Tomorrow Thomas Ross's post will replace this one, but I wanted to still have it here on top for a few hours.
Cultic loses its meaning when it is used as an invective and pejorative. Cultic should be reserved for the cultic. Cultic shouldn't be weaponized as a word for staining people, even if they've got some big problems. Credibility should diminish for a person misusing the term "cult" to the extent I'm describing, the flag thrown and the yardage walked off, even disqualification.
In recent conversation about categorizations of Baptist fundamentalism, special attention is given to KJVO as cultic. We are assured that KJVO are cultic without explanation. The people talking live in their own echo chamber, where they hear the one, same position bouncing around with agreement and back-slaps all around, elevating to the strongest possible name-call, "cultic" included. Someone needs to explain why something is cultic.
There are some problems with KJVO. Certain KJVO equal any bad position on the preservation of scripture and accompany a kind of mysticism related also to a false view of sanctification. Those details should be pointed out and dealt with, instead of just calling it "cultic" in an unhelpful way. I'm inclined to forget what I'm writing, and call it a cultic groupthink analysis. It is it's own form of koolaid drinking. Nobody needs to know why, just supply the red meat.
This summer my family will visit the UK and I've been looking at churches there. The history of the church in the UK is different than the United States. Movement went from here to there, but almost always the U.S. received something from the UK. What I see from us in the UK are the things that the 'users-of'cultic' might like, thinking that they have progressed from the U.S. influence. You see more allure in the technology, better capacity to pander, and the Charismatic movement.
Among the reformed evangelicals, which doesn't mean the same thing in the UK as it does here, those who call themselves reformed Baptists, and the strict Baptist churches, are many King James Only. Many. They didn't get that from Seventh Day Adventists, and other Illuminati-like and Trilateral Commission type conspiracy theories, used in an attempt to discredit. They are red herrings that come without proof. Are they just cultists? If you are KJO, you're a cultist, mark it down.
These reformed Baptists and "evangelicals" (again, not the same thing as an American evangelical) are tied closely to historic confessions, usually linking to the London Baptist Confession (London, England, in the, um, UK), that cultic statement from 1689. They are KJO because of something written in 1689, something doctrinal. What's that all about?
Our family from Bethel Baptist Church, El Sobrante, California, is Lord-willing going to visit Bethel Baptist Church in Bath, UK for a mid-week service on our trip. Many churches like them in the UK use the King James Version only. The Trinitarian Bible Society comes out of London. They are King James Only. All of this comes out of the London Baptist Confession. If all the words of God were preserved, therefore, available in 1689, those would be the ones translated into the English of the King James Version. They believe the London Baptist Confession.
If you are going to do away with the King James for these guys in the UK, you will need to do away with the London Baptist Confession or at least show how that it was wrong on that doctrine. People don't do that. They just call you cultic, which is actually how cultic people operate. They try to intimidate people by calling them cultic. It is carnal weaponry. It works with some people, but they are left with attempting not to be cultic as their reasoning behind what they do. This is functioning like the slave of Galatians and not the son. The son obeys out of love. The slave does it out of intimidation.