In his Sharing Jesus with the Cults book, Protestant Jason Oakes presents a series of common traits of a “cult.” As with all definitions of a “cult” Evangelical anti-Mormons present, they would condemn, if they were consistent, the New Testament Christians as cultists. Note the following:
One will find in many cult groups the cult
become the mediator between them and God . . . Every cult has a single,
influential, human leader. This group leader is always right. Group leaders are
often the exclusive means of knowing truth or receiving validation. No other
process of discovery is acceptable or credible (Jason Oakes, Sharing Jesus with the Cults: How to handle
the most common conversations Christians get into with cult members [2017],
4)
Jesus is
said to be the one mediator between God and man, and in this context, is
referred to a “man” (1 Tim 2:5). Further, as we read in the writings of John,
it will be Jesus who will be the eschatological judge (John 5:22-23) and one
will not have God the Father without acceptance of Jesus (1 John 2:23) and that
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the
truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6)
Jesus was a
cult leader, according to Jason Oakes if
he were to be consistent.
On p. 5,
Oakes writes:
When leaving a cut, there is no legitimate
reason to leave. Former followers are always wrong for leaving, harmful or even
evil.
Firstly,
note that Oakes would argue that former Protestants such as Bart Ehrman are
heretics and are preaching error by denying the reliability of the New
Testament and historicity of the resurrection, so he is operating under a
double-standard. Furthermore, the New Testament had no issues with condemning
former believers. Representative examples include:
But a certain man named Ananias, with
Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, And kept back part of the price, his wife
also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the
apostles' feet. But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to
lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles
it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine
own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not
lied unto men, but unto God. And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and
gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things. And
the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him. And it
was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was
done, came in. And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land
for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much. Then Peter said unto her, How is
it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the
feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry
thee out. Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost:
and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried
her by her husband. And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many
as heard these things. (Acts 5:1-11)
But shun profane and vain babblings: for they
will increase unto more ungodliness. And their word will eat as doth a canker:
of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus. (2 Tim 2:16-17)
They went out from us, but they were not of
us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but
they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
(1 John 2:19)
Further, we
find the following evidence of a group being a cult:
The convenient answer is the Bible is
corrupt. If what the group teaches is a match, they will use the Bible as a
proof text. If it doesn’t match, the Bible is corrupt. (Ibid)
In light of
this, Oakes will have to conclude that James was a cult leader and that the
Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 was preaching cultic error as proven by James’
appeal to Amos 9:11-12 (LXX). Further, it also disproves the ecclesiology of
Oakes. As I wrote in Not
By Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura:
The text is used as Old Testament support for
the belief that Gentiles do not have to be circumcised before entering the New
Covenant. However, when one reads this text in its context, nothing is said
about the cessation of the requirement of circumcision; furthermore, James is
reliant upon the LXX notwithstanding its obvious translation mistakes. In Acts
15:13–17, James appeals to Amos 9:11–12 in an effort to support through
scripture the taking of the gospel directly to the Gentiles and the cessation
of circumcision. It even seems James’ quotation helps settle the debate. The
critical portion of Amos 9 reads
In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of
David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up
his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: That they may possess the
remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the
LORD that doeth this. (Amos 9:11)
This reading comes from LXX Amos, although
there is a bit of movement. For instance, “the Lord” is an addition. The LXX
actually omits the object, reading, “so that the remnant of the people might
seek, and all the nations . . .” There is also a clause missing from Acts’
quotation (“and set it up as the days of old”). The important observation,
however, is the Greek translation’s relationship to the Hebrew. The crucial
section reads in the Greek, “so that the remnant of the people might seek,” but
in the Hebrew, “that they may possess the remnant of Edom.” The confusion with
Edom arises likely because of the lack of the mater lectionis which we find in
MT in the word אדום. Without it, the word looks an
awful lot like אדם , “man,” or “humanity.” The verb
“to possess” (יירשׁו), was also misunderstood as “to
seek” (ידרשׁו). It is unlikely that MT is
secondary. First, there’s no object for the transitive verb εκζητησωσιν, “that
they might seek.” Second, the reading in MT makes more sense within the
context. David’s fallen house would be restored so that it might reassert its
authority, specifically in overtaking the remnant of Edom (see Amos 1:11–12)
and “all the nations,” for which Edom functions as a synecdoche (Edom commonly
acts as a symbol for all of Israel’s enemies [Ps 137:7; Isa 34:5–15; 63:1–6;
Lam 4:21]). The notion that the restoration of the Davidic kingdom would cause
the remnant of the people and all the nations to seek the Lord is also a bit of
a disconnection within Amos. This quotation shows not only that the early
church relied on the Septuagint, but that it rested significant doctrinal
decisions on the Greek translation, even when it represented a misreading of
the underlying Hebrew. Christians today reject the inspiration of the LXX, but
the New Testament firmly accepted it, and if the New Testament is inspired in
its reading of LXX Amos 9:11-12, which is itself a misreading of the original
reading, then the current Hebrew Old Testament is in error. (See Gary D.
Martin, Multiple Originals: New Approaches to Hebrew Bible Textual Criticism
[Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010], pp. 255-61 for more
information on this issue).
Furthermore, Amos 9:11-12 is silent about the
cessation of circumcision, speaking only of the rebuilding of the tabernacle of
David which was interpreted to mean that the influx of Gentile converts into
the Church fulfilled the text (see Acts 15:16-18). The "hermeneutical
lens," if you will, that helped this was not Scripture, but Peter's
experiences as recorded in vv.1-11.
Acts 15 opens with the account of various men
from Judea who were teaching the brethren that unless a man is circumcised
according to the custom of Moses, he cannot be saved, resulting in the council
being called Verse 7 tells us that there was much debate among them.
Apparently, they could arrive at no firm resolution on the issue of whether a
new Gentile convert had to be circumcised.
This was a difficult problem. There was no
Scripture they could point to that predicted or allowed a rescinding of
circumcision. In fact, since circumcision was first performed with Abraham 700
years before the Mosaic law was instituted, one might think that it had a
special place in God's economy outside the Mosaic law. And to the Jews, the
Torah was unchangeable. Further, there was no tradition for the apostles and
elders to fall back on. The Talmud, the Mishnah, and all oral teaching never
even suggested that the act of circumcision could be rescinded.
Notwithstanding, Acts 15:7 records Peter
standing up and addressing the apostles and elders. Three times in this speech
he invokes the name of God to back up his single authority to speak on this
issue and make a decision for the whole Church. In verse 7 he says that God
chose him, singularly, to give the gospel to the Gentiles. In Acts 15:10 he
ridicules those who are pressing for circumcision by accusing them of
affronting God and placing an undue yoke upon new believers. Peter concludes in
verse 11 by declaring the doctrine of salvation - that men are saved by grace,
not works of law and only after that, does James stand up, as bishop of
Jerusalem, and cite Amos 9:11-12. There is nothing in Acts 15 to support the
formal sufficiency of Scripture.
Interestingly,
Oakes questions the translation of Psa 82:1:
In a debate between James White and Martin
Tanner about the possible existence of other gods, Martin Tanner quoted the
Good News Translation of Psalm 82 which says, “God stands in the Divine
Council.” This gives the impression the Israelites were like the Canaanites and
other surrounding groups that taught the Most High God presided over a Divine
Council of other legitimate gods. (Ibid., 26-27)
The
translation of Psa 82:1 (cf. 1 Kgs 22:19; Isa 6:1-2; Pss 29; 89:6-9; Job 1:6; 2:1) in his debate with James White
is correct, contra Oakes. As one of his fellow co-religionists wrote:
1.d. The עדת־אל is lit., “assembly of El (God).” It is probably, however, a
fixed formula for “divine assembly” or “divine council.” (Objection is
occasionally made to the use of the word “council” [e.g., Kidner, II, 297–98],
insisting on the word “assembly”; the difference, however, appears to be a
matter of semantics and of little importance.) (Marvin E. Pate, Psalms 51-100 [Word Biblical Commentary
20; Dallas: Word Books, 1998], 329)
For a review of the debate between White and Tanner, see:
Brief
review of the Tanner/White debate, “Can Men Become Gods?”
On Psa 82,
see, for e.g.:
Ben McGuire,
Reconsidering
Psalms 82:6 Judges or Gods? A Proposal
Daniel C.
Peterson, Ye
Are Gods: Psalm 82 and John 10 as Witnesses to the Divine Nature of Humankind
Stephen O.
Smoot, The
Divine Council in the Hebrew Bible and the Book of Mormon
Daniel O.
McClellan, Psalm
82 in Contemporary Latter-day Saint Tradition
In a chapter
entitled “Scripture Twisting and the Cults” we read:
Speculative Readings of Predictive Prophecy
Interpreting prophetic passages in the Bible
in a way that applies them to events that no other scholar agrees with and goes
outside the bounds of sound interpretation. (Ibid., 19)
We have
already seen the use of Amos 9:11-12 in Acts 15 by James as an example of a speculative
reading of predictive prophecy using the standards of Oakes. Further examples
include the use of Hos 11:1 in Matt 2:15. In Matt 2:15, we read the following:
And was there until the death of Herod: that
it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out
of Egypt have I called my son.
However,
when one examines the text Matthew quotes from (Hos 11:1), we find that,
contextually, it is not a prophecy about the Messiah and his family, but is about the nation of Israel and how Yahweh rescued them from Egyptian bondage:
When Israel was a child, then I loved him,
and called my son out of Egypt. As they called them, so they went from them:
they sacrificed unto Baalim, and burned incense to graven images. (Hos 11:1-2)
Evangelical
scholar, Robert Gundry, offered the following commentary on Matthew’s use of
Hos 11:1:
The formula of fulfillment introducing the
quotation from Hos 11:1 reads exactly as 1:22b . . . The preceding mention of
Egypt has united with “Son of God” and “Son of the Highest” in the tradition of
Jesus’ nativity (Luke 1:32, 35) and with Matthew’s own interest in Jesus’
divine sonship . . . to suggest the statement in Hos 11:1. There, the Lord
addresses the nation of Israel as his son. The multiplicity of parallels drawn
between the history of Israel and the life of Jesus suggests that Matthew saw
that history as both recapitulated and anticipated in the “king of the Jews”;
like Israel in the messianic age Jesus receives homage from the Gentiles
(2:11); as a son he, like Israel, receives God’s fatherly protection in Egypt
(2:15); his oppression brings sorrow as the oppression of Israel brought sorrow
(2:17-18); like Israel he is tempted in the wilderness (4:1-10). The messianic
reference preceding the statement “God brought him [the Messiah] out of Egypt”
in Num 24:7-8 LXX may also have facilitated quotation of the similar statement
in Hos 11:1, for Matthew has recently used Numbers 24. (Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and
Theological Art [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1982], 33-34)
Another
example, this time relating to the foundations of New Testament ecclesiology,
can be seen in Peter’s use of two texts from the Psalter in Acts 1. In Acts
1:20, we read the following "speculative readings of predictive prophecy"
to justify finding a replacement for Judas:
For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let
his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein; and his bishoprick
(επισκοπη [office]) let another take.
If one
examines this verse, Peter is using two texts from the Psalter—Psa 69:25 and
109:8. However, nothing in these two verses says anything about Judas,
apostolic succession, or the continuation of the need to have twelve apostles.
If one reads these texts in their context, David is talking about people and
events in his own day. Psa 69, David is addressing the sinful people of his
time who had betrayed him and how he pleads for God to bring about judgement
(v.25). Psa 109 is about the court of David where David says that, once an
officer in his court has been removed, another will take his place.
