800 pages of the MOST comprehensive scholarly work on Christian cults for the scholarly inclined amongst us

The 'original' book
http://eindtijdinbeeld.nl/EiB-Bibliotheek/Boeken/KingdomOfTheCultsWalterMartin.pdf

This has hyperlinks for ease of navigation
http://servantofmessiah.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2011/08/Kingdom-of-the-Cults-by-Walter-Martin.pdf

Contents


Cc: BabaGnoni,Bidam,Winsomex,Shdemidemi,Ayoku826,dorox,NLMediator,CAPTIVATOR

I scanned through the content in search of Word of Faith. Any book on cults that doesn't contain this is incomplete.

I will download it and let you know my views.

Thanks.

CC: Candour, trustman, nannymcphee, SirJohn, PastorKun, frosbel, etc.

Well guys, you may copy others. Let our discuss be more informed.

WinsomeX:
I scanned through the content in search of Word of Faith. Any book on cults that doesn't contain this is incomplete.

I will download it and let you know my views.

Thanks.

Word of Faith is in it alright, they used the phrase "Word Faith" movement

But these guys have unamicably split and parted ways

Hank followed Genesis 1:28 and literally took after it.
- one wife, 12 kids!

- EXCERPT -

At this juncture it would be appropriate to quote Hank Hanegraaff, the president of the Christian Research Institute.
"While the Faith movement is undeniably cultic
— and particular groups within the movement are clearly cults
— it should be pointed out that there are many sincere, born-again believers within the movement.
I cannot overemphasise this crucial point. These believers, for the most part, seem to be wholly unaware of the movement’s cultic theology. … They represent that segment of the movement which, for whatever reason, has not comprehended or internalised the heretical teaching set
forth by the leadership of their respective groups." ⁹

If the gospel of the Word Faith movement is unbiblical, why is it so popular among Christians?
^{9. Hanegraaff, Christianity in Crisis (Eugene, Ore.: Harvest House Publishers, 1993), 41.}

- Page 521 APPENDIX B The Word Faith Movement, THE KINGDOM OF THE CULTS {REVISED} by Walter Martin (1997) Hank Hanegraaff, Editor

- /EXCERPT -

it should be pointed out that there are many sincere, born-again believers within the movement posting in the past or now on NL's religion forum

These believers, for the most part, seem to be wholly unaware of the movement’s cultic theology…
They represent that segment of the movement which, for whatever reason,
has not comprehended or internalised the heretical teaching set forth by the leadership of their respective groups

PS: Ignore the split claim, I mistook Dr Walter Martin (i.e. Hank's late mentor) for Dr. James Kennedy

BabaGnoni, well noted.

Do you also realize that this book, a 1965 work originally, did not have Word of Faith as a cult listed initially. Recent publications however warrants its inclusion. So this one has WoF at the Appendix. Interstingly, another cult graduated from being cultic to true. Lol.

A minister came to my church to speak on cults. He essentially was speaking from the book's viewpoint. I noticed however he didnt mention WoF. Maybe he should get the recent publication.

How prevalent was Word of Faith in the 60s?
And is WoF a cult or a belief system that cuts across sects?

WinsomeX:
BabaGnoni, well noted.

Do you also realize that this book, a 1965 work originally, did not have Word of Faith as a cult listed initially. Recent publications however warrants its inclusion. So this one has WoF at the Appendix. Interstingly, another cult graduated from being cultic to true. Lol.

A minister came to my church to speak on cults. He essentially was speaking from the book's viewpoint. I noticed however he didnt mention WoF. Maybe he should get the recent publication.

WoF is as cultic as cessationism, it is a doctrine or system that transcends Christian sects.

WinsomeX:
I scanned through the content in search of Word of Faith. Any book on cults that doesn't contain this is incomplete.

I will download it and let you know my views.

Thanks.

vooks:
WoF is as cultic as cessationism, it is a doctrine or system that transcends Christian sects.

Provide the book, article, message, song or your own analysis that shows that Cessationism is cultic and we will debate it. Until then we will abide with your thread that provides us a book that proves that WoF is cultic.

Okay?!

vooks:
How prevalent was Word of Faith in the 60s?
And is WoF a cult or a belief system that cuts across sects?

Read the book. You find the answers there.

Nobody says it is cultic, its similarity with WoF is trancedence. None qualifies as a distinctive mark of any group. Explains why it is relegated to appendices wherever it is mentioned

Mighty glad you are at least skimming

WinsomeX:


Provide the book, article, message, song or your own analysis that shows that Cessationism is cultic and we will debate it. Until then we will abide with your thread that provides us a book that proves that WoF is cultic.

Okay?!

it was not as prevalent. You are quick to judge/dismiss the author on account of 'omission' while there really was nothing to omit

WinsomeX:


Read the book. You find the answers there.

vooks:
Nobody says it is cultic, its similarity with WoF is trancedence. None qualifies as a distinctive mark of any group. Explains why it is relegated to appendices wherever it is mentioned

Mighty glad you are at least skimming

It is clear why WoF is in the appendix. It is bc the movement was not popular in 1965 when the original book was written. The reviewers added WoF to it, and placed it on the appendix, because WoF is cultic.

The question I should ask you is this: you claim by transcendence, Cessationism is also cultic, why is it not included in the book? Or is Cessationism not popular now or not popular in 1965?

vooks:
it was not as prevalent. You are quick to judge/dismiss the author on account of 'omission' while there really was nothing to omit

Unfortunately you missed the hidden humour in my post. I was not judging the author. I was pointing it the fact that WoF was not a cult group that warranted inclusion in a cult list in 1965. But today, it does. Incidentally, another group was being graduated from being a cult group.

You should read with a level of open mindedness you know.

You are funny.
SDA is also in the appendices even in the 'original' 50s edition, was as popular and the author insists that it is NOT a cult. So you are wrong on why some groups/movements are relegated to the appendix

Comprehension please. I gave cessationism as an example of a shared belief, not unique to a SPECIFIC group. Even if in the editors' or author's opinion this belief was unbiblical, he would not label it cultic for this reason. If it hurts you that bad, substitute it with Continuationism.

WinsomeX:


It is clear why WoF is in the appendix. It is bc the movement was not popular in 1965 when the original book was written. The reviewers added WoF to it, and placed it on the appendix, because WoF is cultic.

The question I should ask you is this: you claim by transcendence, Cessationism is also cultic, why is it not included in the book? Or is Cessationism not popular now or not popular in 1965?

it is well my broda

WinsomeX:


Unfortunately you missed the hidden humour in my post. I was not judging the author. I was pointing it the fact that WoF was not a cult group that warranted inclusion in a cult list in 1965. But today, it does. Incidentally, another group was being graduated from being a cult group.

You should read with a level of open mindedness you know.

vooks, I refer you to the last two paragraphs of the author's statement on pages 17. What do you think he means those words in relation to the Cessationists position. Note the words in bold:

"It is my conviction that the reader is entitled to know the theological position from which this volume is written so that there will be no misconceptions as to the ground for my evaluation. I am a Baptist minister, an evangelical holding to the inerrancy of Scripture, and teach in the fields of Biblical Theology, Comparative Religion, and Apologetics, and am currently Director of the M.A. program at the Simon Greenleaf School of Law (Orange, California).

It is impossible for me to agree with Dr. Braden, “an unrepentant liberal” (p. xi), or to agree that I “hold no brief for any particular cult, nor … violently opposed to any” (p. xi). While I am in agreement that “in general the cults represent the earnest attempt of millions of people to find the fulfillment of deep and legitimate needs of the human spirit, which most of them seem not to have found in the established churches” (p. xi), I feel there is still much more to be said. It has been wisely observed by someone that “a man who will not stand for something is quite likely to fall for almost anything.” So I have elected to stand on the ramparts of biblical Christianity as taught by the apostles, defended by the church fathers, rediscovered by the Reformers, and embodied in what is sometimes called Reformed theology."

That's a leading question.
If I were you, I'd focus on what he has written, refute that as opposed to wrestling the air around his convictions

That said, on cessationism, it is quite clear the apostle(s) taught cessation, what is in dispute is WHEN. Something I wish to know your mind on, have you ever studied the historicity of cessationism? Was it generally believed say in the second century for instance?
And finally, is continuitionism cultic?

WinsomeX:
vooks, I refer you to the last two paragraphs of the author's statement on pages 17. What do you think he means those words in relation to the Cessationists position. Note the words in bold:

"It is my conviction that the reader is entitled to know the theological position from which this volume is written so that there will be no misconceptions as to the ground for my evaluation. I am a Baptist minister, an evangelical holding to the inerrancy of Scripture, and teach in the fields of Biblical Theology, Comparative Religion, and Apologetics, and am currently Director of the M.A. program at the Simon Greenleaf School of Law (Orange, California).

It is impossible for me to agree with Dr. Braden, “an unrepentant liberal” (p. xi), or to agree that I “hold no brief for any particular cult, nor … violently opposed to any” (p. xi). While I am in agreement that “in general the cults represent the earnest attempt of millions of people to find the fulfillment of deep and legitimate needs of the human spirit, which most of them seem not to have found in the established churches” (p. xi), I feel there is still much more to be said. It has been wisely observed by someone that “a man who will not stand for something is quite likely to fall for almost anything.” So I have elected to stand on the ramparts of biblical Christianity as taught by the apostles, defended by the church fathers, rediscovered by the Reformers, and embodied in what is sometimes called Reformed theology."

vooks:
That's a leading question.
If I were you, I'd focus on what he has written, refute that as opposed to wrestling the air around his convictions

That said, on cessationism, it is quite clear the apostle(s) taught cessation, what is in dispute is WHEN. Something I wish to know your mind on, have you ever studied the historicity of cessationism? Was it generally believed say in the second century for instance?
And finally, is continuitionism cultic?

The answer to the question, which wish not to answer, is that the author of this book you publish here is Cessationist. You cannot answer my question but you want me to answer yours.

My position on Cessationism is clear. I am not a STRICT Cessationists but I believe the Cessationists arguments as discussed in the Strange Fire Conference should be listened to. You may not agree with all of their conclusions but you cannot claim they are not mostly speaking scriptures. And your wild allegation of saying Cessationism is cultic has no basis whatsoever.

WinsomeX:


The answer to the question, which wish not to answer, is that the author of this book you publish here is Cessationist. You cannot answer my question but you want me to answer yours.

Bro,
You should have said that. I mean even if I answered it, I would never have figured it out. Instead of asking leading questions, just speak your mind

My position on Cessationism is clear. I am not a STRICT Cessationists but I believe the Cessationists arguments as discussed in the Strange Fire Conference should be listened to. You may not agree with all of their conclusions but you cannot claim they are not mostly speaking scriptures. And your wild allegation of saying Cessationism is cultic has no basis whatsoever.

Please improve your comprehension. I have not called cessationism cultic. I said as a belief it cuts across so many sects that it is difficult to tie it to one which is a characteristic of cultic beliefs. I said the same of continuationism. It was an illustration.

Cessationism arguments there are basically two
1. Gifts have ceased, live like they have
2. Gifts are contributing to schisms and so forth

The first is by no means clear scripturally nor historically.
The second one is confirmation bias. We believe they have ceased and we must find fault with reported continuation of the same to prove us.
As somebody said, that conference was no more than a Calvinism echo chamber

hmmmm.mm
this beyond our ability to Interpret
calm yourself down..remember Bible was not written by one person ...saying that Christ Jesus was made mentioned abi address as son of man or son of God..I quote from Luke chapter 1 says that an angel appeared to Mary and proceed with his word saying she shall conceive and her son shall be call son of God Jesus...in genesis God created every things on ealth true the proclamation of his word..created light and Jesus says that I am the light whosoever that follows me shall not work In darkness... the light God created from the beginning and is at peace joy happy that is beutiful he later comes to us as human nature ...
let's not be carried away ooo keep the truth real nd alive

Summarize all you have said in one sentence

Temivp:
hmmmm.mm
this beyond our ability to Interpret
calm yourself down..remember Bible was not written by one person ...saying that Christ Jesus was made mentioned abi address as son of man or son of God..I quote from Luke chapter 1 says that an angel appeared to Mary and proceed with his word saying she shall conceive and her son shall be call son of God Jesus...in genesis God created every things on ealth true the proclamation of his word..created light and Jesus says that I am the light whosoever that follows me shall not work In darkness... the light God created from the beginning and is at peace joy happy that is beutiful he later comes to us as human nature ...
let's not be carried away ooo keep the truth real nd alive