Truth Magazine

By Johnie Edwards

We continue to look at our theme, “And They Stood Every Man In His Place” which is taken from the story of Gideon’s defeat of the Midianites in Judges 7:21. In this article, let’s take a look at the place of elders in the church of Christ.

When The Elders A re Out Of Their Place

It is not the place of elders to do some things that elders often are found doing. And these doings have caused a lot of problems to arise among brethren in many places.

(1) It is not the place of elders to meddle in the affairs of other churches. Elders have enough to do when they do the work assigned them by the Lord. Peter told elders, “Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof” (1 Pet. 5:2). The oversight of elders is limited to the “flock which is among” them. Elders must not try to oversee that which they have not been “made overseers” of (Acts 20:28). Elders reaching out for more power and oversight beyond that which the Lord gave them was the beginning of the formation of the Roman Catholic Church. Paul warned about such affairs as he talked with the Ephesian elders. “For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them” (Acts 20:29-30). A church or its business cannot be overseen by another church or elders outside of that local church.

(2) Elders are out of place when they lord over God’s Heritage. Some elders are so set on having their own way or bust, even to the point of being obnoxious about it. The attitude that we are the elders and we don’t care what anyone else says or thinks is to display an attitude which is foreign to the Word of God. The Holy Spirit said, as he gave instructions to elders, “Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock” (1 Pet. 5:3). Bible elders realize that they do not know all there is to know and from time to time consult with good men in the church and will keep the church informed as to what they are trying to accomplish.

(3) No place for self-willed elders. There are elders who put their opinions above what God has already revealed in the Bible. I heard an elder say, “I don’t care what the Bible says, I have already made up my mind.” That’s being self-willedl One of the qualifications for elders is, “For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not self-willed” (Tit. 1:7). So far as the truth is concerned, elders learn just like the rest of us learn, by study. Humility would do elders who are self-willed a lot of good.

(4) Elders are not law makers. Elders are out of their place when they begin to make laws to bind on God’s people. The Bible teaches that “There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy” (Jas. 4:12), and that’s Christ! The will of Christ has already been revealed. Paul wrote the Galatians, “Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ” (Gal. 6:2).

The Place of Elders

Elders surely have their place and work in the Lord’s church as prescribed by the Lord. As members, we are admonished “to esteem them very highly in love for their work’s sake” (1 Thess. 5:13). It is the place of elders:

(1) To Rule. The apostle to the Hebrews said, “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves” (Heb. 13:17). Elders are rulers in the local church. They are to “rule well” (1 Tim. 5:17) and to rule “with diligence” (Rom. 12-8). Where everybody rules there is no rule, and so God charged elders with the responsibility of ruling.

(2) To be Flock-feeders. The church is the flock of God and God ordained elders with the grave responsibility of feeding the flock. Remember that Peter said, “Feed the flock of God among you” (1 Pet. 5:2). Elders must be able to teach and see that others who teach keep the church on a good healthy, scriptural diet!

(3) Oversight is the place of elders. Some elders are too timid to take the oversight given them by the Lord. Paul admonished the Ephesian elders, “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made your overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood” (Acts 20,28). An elder first looks at himself as he undertakes the job of overseeing the local church. He then keeps abreast of the members (their unfaithfulness) as he tries to involve members in the work of the local church. Good elders are constantly looking over the church to find ways of encouraging the body to “grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord” (2 Pet. 3:18).

(4) Elders are soul-watchers. Don’t get upset if the elders call to talk with you about the condition of your soul. They are but doing their job. I get upset when elders do not show interest concerning our souls! It is the place of elders to “watch for your souls, as they that must give account” (Heb. 13:17). Elders will give an accounting before God as to how they have handled this part of their office.

(5) It is the place of elders to be good example-setters. “Don’t do as we do, do as we say” will not work with elders. They are to set good examples before the church. Peter said that elders be “ensamples to the flock” (1 Pet. 5:3). An elder who is not faithful in attending the services of the church; is careless in his living; manifests bad habits; has a bad attitude; lacking in hospitality and the like is not setting a good example before the church.

As an elder, have you checked your place lately?

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 5, p. 140
March 3, 1988

By David A. Beck

Long ago, God told the children of Israel how to test the prophets; test their prophecies, whether they come to pass (Deut. 18:22). We should have no confidence in a prophet who cannot accurately prophecy. The penalty for uttering false prophecy was death (Deut. 18:20).

True prophets spoke by the inspiration of God (2 Pet. 1:21). Since “it is impossible for God to lie” (Heb. 6:18), we can know assuredly that any false prophet is not inspired of God.

We are warned repeatedly of false prophets in the New Testament. Jesus warned, in Matthew 7:15, “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves.” We are told in 1 John 4:1, “many false prophets are gone out into the world.” The purpose of this paper is to explore several prophecies made by self-proclaimed prophets during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries which have failed the test of time. Specifically, we will be dealing with prophecies by leaders of three major cults: Mormons, Seventh-day Adventists, and Jehovah’s Witnesses. By pointing out their failures, I hope to cast doubt on their credibility as spokesmen for God.

Joseph Smith

Joseph Smith, the founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, or Mormonism, b6gan his prophecy on September 21, 1823, when he received the first of many “revelations.”(1)

Smith’s prophecies were rife with contradictions and false statements. In the Book of Mormon the claim is made by Orson Pratt, one of the original twelve “Apostles” of the Mormon Church, that this book’ must be either true or false, and “if false, no one can possibly be saved and receive it.”(2) I intend to show; without a doubt, the falsehood of prophecies made by Joseph Smith and other “inspired” Mormon prophets.

Joseph Smith prophesied, on April 17, 1838, that David W. Patten should “settle up all his business as soon as he possibly can, and make a disposition of his merchandise, that he may perform a mission unto me next spring, in company with others, even twelve including himself, to testify of my name and bear glad tidings unto all the world.”(3)

“Apostle” David Patten was killed in October, 1838, before he could fulfill the revelation about himself!”(4)

In May, 1843, Joseph Smith prophesied concerning Judge Stephen A. Douglas. He stated that unless the United States redress their “wrongs” against Mormons, they would be, ‘4utterly overthrown and wasted, and there will not be so much as a potsherd left.” Hie then predicted Douglas’ aspiration to the presidency of the United States and threatened “the weight of the hand of the Almighty upon you” if he ever turned his hand against Smith of the Latter Day Saints. The Mormons have interpreted the overwhelming defeat of Douglas in the 1859 presidential election, and Douglas’ death some six weeks later, as a fulfillment of this prophecy. What they really have done is interpret the political climate oi the day, the easily predicted entry of Douglas into national politics; as fulfillment of this prophecy, What about the rest of the prophecy? His the United States been utterly overthrown and wasted?(5)

Smith, like inany other self proclaimed prophets,. was an expert at reading the news of the day, and making an educated guess as to the eventual outcome. His Civil War prophecies bear this out. Although some of the events predicted did occur, much of the “prophecy” utterly failed. Modern Mormons make much of these prophecies, but old copies of Doctrines and-Covenants, which carried the full prophecy, have since been edited, to try to make the prophecy fit the events.(6) Predictions of famine, plagues, earthquakes; the involvement of Great Britain and “all Nations”; and the ultimate control of the United States by the “aborigines” [Indians/DAB], all as part of the Civil War, have all failed to come to pass.(7)

Many of the prophecies made by so-called “inspired” Mormon apostles and elders are bizarre. Such is the case noted by Barnett of O. E. Huntington, who claimed that the moon is inhabited, “by men and women the same as this earth, and that they live to a greater age than we do – that they live generally to an age of 1000 years.” He further claimed that this was told to him by Joseph Smith in 1837, and that Smith had predicted that he (Huntington) would someday preach to those inhabitants of the moon!(8)

Brigham Young, in his Journal of Discourses, July 24, 1870, makes that same claim. Hirum Smith, in April, 1843, made a further “inspired” claim that the promise of Jesus, “in My Father’s house are many mansions,” actually should have been rendered, “in My Father’s world are many world’s.” He further states, “I will goe (sic) and prepare (sic) a place for you, an(f (sic) then if there are meny (sic) worlds then there must be meny (sic) gods, for every Star (sic) that we see is a world and is inhabited the same as this world is peopled.”(9)

I believe we can safely state that these prophecies concerning the universe are false. Certainly, modern science fiction writers would not go so far as to claim that every “starworld” is inhabited “the same as this world is peopled.”

Brigham Young made several “scientific” claims which have proven to be false. For example, he claimed, “Gold and silver grow, and so does every other kind of metal, the same as the hair upon my head, or the wheat in the field; they do not grow as fast, but they are all the time composing or decomposing.” He made that claim in 1852. In 1856, he claimed that people “receive a greater proportion of nourishment from. . . the water you drink and the air you breathe . . . than from the food you consume. Many are not aware of this, for they are not apt to reflect how much longer they can live when deprived of food than they can when deprived of air.”)(10)

When “holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Pet. 1:21), they spoke truth. Whatever subject they touched upon, whether physics, astronomy, biology, or any other science, they spoke truth. Obviously, the Mormon prophets we have studied thus far can make no such claim.

In 1 Nephi 3:7 of the Book of Mormon, the statement is made, “for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them.”(11) Maurice Barnett points out a contradiction between this passage, penned by Joseph Smith in 1830, and a statement made in Doctrine and Covenants, first issued in 1835. D and C 124:49 reads, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work under my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept their offerings.”(12) Already under fire for failures in his revelations, Smith had to “doctor” his doctrines!(13)

The “gathering of the saints to Zion,” originally predicted by Smith in July, 1931, was one such attempted and failed work. Independence, Missouri, was designated as the place where the City of Zion, or New Jerusalem, was to be located. The Mormons were instructed to buy all the land in Jackson County, Missouri, that they possibly could.(14)

September 11, 1836, was the first date set by Smith for the “gathering.”(15) Later, in April, 1838, Smith predicted that the house of worship in Zion would be begun on July 4, 1838, and that it would take one year to build it.(16)

All predictions by Smith, Orson Pratt, Heber Kimball, and other “inspired” prophets definitely stated that the present generation would not pass away until Zion was established. On January 10, 1871, Orson Pratt flatly denied the Second Adventist claims of an early 20th century date for the establishment of the Kingdom, and stated that it would definitely occur before the end of the nineteenth century. That gathering was to be the beginning of a 1000 year reign of Christ.(17)

As late as 1945, Joseph Fielding Smith stated, “Over one hundred years have passed since the site of Zion was dedicated and the spot for the temple was chosen, and some members of the Church seem to be fearful lest the word of the Lord should fail . . . I firmly believe that there will be some of that generation who were living when this revelation was given who shall be living when this temple is reared. . . No matter what the correct interpretation may be, the fact remains that the City Zion, or New Jerusalem, will eventually be built in Jackson County, Missouri, and the temple of the Lord will also be constructed.”(18)

At this writing, neither the temple nor the city has been built; a definite prophetic failure. In 1851, “Apostle” Orson Pratt stated, “Now the doctrine of the gathering of the saints in the last days must be either false or true; if false, then J. Smith must be an impostor. It matters not how correct he may have been in all other points of his system, if this one point – the gathering – be false, he must be a deceiver. Why? Because he professes to have received this doctrine by direct revelation and commandment.”(19) I couldn’t have said it any better myself!

Mormon leaders often felt they were invincible. Brigham Young even boasted, “I have dared the world to produce as mean devils as we can; we can beat them at anything. We have the greatest and smoothest liars in the world, and the cunningest and most adroit thieves, and any other shade of character that you can mention . . . We can beat them, because we have men here that live in the light of the Lord.”(20)

Joseph Smith made many predictions concerning his own supposed invincibility. In August of 1843, he made one of many predictions concerning his power to “overcome his enemies.” He repeatedly challenged the world to try to kill him, and boasted of facing death and surviving. These predictions failed, too. On Wednesday, June 19, 1844, Smith claimed in the Nauvoo Neighbor, “as sure as there is a God in Israel, we shall ride triumphant over all oppression. ” Only a few days after this, he was dead; murdered with his brother, Hyrum, in the jail at Carthage, Illinois.(21)

The Mormons were prolific prophets. I have herein touched merely the hem of the garment as far as their speculations are concerned. They were certain, in their early days, that Zion would be set up, and Christ would return, before the end of the nineteenth century. Smith at least twice set the date as 1890. In February, 1835, Smith, “gave a revelation of some of the circumstances attending us while journeying to Zion – our trials, sufferings: and said God had not designed all this for nothing . . . it was the will of God that those who went to Zion . . . prune the vineyard for the last time, or the coming of the Lord, which was nigh – even fifty-six years should wind up the scene.”(22)

Again, in 1843, Smith predicted that if he lived to be eighty-five years old, he would see the face of the son of man.(23)

Smith claimed to have been promised he would live until Christ returned.(24) Even after Smith’s death, Orson Pratt, as well as others, predicted the second coming and descent of the Saviour with a shout as “at hand” or “in this century.”(25) These prophecies never came to pass.

Endnotes

1. The Book of Mormon, Copyright 1920, Heber J. Grant, Truste-in-Trust for Latter Day Prophets: the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah, p. 1.

2. Mormonism Against Itself, Copyright 1980, Maurice Barnett Printing Service, Cullman, Alabama, p. 1.

3. Doctrine and Covenants, Copyright 1974, Spencer W. Kimball, Trustee-in-Trust for the Church of Christ of the Latter Day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah, p. 208.

4. Barnett, Mormonism, p. 210.

5. Ibid., p. 204.

6. Ibid., p. 175A-184.

7. Ibid.

8. Ibid., p. 245.

9. Ibid., p. 241.

10. Ibid., p. 249.

11. Book of Mormon, p. 5.

12. Barnett, Mormonism, p. 222.

13. Ibid., p. 211.

14. Doctrine and Covenants, p. 89.

15. Barnett, Mormonism, p. 162.

16. Doctrine and Covenants, pp. 209-120.

17. Barnett, Mormonism, p. 194.

18. Ibid., p. 172.

19. Ibid., p. 157.

20. Ibid., 248.

21. Ibid., pp. 197-200.

22. Ibid., p. 187.

23. Doctrine and Covenants, p. 238.

24. Ibid., p. 185.

25. Ibid., pp. 185, 193, 194.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 5, pp. 142-143, 149
March 3, 1988

By Forrest D. Moyer

Anytime we look at Bible prophecy we are faced with the problems of finding a genuine fulfillment unless, of course, there is inspiration to tell us the meaning and the exact fulfillment. In the New Testament we have some inspired statements telling us the precise fulfillment of some Old Testament prophecy. For example, Acts 2:16ff tells us of the fulfillment of Joel 2:28ff. Luke 3:3-6 tells us the fulfillment of Isaiah 40:3-5. Matthew 1:21ff shows the fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14. These are but a few of the many examples that could be given.

However, in a case where there is New Testament prophecy that would be fulfilled after the close of New Testament revelation, it becomes much more difficult to interpret since we are not inspired. I am sure that the time will come when we shall fully understand all that inspiration wrote. Until then we must continue to study earnestly and seek to understand with an open mind what the Lord teaches.

One very perplexing bit of New Testament prophecy is found in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12. The question, “Who is the man of lawlessness?” is not an easy one to answer, and there are several different interpretations of this passage. There are three basic positions taken regarding this “man of sin.”

1. The Papacy. Many early Protestant commentators and several current ones take the position that this refers to the development of Catholicism and the rise of the papacy. For a full discussion of this position, see Lenski, Interpretation of Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, Philemon (pp. 432-436). 1 would also refer you to Clarke’s notes at the end of his comments on 2 Thessalonians 2. Also MacKnight discusses this. I would encourage you to look at these discussions.

2. The “Anti-Christ. ” This position is that just prior to the coming of Jesus there will arise a person who is so diabolical and evil that he will be known as the “antiChrist.” He will lead many people into great iniquity. He will attempt to totally overthrow Christianity, but Jesus will come and obliterate him. For a full discussion of this position, see Hendricksen, New Testament Commentary, Exposition of I and II Thessalonians (pp. 170-179).

3. For lack of a better terminology, I will refer to the third position as the Roman Emperor. This position may be stated in this way: The “man of sin” is the Roman emperor(s) who brought severe persecutions against Christians as foretold by Daniel and pictured in Revelation l3ff. 1 should like to discuss this and ask you to carefully consider the reasoning that I shall use. Before presenting some arguments for this position, it would be in order to look at the passages under consideration.

In 2 Thessalonians 2:1-5 Paul is correcting a false impression that the Thessalonians had. They believed that the coming of Jesus was imminent. He wrote so that they would “not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed” (v. 2). Paul did not want them to lose their heads over this matter but to keep their mental balance. Evidently, someone claimed that Paul or Silas or Timothy had received a prophetic revelation (“spirit”) claiming that the time of the coming of Jesus was here. Perhaps someone said that there was a letter from them to that effect. Paul is denying any such revelation or letter. So, he said, “Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way about this matter. Remain firm.”

The reason that they should not be shaken is that the coming of Jesus would not take place until there was a falling away and until there was the revealing of “the man of lawlessness, the son of destruction” (v. 3). A time would come when “because lawlessness is increased, most people’s love will grow cold” (Matt. 24:12). This would be a “falling away.” Then there would also be a man of lawlessness, one who would have “contempt and violation of law” (Thayer, p. 42). This man would act with utter contempt for God and his way. He is called the “son of destruction.” Apoleia.- “the destruction which consists in the loss of eternal life, eternal misery, perdition . . . a man doomed to eternal misery. 2 Th 2.3” (Thayer, p. 71). This man of sin would be eternally damned as a result of his godless iniquity and opposition to all that is holy.

In verse 4 this man of sin “opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god (all that is called God) or object of worship so that he takes his seat in the temple of God displaying himself as being God.” His lawlessness consists in opposing God and God’s people and in exalting himself to a position of honor and worship that belongs only to Deity. He claims a higher position than could ever belong to man, a position in which he demands worship from man.

In verses 6-12 this lawless one is described. But at the time of Paul’s writing, there was something that restrained the diabolical work of this man of sin. The Roman empire and emperors controlled the world. The Christians were protected to some extent by the Roman authorities. Rome looked upon Christianity as an extension of Judaism, and, therefore, considered it as legal. (Any religion that existed when Rome captured a nation was accepted as legal. However, no new religion was allowed to begin.) When Rome became aware that Christianity was not a part of Judaism, it was then declared to be illegal. This explains why Paul was released from his first Roman imprisonment and yet executed for spreading an illegal religion during his second imprisonment. In Acts 21 when the Jews sought to kill Paul, the Roman commander rescued him (22-29). In Acts 18 when some Jews were trying to stop Paul’s preaching, it was the Roman proconsul who protected him (12-17). However, when Rome began to look on Christianity as illegal, this changed and there was no restraining power to stop persecutions against Christians.

This man of sin would be used as an instrument of Satan (v. 9). He would come with “all power and signs and false wonders and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish.” But one thing is for sure: this man of sin will be destroyed by the power of the Lord Jesus Christ (v. 8).

Who Is This Man Of Sin? Daniel 7

In order to adequately answer our question, we need to consider Daniel’s vision and what it symbolizes. Let us look at Daniel 7:1-12. Daniel tells of his vision of the “four great beasts . . . coming up from the sea” (v. 3). The first was like a lion and had the wings of an eagle (4), the second resembled a bear (5), the third was like a leopard with four heads (6) and the fourth was “dreadful and terrifying and extremely strong; and it had large iron teeth . . . and it had ten horns” (7). While Daniel looked, he saw “another horn, a little one, came up among them . . . this horn possessed eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth uttering great boasts” (8-9). “Then I kept looking because of the sound of the boastful words which the horn was speaking; I kept looking until the beast was slain, and its body given to the burning fire” (v. 11).

In vv. 15-28 Daniel was quite distressed about the vision and asked one standing by (an angel?) the exact meaning. “So he told me and made known to me the interpretation of these things” (v. 16). He was told that the four beasts were four kings or kingdoms (v. 23) which will arise. These correspond to the four kingdoms of chapter 2. Daniel was especially concerned about the fourth beast, the ten horns and the other horn which came up (v. 20). “1 kept looking, and that horn was waging war with the saints and overpowering them. . . ” (21). “The fourth beast will be a fourth kingdom on the earth, which will be different from all the other kingdoms, and it will devour the whole earth and tread it down and crush it” (23). The horns represent kings; the little horn that came up represents a king who “will speak out against the Most High and wear down the saints of the Highest One . . . and they will be given into his hand for a time, times and half a time” (25). Yet the time will come when his dominion will be taken away and the kingdom of God will prevail (26-27).

We recognize Babylon as the kingdom represented by the lion. Medo-Persia was the second followed by Greece symbolized by the leopard. The great and terrible fourth beast represented the Roman Empire. Therefore, the horns were emperors. The number then should be taken in the sense of a completed number rather than ten literal kings. There would arise a persecuting emperor who would severely make havoc of the people of God. He would be arrogant and boastful even against God.

Revelation 13

Daniel’s vision is complimented by John’s vision in Revelation 13. In chapter 12 we saw the dragon (Satan) trying to destroy the man child (Jesus) but failing in his attempt. Then he turned to the people of God in an effort to overcome them. Chapter 13 tells of the agency he was using to overcome God’s saints. There was a beast that came up out of the sea (remember Dan. 7:3?). This beast was an amalgam of the four beasts of Daniel. He was like a leopard with feet like a bear, and a mouth like the mouth of a lion. He is that dreadful and terrible beast that Daniel saw. He had ten horns and seven heads. One of his heads was wounded and yet his fatal wound was healed. He received worship from the people of the earth. “And there was given to him a mouth speaking arrogant words and blasphemies; and authority to act for forty-two months” (5). The forty-two months correspond to the three and one-half years of the “horn” of Daniel 7. As in Daniel 7, this beast makes war with the saints and seeks to overcome them (7), “and all who dwell on the earth will worship him” except those whose names are in the book of life.

Then we see a second beast arising. This one looks like a lamb but has the voice of a dragon. His sole activity is to persuade the people of earth to worship the first beast whose fatal wound was healed (12). In doing so, he performed “great signs, so that he even makes fire come down out of heaven to the earth . . . and he deceives those who dwell on earth because of the signs.” He enforces emperor worship.

We have little difficulty in seeing the persecuting emperor(s) of Rome in this chapter and the committee going through the Roman Empire seeking to enforce emperor worship. Whether this refers to Nero or Domitian (“the fatal wound healed”?) or both is not the particular point of discussion at present. We just want to see that both Daniel and John saw the diabolical evil “king” persecuting the people of God for “forty-two months” or 31/2 years or 1,260 days. Of course, this is not a specific, literal time-frame, but an incomplete time (one half of the perfect number, seven).

The Man of Sin

Now, how does all this help us define the man of sin?

1. His “coming is in accord with the activity of Satan” (v. 9) just as in Revelation 13:2,4. He is acting as an agent of the devil.

2. He comes “with all power and signs and false wonders, and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish” (vv. 9-10). This is also seen in Revelation 13:14.

3. There is the claim of deity – “exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship displaying himself as being God” (v. 4). We also see this in Revelation 13:4, 14.

4. Paul predicted a “falling away” in which souls would be deceived and be lost (vv. 3,11). Daniel told how the “little horn” would “wear down the saints of the Highest One” for 31/2 times. In Revelation 13 the beast would “make war with the saints and overcome them” (v. 7). Jesus said, “And because lawlessness is increased, most people’s love will grow cold” (Matt. 24:12). (I realize that Jesus is speaking of events leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem in this context. The comparison is that lawlessness causes the people to fall away.)

5. This “lawless one” will be slain by the Lord with the breath of his mouth and brought to an end by the brightness of his coming (v. 8). Daniel saw the beast slain and its body destroyed and given to the burning fire (7:11,26). In Revelation the beast was defeated, seized, and thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone (19:19-20).

Because of these similarities, it seems most logical that Paul is speaking of the same person as was Daniel and John. In so doing, he was helping prepare them for the coming persecutions that many of them would have to face. I fail to see that advantage to these people for Paul to be speaking of some far removed event. I urge you to study this diligently and reach your conclusions carefully. In so far as it is possible, we need to allow the Bible to help us under stand prophecy. We do not need speculation.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 4, pp. 115-117
February 18, 1988

By Larry D. Siegle

It was a common practice during the time of Jesus’ earthly ministry for those who were stricken with the loathsome disease of leprosy, to stand off at a distance crying, “unclean, unclean,” lest they contaminate someone else with their dreaded malady (Luke 17:11-14; Lev. 13:46ff). In the past several weeks, I have developed a greater understanding of what some of those people must have felt like. The difference in my case, is that many of my former brethren have come to the conclusion that I have some form of “spiritual leprosy,”which must be avoided at all costs!

As one who considers himself to be an honest student of God’s Word, I have never been afraid to investigate any biblical subject, even though it might mean that I have to change my viewpoint. Those Jews who were listening to Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost came to a point in time when they realized that a change was in order (Acts 2:37ff). For quite some time, I had become free in using such terms as “liberal” and “anti,” without really considering how those terms actually apply. Thus, I began an honest quest to discover where such labels come from, and for what purpose they are used.

With the help of some conservative brethren living in and around the Kansas City area, I spent about six months looking at the “institutional question,” and why those who stood opposed to such things were branded as “antis.” I was given an opportunity to read material written by learned men on both sides of the “issues.” I read brother Thomas B. Warren’s book dealing with congregational cooperation and found many of his arguments to be weak at best. I was also afforded the opportunity to read portions of debates, such as the Cogdill-Woods discussion, which took place even before I was born. The only honest conclusion that I could come to was that those who support “institutionalism,” do so apart from the authority of God’s Word.

At the suggestion of several of the brethren who preach in conservative congregations, I began to teach some of members of the “liberal” congregation I preached for the truth concerning these things. However, the general attitude displayed by the majority of those I approached was that of “pooh-poohing” the whole thing, not even willing to consider the matter seriously. The point in time came when I could no longer, in good conscience, participate in their 46social gospel” philosophy. To eat at their fellowship meals seemed somewhat like partaking of meats which had been sacrificed to idols (1 Cor. 8). 1 also found that I could no longer feel the freedom to contribute to the church treasury, because of their involvement in the so-called “sponsoring church” arrangement, a clear and blatant violation of the biblical autonomy of a local congregation.

It was on a Wednesday evening that I decided to call the men of the congregation together for a meeting to discuss the conclusions I had come to in my personal study. It was at this point in time that the dreaded disease of “spiritual leprosy” began to appear.

In the beginning of the meeting, the men seemed to listen attentively to the biblical evidence surrounding the subject of scriptural cooperation between congregations. Most of them followed along in their Bibles as we discussed the sufficiency of the church of Christ to fulfill its mission in a local sense, without the seeming benefit of human plans and devices. However, the biblical evidence was not destined to prevail. I soon found myself under a barrage, being flooded with a multitude of hypothetical situations and “what if’s.” This line of ,argumentation continued for over an hour, at which point it was decided by the men that I should not be allowed to preach on Sunday morning. A vote was taken, and I was being quarantined, lest someone else become a victim of this spiritual leprosy! It was also decided that we should meet again on Saturday evening to discuss the matter further.

Over the next few days, there were many phone calls, some encouraging me for the position I had taken regarding these issues, others were not quite as thrilled, wondering why I wanted to be an “anti.” One of the men in the congregation was quick to remind me that I have a wife and three children to support, and that such a stand could prove fatal to “my career.” If it had not been for the prayers of faithful Christians throughout the Kansas City area, I am not sure the pressure would not have overcome me.

Saturday evening soon came, and fourteen men were in attendance at this meeting. One of the “leading” men stood up to take charge of the gathering by informing all of those present, that the meeting was going to be conducted in a “scriptural fashion.” It was his contention that I should not be allowed any opportunity to speak, and that to do so would be as bad as allowing a person from the Christian Church to come and teach. The men, however, still wanted to know more about the subject before deciding my fate. We discussed the “issues” for over an hour, with very little progress being made. Once again, the men were filled to overflowing with “what if” questions.

I summed up the biblical contention that Bible authority is established in three ways: (1) by direct statement, (2) by approved example, and (3) by necessary inference, and that for something to be an “expedient” (the institutional catchall), it must first be “lawful.” I also affirmed that the local church is sufficient to fulfill its own mission, without the outside influence and interference of another congregation. It did not take very long for them to make a decision on my future work there. Within fifteen minutes the verdict was in, and I was guilty of being “anti.” The result was that I was released from my duties with that congregation.

Since that time, I have begun working with a “sound” congregation in the city of Topeka, Kansas. In fact, it is the only conservative congregation in the area. We do not yet have the amount of support we need. The congregation is small in number, and are unable to support us fully. Any help you can give us will be greatly appreciated. Most of all, we ask that you continue to pray for us as we seek to do God’s will.

Much has happened to us in the last month, and I am committed to the fact that if being faithful to God makes me a “spiritual leper,” then so let it be!

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 5, pp. 129, 151
March 3, 1988