chasing I referred to earlier, since when you asked "why wouldn't someone who speaks from God do so infallibly," all you meant is "why wouldn;t an infallible magisterium speak infallibly?" Well obviously an infallible magisterium would speak infallibly. Nice little circle, but it has zero logical appeal to those who aren't part of the circle already.

[johnmartin]

Johnmartin, beware of questions like "why wouldn't xyz be the case..." Why WOULD they be the case? You just assume that there was an infallible papacy transferred from Peter, and then based on this assumption you take "the power to speak from God" to mean "the power to speak infallibly," and this just results in the circular tail chasing I referred to earlier, since when you asked "why wouldn't someone who speaks from God do so infallibly," all you meant is "why wouldn;t an infallible magisterium speak infallibly?" Well obviously an infallible magisterium would speak infallibly. Nice little circle, but it has zero logical appeal to those who aren't part of the circle already.

I've noticed the charge of circularity is made by those who dont want to answer the rather obvious problems with their own position. The atheist do the same with the proofs for God calling them all circular when they are manifestly not. You have not shown any circularity with my arguments but only circularity in the straw man arguments. I've already given some brief reasons why the apostles were infallible from Matt 16 and 18. Do you agree Christ gave the apostles such power? You seem to in a previous post. Then why not have succession in the NT as it was in the OT kingdom of David? The church Fathers believed this, why don’t you?

What is a church anyway? The original article never defines it.

JM

[Glenn P]

OK, now in addition to making circular comments in your first post to which I responded (namely, that if someone is infallible, they are infallible), you ask me why I don't agree with those who accept apostolic succession and papal infallibility. Why should I agree with them? You can point out all you like that the Apostles had a unique office, no argument there.

[Tickle Me Mercury]

Question:
If a Jew were to analyze the early church, circa 35AD, how many items on that list would he be checking off?

Exactly. Perspective is so important in understanding these things.

[Glenn P]

Wow. Just wow.