The Kingdom Of The Cults....

by lovelylil 22 Replies latest jw friends

  • lovelylil

    by Walter Martin. Anyone read this? My used copy from Amazon just came today. I browsed through it a little and it looks like it will be a valuable asset to my library. Chapter 4 is devoted to the Witnesses and there are also chapters on Christian Science and Mormons. Both these groups are also very active in my area.

    Just wanted to know who read it and what you think about it? And do you feel Walter Martin gave an accurate background on these groups? Peace unto all, Lilly

  • Mrs. Witness
    Mrs. Witness

    I've read it. In fact, it was the first book I read about JW's because I couldn't get my hands on C of C. It's OK. The guy's a fundamentalist/evangelical who focuses on the trinity and how JW's are wrong because they deny the deity of Christ. There are better books, in my opinion, but it's not a bad read....just consider the source.

  • compound complex
    compound complex

    Dear Lil,

    A friend recently gave me this wonderful book. It is interesting to note that some 88 pages are alotted to JWs, about 61 to the LDS, with scant pages each to the many other faiths exposed.

    That many pages for the WTB&TS sure tells me something ... maybe we can compare notes later on?


  • lovelylil


    I will pm you once I am finished reading the chapter on JW's. I want to take my time and really digest the information and look up all the scriptures so it may take a while. But, I definately am interested in your thoughts on the subject.

    Mrs. Witness,

    Thanks for your opinion. I take it you still do not believe in a Trinity? I am not sure yet what I believe on this subject except that I no longer believe Jesus is/was Michael the Archangel. I also believe he is God in that he is in the same Nature as Jehovah. Still working out where and how the Holy Spirit fits into it.

    After leaving the Jdubs, I read COC first and then Franz's 2nd book, "In search of Christian Freedom". I then passed both of them along to others new out of the tower. I also found that reading the book "Bad News Religion" by Greg Albrecht, a former World Wide Church leader also helped break the WT hold on my mind. By reading his book and knowing he was not a JW, it showed me how all the cults of Christianity really use the same types of tactics to keep hold of thier converts. I just loaned that book out too, to a JW who is inactive but has not broken the mental chains yet of believing the WT is God's organiztation.

    I am excited though about the Kingdom of Cults book because I read an excerpt on Amazon and it looked very interesting. I think Mrs. Witness raised a good point though and that is that any book really will be slanted towards the views of the writer somewhat. That is why I ask of those who read this book if they felt Mr. Martin gave an accurate portrayal of the other views and also, did you think he was unbiased or too biased in his opinions?

    Peace, Lilly

  • slimboyfat

    It is certainly a seminal book in terms of criticism of JWs is concerned. Many of the debating points that you find strewn across the anti-Witness literature found their first incarnation in this book. There are some things to watch out for however. Walter Martin is not beyond bending the evidence to meet his objectives in much the same way he accuses the Watchtower. His discussion of Cowell's rule as applied to John 1:1 as well as his claims about the NWT's discussion of English and Greek tenses in John 8:58 are a bit misleading for instance.

    The book went through countless revisions over the years so exactly what material you have and how it is presented will vary quite a lot depending on how old the copy is you have.

    Walter Martin became a bit of a controversial figure more so through his heated exchanges with Mormons than with Witnesses. Mormon researchers "exposed" the fact that the academic qualifications "Dr" Martin held were from rather transient institutions of the type that offer degrees in the post and were of dubious merit. A few other details in his personal history were also disputed I forget about now.

    Even fellow critics of the Watchtower such as James Penton have criticized Martin for factual inaccuracies in his refutations of Witness doctrine.

    After Walter Martin died the Christian Research Institute that he had led for many years underwent a crisis as Hank Hanegraaff and Rob Bowman fought for control. Hanegraaff took over in the end and Bowman went on to found other similar Evangelical ministries accusing Hanegraaff among other things of substantial plagiarism.

  • Mrs. Witness
    Mrs. Witness

    Lil, personally, I'm an agnostic leaning athiest, so no, I don't believe in much of anything that is written in the bible. I mentioned the trinity/deity of Christ because I felt he focused on that too much, when there are so many other things that the JW's have wrong. He seemed to not have studied them much beyond points that he could argue from his own faith.

    Mrs. W.

  • TD

    Unfortunately, Martin had a habit of accusing others of the some of the same things he himself was guilty of, which damages his credibility somewhat

    For example, the following excerpts are from the essay, The Late Walter Martin's Sham Scholarship and False Orthodoxy by M James Penton:

    While Martin admits in Kingdom of the Cults that
    Russell was elected as the pastor of his local church in Pittsburgh in
    1876 (p. 38), he always puts that title before Russell's name in quotation
    marks to make it seem that Russell had no right to it.

    But again, Russell was far more honest in this matter than was Martin.
    Russell's followers elected him their pastor, and while it is true that he
    was never "ordained" by any recognized ecclesiastical body, neither was John
    Calvin. Acting on the basis of the doctrine of the priesthood of the
    believer, Russell held that a body of believers had the right to select
    their own elders and pastors. But Martin claimed to be ordained by two
    Baptist conventions of which he was a member when he was not ---a far more
    serious matter.

    Although he had been ordained by the General Association of Regular
    Baptists in 1951, just after his first wife divorced him, that ordination
    was revoked two years later after his Ordination Council learned that he had
    remarried. Yet without any shadow of a right to do so, he later claimed
    under oath to be "an ordained minister of the American Baptist Convention in
    good standing" and "an ordained member of the Southern Baptist Convention."
    Russell never lied about his situation; Martin did.

    As Robert and Rosemary Brown have shown, he claimed degrees either directly
    or indirectly-that he did not have and granted himself a doctorate before he
    had any shadow of a right to it. As a matter of fact, on the paperback cover
    of Jehovah of the Watchtower (1974) one can find the following statement:

    "WALTER R. MARTIN, president of Christian Research, Inc., is also a
    well-known author and lecturer on cults and the occult. Dr. Martin is a
    member of the National Association of Evangelicals and is listed in Who's
    Who in the East."

    Yet as the Browns demonstrate, Martin did not get his Ph.D., such as
    it was, until 1976!

  • lovelylil

    slim and td,

    Thanks for that information. I just started reading this chapter and I am also find the "pastor" in front of Russell's name a little annoying. From my understanding, all true believers in Christ are anointed with Holy Spirit and thus are qualified biblically to teach and preach. The fact that someone does not have a seminary degree does not matter as most of the Apostles were without such training/degrees. If Russell's followers appointed him as thier leader than that is their choice.

    One thing I do find disturbing though and that is also being proclaimed today by modern day followers of Russell, but shown as false by Martin is that Russell was an internationally renowned Pastor who gave thousands of lectures through out the world, to many different peoples. About four years ago, my husband and I met some Dawn Bible Students in Connecticut and they gleefully reported to us this "fact". Well, as documented in Martin's book, the sermons Russell gave were paid advertisements and he never gave any public talks in many of the areas he claimed to.

    Just goes to show you how we really need to have statements such as this backed up with facts. Don't think I will be falling for such nonesense again.

    Mrs. Witness,

    Wishing you peace in your life, whatever path you take. Lilly

  • potentialJWconvertswife

    Lily- can you tell me what it was (scripturally) that helped you see that Jesus isn't Michael? Fatboy- Haven't read the book being discussed- can you elaborate on what you were saying about John 8:58, please? I know the tenses in KJV and NWT differ- KJV says "I am", NWT says "I was"...I am confused regarding the original Greek. -Potential

  • lovelylil

    There were a few things that convinced me that Jesus is not Michael. Some of the reasons are as follows:

    1. There is NO scripture that directly states that Jesus is or was Michael the Archangel.

    2. The book of Hebrews chapter 1 was written for the purpose of denying that Christ is an Angel and clearly shows the opposite which is that Jesus as the Son of God is superior to any of the Angels.

    3. In order to come up with such a strange teaching, the WT twists the scriptures to say things it does not. A prime example is with their interpretation of 1 Thessalonians 4: 16. From the NIV it states;

    16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.

    The WT reasons from this verse, that Jesus is the Archangel because he is giving a loud command (or shout) WITH the voice of the archangel. However, this verse identifies Jesus right in the beginning of it as "Lord" not the Archangel. Also to reason that the Lord coming "with" the voice of the archangel means he IS the Archangel is incorrect. If it is true, than his coming "with" the trumpet of God would mean he IS the trumpet of God. "With" simply means accompanied by.

    Hence, this verse is saying when the Lord comes down from heaven, his return will be accompanied by a Loud Shout from an Archangel and the trumpet of God. It is not saying he IS the Archangel.

    Other Scriptures support this verse and the fact that Christ will return with the Angels (Archangels too)

    Matthew 25:31
    "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory

    I wrote a paper a few years ago debunking scripturally the WT teaching that Jesus is Michael. If you or anyone else is interested in a copy please email me here; [email protected]

Share this