|
Post by Done4now on Nov 2, 2011 9:37:14 GMT -5
I believe the rigid filter imposed by workers for interpreting and believing on Jesus defines the f&w as a cult. In general, Christianity has left a greater range of decretion over beliefs to the individual. Whether one conceives oneself as a citizen or a subject of their religion, may be the best indicator of the merits of that religion. Most folks fail to understand that there Christianity is a result of what Constantine did..I know this must be very difficult for folks to see and understand..like it goes back way further then William Irvine like about 325 AD the council of Nicaea June 19th Constantine mixed pagan sun God worship in with the truth and this is what we in North America inheritedThe fact that Constantine supported Arianism yet the Church refrained from becoming Arian makes me question those who claim Constantine was such a big influence on the church.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Nov 2, 2011 13:37:16 GMT -5
Irvine, will say I'm impressed that you are actually meeting with friends and workers, and talking directly to them, that is something that's been severly lacking in most "research" up to this point. For example take this quote on the 2x2 wikipage; " but periodically the itinerants visit each district, and there they borrow a hall (often the Church hall of an unsuspecting minister) for a preaching meeting for the public at large." —Bryan R. Wilson"If Wilson had simply visited with a few real live friends and workers or went to a few gospel meetings he would have known how absolutely stupid that statements looks when compared to reality. Instead Wilson simply quoted Parker without verifying if what he quoted was true. This kind of carelessness in "research" gives a distinked flavor and spoils the "research" of all those who later quote it as if it is absolute and objective truth. So keep up the direct communication with real live friends and workers, if you have any more questions for me, ask. Thanks. Jesse, you've taken the bolded up above out of its text and though you have done so to put a bad light on itl,..the bad light is impossible for it is the truth however bad you don't like it. How so?
|
|
|
Post by emy on Nov 2, 2011 13:40:07 GMT -5
Mr. Grey ~ This could not be farther from the truth. I have met the man who calls himself "what" (and his wife) in person and it is not true, either on this forum or in person.
Furthermore, I do not see his statements on this topic as bullying and no apology, such as Sharon gave, should be necessary.
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Nov 2, 2011 14:03:57 GMT -5
Thanks for this Emy. I am sure you are right about What. I have read his posts on other threads and the tone is usually warm and constructive. A rather different tone from the billigerent one displayed on this thread. If I have misjudged What then I am truly sorry for any offence I may have caused.
Again let me emphasize that I have never referred to the 2x2s as a cult, I simply reiterated a question I am frequently asked and would have preferred to sit back and wait for rational responses instead of the hysteria that came over from some of the contributors.
Would I want this to be my conclusion. Most certainly not since such a conclusion would destroy friendships and trust that I have built up over many years. However, it would be remiss of me to not investigate the evidence and on that basis alone reach my conclusion. That is why I want to encourage an exchange that respresents all viewpoints.
I am wise enough to know that there are exs from the 2x2s as there are from every denomination who have left and feel disgruntled with an axe to grind others will have left for valid reasons and move on with their lives. I pray for wisdom and discerment each step of the way.
I am looking forward to your cooperation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2011 14:20:52 GMT -5
Emy, I'm with you there. Because "cult" is used by anyone who doesn't like a group and not used by those who do, cult strikes me as a divisive word on which to base a research paper and I appreciate What's efforts in this regard. Last time I was bullied by What on this board was....hmmm, let me think....never!
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Nov 2, 2011 14:32:21 GMT -5
Thanks for this Jesse. It looks as though I will have continue doing this on a one to one basis here in Ireland because there is not much useful information coming from this thread! The mix of opinion you're getting here may be more representative than you currently think.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Nov 2, 2011 14:35:44 GMT -5
Irvine, will say I'm impressed that you are actually meeting with friends and workers, and talking directly to them, that is something that's been severly lacking in most "research" up to this point. For example take this quote on the 2x2 wikipage; "but periodically the itinerants visit each district, and there they borrow a hall (often the Church hall of an unsuspecting minister) for a preaching meeting for the public at large." —Bryan R. Wilson" If Wilson had simply visited with a few real live friends and workers or went to a few gospel meetings he would have known how absolutely stupid that statements looks when compared to reality. Instead Wilson simply quoted Parker without verifying if what he quoted was true. This kind of carelessness in "research" gives a distinked flavor and spoils the "research" of all those who later quote it as if it is absolute and objective truth. So keep up the direct communication with real live friends and workers, if you have any more questions for me, ask. Thanks. Distinked may be even more descriptive than distinct. ... sorry, too funny ...
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Nov 2, 2011 14:36:42 GMT -5
Emy, I'm with you there. Because "cult" is used by anyone who doesn't like a group and not used by those who do, cult strikes me as a divisive word on which to base a research paper and I appreciate What's efforts in this regard. Last time I was bullied by What on this board was....hmmm, let me think....never! Can we please get away from the idea that I am basing my research on whether the 2x2 movement is a cult. Of course it is something I will address but it may only merit line, if that, in my 50,000 word plus thesis. The history and the early excommunication of Irvine and Cooney will obviously feature as will some aspects of the theology so it is fairly wide ranging.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Nov 2, 2011 16:16:30 GMT -5
The way I took it is that he is not determining whether it is a cult or not, he is making the assumption that it is (based on the definition of a cult) and going from there.
I would question some of the grammar although it may be a quote from somewhere else.
A cult, as I define it. (Should be no stop. A , ok, or : but not .) Is any religious group which differs significantly in some (it should not have some before the word one as the two are not compatible - also some one is used when talking about people) one or more respects as to belief or practice from those religious groups which are regarded as normative expressions of religion in our total culture (it is either in our culture or not - not total culture.)
It should be; "A cult, as I define it, is any religious group which differs significantly in one or more respects as to belief or practice from those religious groups which are regarded as normative expressions of religion in our culture.
Just helping out. Couldn't resist it. Of course I make mistakes too, but my work is not for a thesis.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Nov 2, 2011 16:24:16 GMT -5
Jesse, you've taken the bolded up above out of its text and though you have done so to put a bad light on itl,..the bad light is impossible for it is the truth however bad you don't like it. How so? Emy, I've known the expression of the workers going into many different areas AND I've also known them to use the church's of that area's fellowship halls or conv. halls or some other large room within that church during the times that church is NOT using them. And unless each minister of those have had any dealings with the workers and friends for sure they would NOT know that the workers preach that every other church is a false church and their minister are false ministers. That is just the way of it and there is nothing one can do about it but leave it as the truth. I'm not arguing about it for you should know it is the truth as much as anything is the truth. I think many churches and many ministers do open their building to other denominations particularly those that profess to believe in Jesus Christ. But UNLESS someone of the initial church have set in workers' meetings, they would NOT understand that the workers preach they have the only true way and that the church they're using is a false church. I feel the workers would not approach when desiring to use the building and tell whomever they're speaking to "Hey, we'd like to use your church facility. BTW we also believe your church is a false church and your preacher is a false preacher." That would NOT go very far into them obtaining that church buiilding, now would it?
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Nov 2, 2011 16:47:37 GMT -5
Emy, I've known the expression of the workers going into many different areas AND I've also known them to use the church's of that area's fellowship halls or conv. halls or some other large room within that church during the times that church is NOT using them. And unless each minister of those have had any dealings with the workers and friends for sure they would NOT know that the workers preach that every other church is a false church and their minister are false ministers. That is just the way of it and there is nothing one can do about it but leave it as the truth. I'm not arguing about it for you should know it is the truth as much as anything is the truth. I think many churches and many ministers do open their building to other denominations particularly those that profess to believe in Jesus Christ. But UNLESS someone of the initial church have set in workers' meetings, they would NOT understand that the workers preach they have the only true way and that the church they're using is a false church. I feel the workers would not approach when desiring to use the building and tell whomever they're speaking to "Hey, we'd like to use your church facility. BTW we also believe your church is a false church and your preacher is a false preacher." That would NOT go very far into them obtaining that church buiilding, now would it? As I read the history of William Irvine's activities around the churches in Counties Tipperary and Clare in Ireland back at the beginning in 1897 and for a few years after that I would posit that Irvine was guilty of using churches, building up a following and then drawing them away from that particular church by his forthright condemnation of the church and the minister.
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Nov 2, 2011 16:57:27 GMT -5
Noels thanks for your kind and qualified offer. I will indeed respond fully tomorrow. In Ireland it is now 10 pm and time for a rest and a bit of light reading before bed! Even a researcher needs a rest.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Nov 2, 2011 17:33:16 GMT -5
Emy, I've known the expression of the workers going into many different areas AND I've also known them to use the church's of that area's fellowship halls or conv. halls or some other large room within that church during the times that church is NOT using them. And unless each minister of those have had any dealings with the workers and friends for sure they would NOT know that the workers preach that every other church is a false church and their minister are false ministers. That is just the way of it and there is nothing one can do about it but leave it as the truth. I'm not arguing about it for you should know it is the truth as much as anything is the truth. I think many churches and many ministers do open their building to other denominations particularly those that profess to believe in Jesus Christ. But UNLESS someone of the initial church have set in workers' meetings, they would NOT understand that the workers preach they have the only true way and that the church they're using is a false church. I feel the workers would not approach when desiring to use the building and tell whomever they're speaking to "Hey, we'd like to use your church facility. BTW we also believe your church is a false church and your preacher is a false preacher." That would NOT go very far into them obtaining that church buiilding, now would it? This is the part I found faulty: (often the Church hall of an unsuspecting minister) (emphasis added) I am trying to remember a time I ever attended a gospel meeting in a church hall of any kind. I've come up blank. Tradition was tent meetings or school buildings, I believe. And I've heard many stories of school buildings being refused because board members disapproved, so why would a minister not think to disapprove?
|
|
|
Post by Sylvestra on Nov 2, 2011 18:01:57 GMT -5
Emy, I've known the expression of the workers going into many different areas AND I've also known them to use the church's of that area's fellowship halls or conv. halls or some other large room within that church during the times that church is NOT using them. And unless each minister of those have had any dealings with the workers and friends for sure they would NOT know that the workers preach that every other church is a false church and their minister are false ministers. That is just the way of it and there is nothing one can do about it but leave it as the truth. I'm not arguing about it for you should know it is the truth as much as anything is the truth. I think many churches and many ministers do open their building to other denominations particularly those that profess to believe in Jesus Christ. But UNLESS someone of the initial church have set in workers' meetings, they would NOT understand that the workers preach they have the only true way and that the church they're using is a false church. I feel the workers would not approach when desiring to use the building and tell whomever they're speaking to "Hey, we'd like to use your church facility. BTW we also believe your church is a false church and your preacher is a false preacher." That would NOT go very far into them obtaining that church buiilding, now would it? This is the part I found faulty: (often the Church hall of an unsuspecting minister) (emphasis added) I am trying to remember a time I ever attended a gospel meeting in a church hall of any kind. I've come up blank. Tradition was tent meetings or school buildings, I believe. And I've heard many stories of school buildings being refused because board members disapproved, so why would a minister not think to disapprove? Many of the old records and diaries, as well as the testimonies of the older members talk about when the workers came to preach in their (mainstream denominational) church. I remember well, Herbert Vitzthum (sp?) telling us about preaching in the churches when he was a young worker (early 20th century), to "draw out the members with honest hearts". I don't think that has been done much after the 1940's in the USA, but it was very prevalent in the early days. E
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Nov 2, 2011 18:06:27 GMT -5
IG, I applaud your research, and I'd love to read your thesis, and I'll be happy to review your work on www.dubiousdisciple.com if you like. I suspect you've learned what you wanted to know from this thread: that "cult" is a word that evokes very strong emotions. For that reason, it's a word that's loved by anyone wishing to insult, and hated by anyone who hates insults. What's disapproval proves to me he's a nice guy. You've probably also figured out the good news. If you are able to label the f&w's a cult, you will be endlessly and gleefully quoted. However, I agree with you, after consideration, that you should address the issue in your thesis of whether or not the f&w's are a cult. I do feel, however, that squabbling over a definition is worthless; nobody cares about the definition. Seriously. They care only about permission to use the word. In that light, it's better, IMO, to simply explain by example. The f&w's are a cult in the way Mormons are a cult, J/W's are a cult, the Jesus movement of the first century was a cult. You can then make it clear (again by example!) that this use of the word cult should never be confused with Heaven's Gate or other movements that have recently put a derogatory spin on the word. Just some friendly advice.
|
|
|
Post by rnstrbnsn on Nov 2, 2011 18:24:21 GMT -5
For what this may be worth on this thread, here is an appropriate-to-topic part of a lesson taught in Sunday School classes of several Christian churches by its author in 1989- c1993 Can anyone give me a definition for the word “sect”? Scriptural uses: Acts 3:17 – NIV party – KJV sect Acts 15:5 – NIV party – KJV sect Acts 24:5 – NIV sect – KJV sect Acts 26:5 – NIV sect – KJV sect Acts 28:22 – NIV sect – KJV sect Acts 26:6 “They have known me for a long time and can testify, if they are willing, that according to the strictest sect of our religion, I lived as a Pharisee.” Canadian Intermediate Dictionary: A group of people that forms a part of a larger religious body but rejects some of the larger body’s beliefs or customs. The Two by Twos claim to be Protestant Christians, but reject most of both beliefs and customs of the orthodox Christian churches. By this definition they can be called a sect. Can anyone give me a definition for the word “cult”? No Scriptural uses. Know The Marks of Cults by David Breese A cult is a religious perversion. A cult is impossible to define except against the absolute standard of Holy Scripture. A cult may take many forms but it is basically a religious movement which distorts or warps orthodox faith to a point where truth becomes perverted into a lie. Scripture indicates those who “wrest Scripture” or preach “another Jesus”, “another gospel”, and other deviations from the Gospel of Christ, such as the Nicolaitans. Such deviations are commonly referred to as cults or heresies. The word in our times normally refers to a group gathered around a heretical interpretation, or person. Studies in church history show that the state religion of the Roman Empire was called a cult. (Dianna of the Ephesians, for example). There was the cult of the Emperor Caesar, to whom all were required to perform sacrifice and burn incense, once a year, while saying “Caesar is Lord”, which by the way, the Christians refused to do and were persecuted as a result. It was not necessary for the Romans to believe in the god of the cult, or to be exclusive to one god, but the formality of observance was required. Heartfelt belief was to them, or seems to have been, foolishness. This is the attitude shown by the Roman soldiers who arrested Polycarp, (Bishop of an early church and disciple of John the Apostle) who said, “Have respect for your age, just say Caesar is Lord, and we will forget all you have done”. You would enjoy, I’m sure, the study of Polycarp’s martyrdom as contained in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History. His answers to the soldiers are to say the least inspiring. A Search For “The Truth” by Lloyd Fortt (first edition) www.votisalive.com/content/05-definitions
|
|
BaPa
Senior Member
Posts: 480
|
Post by BaPa on Nov 2, 2011 19:52:16 GMT -5
Be careful of the next cult you join, it may be worse than the cult you left! lol
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Nov 2, 2011 20:05:46 GMT -5
IG posted and Irvine Jesse has offered to contribute, I will do the same. Your thesis will be enhanced if it is able to based on more than personal interviews with members of the fellowship from just one country; Ireland. We are a worldwide fellowship. To enable Jesse, myself and others in a number of countries and continents to have confidence to contribute it will be helpful if you are able to post here giving the background, reason and motive you have to go to this considerable effort to research the history, sociology and theology of this movement. Despite posts to the contrary I understand 'what' posting as he has. That your initial request for support and contribution to TMB posters begins with... ‘By the term cult I mean nothing derogatory to any group so classified. A cult, as I define it. Is any religious group which differs significantly in some one or more respects as to belief or practice from those religious groups which are regarded as normative expressions of religion in our total culture. I may also add to this that a cult might also be defined as a group of people gathered about a specific person or person’s misinterpretation of the Bible.’does seem rather 'unusual'?.... especially when you say "Can we please get away from the idea that I am basing my research on whether the 2x2 movement is a cult. Of course it is something I will address but it may only merit line, if that, in my 50,000 word plus thesis."We look forward to a post from you addressing the points I make regards noels Actually I understand why Mr. Grey started a thread with a question to the question of the fellowship being a cult as that is something that is often said not only on TMB but in places all around the world. I think Mr. Grey is trying to understand why such a thing would be said about the fellowship. We have to remember that the fellowship is more or less a real secret sect and little is known about it publicly except for the CSA issues that have swarmed them in the last few years. I think it is highly profitable for the fellowship to come out into the open with their identity of other things more positive then CSA issues. JMO As I was trying to say...Mr. Grey was trying to "help" us help him by nailing down the talk to ONE avenue at a time....seems we tend to take any thread and go all over the world with it!
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Nov 2, 2011 20:10:25 GMT -5
Emy, I've known the expression of the workers going into many different areas AND I've also known them to use the church's of that area's fellowship halls or conv. halls or some other large room within that church during the times that church is NOT using them. And unless each minister of those have had any dealings with the workers and friends for sure they would NOT know that the workers preach that every other church is a false church and their minister are false ministers. That is just the way of it and there is nothing one can do about it but leave it as the truth. I'm not arguing about it for you should know it is the truth as much as anything is the truth. I think many churches and many ministers do open their building to other denominations particularly those that profess to believe in Jesus Christ. But UNLESS someone of the initial church have set in workers' meetings, they would NOT understand that the workers preach they have the only true way and that the church they're using is a false church. I feel the workers would not approach when desiring to use the building and tell whomever they're speaking to "Hey, we'd like to use your church facility. BTW we also believe your church is a false church and your preacher is a false preacher." That would NOT go very far into them obtaining that church buiilding, now would it? This is the part I found faulty: (often the Church hall of an unsuspecting minister) (emphasis added) I am trying to remember a time I ever attended a gospel meeting in a church hall of any kind. I've come up blank. Tradition was tent meetings or school buildings, I believe. And I've heard many stories of school buildings being refused because board members disapproved, so why would a minister not think to disapprove? Emy, it is not only gospel missions. We had our spring spec. mtgs. in a Catholic hall where convs. and parties were held within a monastery no less! Many years to be exact.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Nov 2, 2011 20:13:23 GMT -5
Emy, I've known the expression of the workers going into many different areas AND I've also known them to use the church's of that area's fellowship halls or conv. halls or some other large room within that church during the times that church is NOT using them. And unless each minister of those have had any dealings with the workers and friends for sure they would NOT know that the workers preach that every other church is a false church and their minister are false ministers. That is just the way of it and there is nothing one can do about it but leave it as the truth. I'm not arguing about it for you should know it is the truth as much as anything is the truth. I think many churches and many ministers do open their building to other denominations particularly those that profess to believe in Jesus Christ. But UNLESS someone of the initial church have set in workers' meetings, they would NOT understand that the workers preach they have the only true way and that the church they're using is a false church. I feel the workers would not approach when desiring to use the building and tell whomever they're speaking to "Hey, we'd like to use your church facility. BTW we also believe your church is a false church and your preacher is a false preacher." That would NOT go very far into them obtaining that church buiilding, now would it? As I read the history of William Irvine's activities around the churches in Counties Tipperary and Clare in Ireland back at the beginning in 1897 and for a few years after that I would posit that Irvine was guilty of using churches, building up a following and then drawing them away from that particular church by his forthright condemnation of the church and the minister. WI was used to using the churches wherever the workers from the Faith Mission went, but again it was more just about getting people to church and then the local churches were free to win the new converts. So when he continued to do that just like he'd done before he'd begin to gather his "workers" together for his great experiment and it wsn't long after WI and other beginning workers begin to claim their converts for the mtgs. in the home thing, that got him ousted big time out of the churches and then of course he started this portable housing thing, I think.
|
|
|
Post by hallelujah on Nov 2, 2011 20:14:03 GMT -5
none of the emperors before Constantine were able to stop the believers Constantine took everything away from the Jews even the messiah & mixed pagan sun god worship in with the truth and forced Israel to bow to this or die...Constantine was a sun god worshiper to his dying day
|
|
|
Post by Done4now on Nov 2, 2011 20:54:51 GMT -5
none of the emperors before Constantine were able to stop the believers Constantine took everything away from the Jews even the messiah & mixed pagan sun god worship in with the truth and forced Israel to bow to this or die...Constantine was a sun god worshiper to his dying day Actually, Constantine was baptized and became a Christian on his dying day. Since you want people to ask "Who was Constantine?" I would expect you to have studied up on him a bit more.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 2, 2011 21:05:04 GMT -5
Well Lloyd. Your FYI on Constantine is a clincher. .. . Jesus might have been out of the ordinary but he must not have been original like all those misguided Trinitarians say.
Thanks Lloyd
|
|
|
Post by rnstrbnsn on Nov 2, 2011 23:22:55 GMT -5
As I read the history of William Irvine's activities around the churches in Counties Tipperary and Clare in Ireland back at the beginning in 1897 and for a few years after that I would posit that Irvine was guilty of using churches, building up a following and then drawing them away from that particular church by his forthright condemnation of the church and the minister. WI was used to using the churches wherever the workers from the Faith Mission went, but again it was more just about getting people to church and then the local churches were free to win the new converts. So when he continued to do that just like he'd done before he'd begin to gather his "workers" together for his great experiment and it wsn't long after WI and other beginning workers begin to claim their converts for the mtgs. in the home thing, that got him ousted big time out of the churches and then of course he started this portable housing thing, I think. The chronology according to the Impartial Reporter and several other newspaper articles of the time as well as WI’s own writings seem to indicate that WI, as a Freemason of several years already heard McNeil’s gospel and claimed conversion to Christianity. He then applied to Anderson’s Bible College, but was rejected enrolment, then sat outside the class and claimed Bible training by “the best Bible teachers in the world” (anyway). He said that he joined the Faith Mission because it seemed to him to be the more earnest regarding faith. So as a paid lay evangelist with Faith Mission, he preached in churches. But soon he became disgusted with his converts going into the local churches and ‘languishing’ as he saw those churches to be doing. Long before he left Faith mission with his funding from that organization finally cut off in 1901, he had been working on private “lines” gathering his converts into his own “lines” from some time in 1896, when his first independent 2x2 mission produced his first 2x2 follower. After he gathered a group of his converts around him, he began to curse all churches, and naturally those churches would no longer let him or his to use their buildings. He then began building portable wooden halls in Belfast for his preachers to preach in, and these became the workers’ residences too. His converts from 1896 onward were required to become workers in his organization, as he did not like non-preaching followers because his message had long been ‘sell all that you have and follow me.’ And once a group of workers were gathered around him, they began to do some things they liked on their own, such as Cooney allowing a few non-preaching members who gathered in a home about 1902. Those workers pressured WI to accept these non-preaching members and eventually WI capitulated to that pressure officially in 1908. And at that point the sect became a two-tier system with non-preaching converts financing the preaching class above them. The non-preaching class of members was not required to sell all they had, but were expected to make all they had available to the preaching class. The workers from then on had homes plenty, free board, all their material needs supplied and money in their pockets as well. And the income gathering from those who became workers, selling all their possessions, began to form a secret church fund under the control of, first WI, and then head workers appointed as “overseers” by WI. The basic structure is the same today.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2011 9:08:16 GMT -5
none of the emperors before Constantine were able to stop the believers Constantine took everything away from the Jews even the messiah & mixed pagan sun god worship in with the truth and forced Israel to bow to this or die...Constantine was a sun god worshiper to his dying day Actually, Constantine was baptized and became a Christian on his dying day. Since you want people to ask "Who was Constantine?" I would expect you to have studied up on him a bit more. I would expect him to be an expert on both of the men he wants us to ask him about.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 3, 2011 10:29:39 GMT -5
Actually, Constantine was baptized and became a Christian on his dying day. Since you want people to ask "Who was Constantine?" I would expect you to have studied up on him a bit more. I would expect him to be an expert on both of the men he wants us to ask him about. You need to lower your expectations.
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Nov 4, 2011 17:28:41 GMT -5
When I first started this thread and posed the question I used Dr Charles Braden's definition of a cult cited in Walter Martin's The Kingdom of the Cults. What objected to the use of the word cult, he also objected to the definition and was derisory of Walter Martin's academic ability. I have since learned that Walter Martin who died in 1989 was in fact, in theological circles a recognised authority on cults. In Handbook of Today's Religions Josh McDowell and Don Stewart cite Martin's own definition of a cult from his book, The Rise of the Cults. It is as follows:
'A cult, then, is a group of people polarized around someone's interpretation of the Bible and is characteriized by major deviations from orthodox Christianity relative to the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith, particularly the fact that God became man in Jesus Christ.'
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Nov 4, 2011 17:43:19 GMT -5
IG posted Noels I am doing this to Jesse and you as pms.
|
|