Truth Magazine

By Donald P. Ames

Recently the phone rang at the church building, and as I answered it, the lady on the other end began telling me about the new translation they had brought out under the above name. Apparently it has been done by brethren, and is “not a paraphrase” but a new and accurate translation, and is written on a fifth grade level of comprehension. As I reflected upon the conversation, there seemed a number of good ideas being offered, yet I was also surprised how little I really knew about the translation itself. They wanted to know if they could send the church 20 issues (return guaranteed) and let us look it over 15 days before deciding, so I said “go ahead.”

Several of us began examining it carefully to see how accurate and readable it was. Frankly, I must admit I found it very disappointing. The sentences were short and single thought (which they did on purpose to make for easier reading). However rather than simplify the understanding, in some cases it chopped it up so much it made it even harder to grasp. And some of the expressions therein would have required even more explanations than the KJV (such as t4orgies,” etc.) to children – an added disadvantage to those who might be already busy struggling to answer questions in booklets based on the KJV already. Although a “translation, ” it read much more like a paraphrase. And, sadly, in some places, they took almost as many liberties, while in others of complicated translation, they almost avoided changing it to avoid being “put on the spot” (or so it seemed).

Those received included only the New Testament, and that in a red hard-back binding (which did not impress me much for real quality). The N.T. was nicely laid out, but already about an inch and a half thick, which means by the time the O.T. would be added, we would be looking at a book 3-4 inches thick! Copyrighted in 1981 (American edition), it is published by Upward Productions, Inc. and apparently is being sold via phone solicitations rather than traditional book stores (at least for a beginning). O.T. quotes are set in and easily spotted, and listings of qualifications, events or genealogies are spaced on short successive lines so they can be easily read. Yet, none of us who examined it felt it was any easier to grasp than the New King James Bible or New American Standard Bible. Several said they felt it was so strange they simply did not care for it at all – and none of us felt it sufficiently interesting that we were interested in really purchasing a copy for our personal reading.

Some places made for good translations. “Baptism” is consistently translated “immersion” throughout. Matthew 16:19 is translated “will have already been” bound and loosed — correctly conveying the idea there. “Begot” is translated “fathered” and “fornication” is translated “sexual immorality.”

However, there are some rather poor translations made too, which were major factors in turning all of us against it. “Deacons” is translated simply as “servants” in 1 Timothy 3, which in view of modern usage, might have been better served by the word “deacon” instead. “Repent” is consistently translated “change your hearts” – an idea that might not necessarily convey a sign of regret or remorse for what was done wrong, but just simply altering into a different direction. “Tongues” in Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians 12-14 (etc.) are not helped with the consistent translation of “inspired languages” — an idea almost beneficial to Pentecostals who could argue it was a “God-given language” and hence not designed to be understood. In 1 Corinthians 7 and other passages, the use of the expression “Christian woman” is so freely tossed about one would never believe this “accurate translation” realized the word “Christian” only appears three times in the Bible — and not once in 1 Corinthians 7 (where it appears 9 times in that chapter alone).

In Matthew 16:18, Jesus says, “Upon this rock foundation, I will build my community – those called out by God.” This translation (?) sounds almost like he is talking about a local town or sub-division rather than the establishment of His church! Maybe since some of our liberal brethren are getting the church involved in real estate and housing projects, though, there is more to this verse than meets the eye!

While 1 Corinthians 11 has been a passage that has bothered those in favor of making an eating place out of the Lord’s meeting place, they took a major liberty to remove such objections of the passage in this new translation. In 1 Corinthians 11:34 it reads: “If someone comes only (Emp. mine – DPA) for the food, he should stay home and eat there!” Hence the way is opened for “coffee and donuts” etc., as long as one does not come “only” for the food. And this is not a paraphrase, but a translation? Where did that idea come from in the original? Liberal brethren are busy “feathering their own nests” here.

Acts 11:30, which so many liberals have sought to use to try to justify the concept of the sponsoring church, gets another dose of mistranslation in support of liberalism. Rather than Saul and Barnabas taking the funds to the elders of the churches in Judea where the brethren had the need, it is translated, “Then Barnabas and Saul brought it to the elders in Jerusalem.” This leaves the door wide open for the false practice of a sponsoring church, but not for a accurate translation!

2 Corinthians 9:13 is another passage liberal brethren have sought to lift from context (“all”) and try to apply to universal benevolence. To do so, of course, they must not only ignore the contextual limitation of the word “all,” but accuse Paul of collecting the funds under one understanding (for the needy saints) and spending them under another (for all men). I would wonder if that would not fall under misrepresentation! So, this “translation” gives the liberals a little help by rendering it ambiguously: “Sharing with them or anyone else (emp. mine – DPA) shows that you are generous.”

In 1 Corinthians 7:39 the door is opened for several different translations of questionable nature. It is rendered: “A Christian woman is bound by her marriage promise as long as her husband lives, but if her husband dies, she becomes free from it. She may marry anyone – anyone in the Lord Jesus.” I wonder if this is in support of the concept that “non-Christians” are not under the law of God? Is only a “Christian woman” so bound? And, the expression “only in the Lord” is definitely open to debate as to its meaning. However they chose to translate it (their option, of course) here “anyone in the Lord Jesus.”

Seventh-Day Adventists could find real comfort in the translation of Matthew 5:17, where, speaking of the Law and the Prophets, Jesus says, “I did not come to destroy them. I have come to give them their full meaning.” While that could include the idea of “fulfilling” them, it would have to come as an interpretation subject to argument, and not from this “accurate translation.” A much better translation could have been done here!

In Revelation 1:1 the Revelation of Jesus Christ was not spoken to John in symbolic language, signified, or even a question of literal or figurative translations. Following the example of the NASB (which unfortunately settled for “communicated it”), this translation also renders it simply “Jesus revealed it to John.” One wonders why they stayed so vague and uncommitted after so freely taking liberties in some of the other passages we have looked at.

Other translations of profitable or unprofitable nature include “elders” being referred to only as “overseers,” and “saints” translated as “holy ones.” Acts 8:37 is omitted from the text and included in a footnote, though both John 8 and Mark 16 are included in the text and a footnote questioning them is included.

Frankly, while there is a need for an easy to understand translation for people of today, and while I commend some of our brethren for an interest in such, unfortunately, as far as I am concerned, this is not much real benefit. I would rather commend the New King James Bible or the New American Standard Bible to those desiring something easier to understand. And, if you are unfamiliar with this “Simple English Bible,” maybe this review will help you be on your guard when you are approached about it. Examine it carefully if you are going to seriously consider it – it most likely could create more problems than it will help. And, if such be the case, it would hardly be beneficial in teaching people the truth without addition or subtraction – while busy showing what is wrong with this “simple” and easy to read translation (?).

Guardian of Truth XXX: 17, pp. 524-525
September 4, 1986

By Ron Halbrook

In all America’s wars, from the Revolution to Viet Nam, she has lost 1,205,291 lives. About 1,500,000 babies are slaughtered in America every year! In 8 years (1939-46) Nazi Germany eliminated 6 million Jews but Americans eliminate 12 million babies every 8 years. The atom bomb killed 115,000 Japanese in Hiroshima and abortion kills 125,000 babies every month in America. One young pregnant woman said, “In this society we save whales, we save timber wolves and bald eagles and Coke bottles. Yet, everyone wanted me to throw away my baby” (Ronald Reagan, Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation, p. 35).

Abortion on demand gives a mother the “freedom of choice” to terminate her baby’s “right to life.” It is called “the termination of a pregnancy” in an effort to sound sophisticated and to soothe the conscience, but a miscarriage or a live birth is also the termination of a pregnancy. So, what is the difference? Abortion terminates a pregnancy by exterminating a life! The killing of an innocent, defenseless human being is murder. “Just because he is small, just because he cannot speak for himself, this is no excuse to regarding him as expendable, anymore than we would do so on account of race or creed or color or poverty” (Dr. R.B. Zachary, Ibid., p. 51). Since the child is in the protective care of his mother’s womb, her sin in demanding his death is compounded and aggravated.

The spirit or inner man is made in the image of God, whether the body or outer man be male or female (Gen. 1:27). To take human life by shedding innocent blood violates the bonds of humanity and offends the Giver of life, as can be seen in the first murder when Cain killed Abel (Gen. 3). God is “the Father of spirits” and we must answer to Him for taking an innocent life (Heb. 12:9). God’s law to the Jewish nation forbad murder: “Thou shalt not kill” (Ex. 20:13). Christ taught the same respect for life and explained through the apostle Paul:

. . . and if there by any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely,

Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

Love worketh no ill to his neighbor: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law (Rom. 13:9-10; cf. Matt. 22:3440).

We must answer to God for the sin of murder by abortion because it violates the principles of love for God and for our fellow human beings who reflect the image of God.

Jesus said that those who despise their fellow men and regard them as worthless fools “shall be in danger of hell fire” (Matt. 5:21-22). To curse one another with vile and filthy language is to regard human life as cheap and expendable. All forms of murder, including abortion, put that same disregard for life into practice. Doctors who will poison unborn babies with a saline solution or hack their bodies to pieces to extract them from a mother’s womb will also choke, smother, or even experiment with aborted babies who refuse to die. This is already happening! Next comes euthanasia or so-called “mercy killing” of people with incurable diseases, then starving babies with severe handicaps, and finally eliminating all sorts of groups of people who do not meet the nebulous criteria of “quality life” – groups like the chronically ill, the aged and infirm, mentally and physically handicapped people of all ages, social misfits, ne’er do-wells, certain racial groups, immigrants, and what next?

Yes, abortion on demand is the immoral disregard for human life – just another name for murder! But the so-called “pro-choice” movement is trying desperately to defend the practice and to label its opponents as illogical, irrational, outdated fanatics. The implication is that those who favor killing unborn babies are up-to-date, rational, and logical. Can abortion be defended successfully by evidence and argument?

Abortion On Demand – Can It Be Defended?

Several arguments are made in an effort to justify abortion on demand as right. First, it is said that the fetus or prenatal child is not really a person but is only an appendage to the mother. Therefore, the mother has the “freedom of choice” to remove this fetus or glob of flesh just as she might a wart, a bunion, a diseased organ, or a tumor. According to this argument, the infant’s body does not receive a human life until sometime shortly before birth or perhaps just after birth.

In James 2:14-26, the inspired writer explains that spiritual life or a right relationship with God depends upon both faith in God and obedience to God’s Word. Faith needs works just as the body needs the spirit for life on earth:

Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

When faith obeys, working the will of God and not of man, faith saves.

The body with the spirit is alive,- without the spirit the body is dead. Faith with works is alive but without works is dead. The denominational doctrine in the Methodist discipline and Baptist manual that “faith only” saves before and without water baptism is wrong (Mk. 16:18). Such teaching nullifies the active, obedient nature of true faith. “Once saved, always saved” is wrong for the same reason. To say that faith is alive is to say that works are present. To say that the body is alive is to say that the spirit is present.

All admit that the fetus is a living body and the Word of God says that this means the spirit is present. The fetus is a human life and a human being who lives in the protective care of the mother’s womb. To take that innocent life is murder. The abortionist’s argument degrades the value of that life in order to make it expendable.

Some people claim the immortal spirit of man is not present until a breath is drawn after birth. They cite Genesis 2:17, “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” But this is a reference to the unique circumstances of the miraculous creation of an adult. We had as well argue that a person does not receive his spirit and is not a true human being until adulthood since Adam received his spirit as an adult. Life began for Eve with her miraculous creation from a rib, but that does not explain how a human life begins today. After the original creation of man and woman, God ordained that the life of a person begins by the uniting of the male sperm and female egg. The conception of a human life initiates the growth of a human body. This new life includes the presence of a human spirit (Jas. 2:24).

David says that his life as a human being was valued and protected by God even during the formative stages of the body “in my mother’s womb” (Psa. 139:13-16). When Exodus 21:22 speaks of a pregnant woman so injured as to suffer a miscarriage or premature birth, the King James Version translates ” . . . so that her fruit depart from her.” The Hebrew text says literally, “her children come out” (see notes in New American Standard Bible and the Keil and Delitzsch commentary on The Pentateuch, 11:134). It is not a disposable glob or growth which lives in the mother’s womb, but a child. This living being is a human child both before and after birth.

The New Testament recognizes the same principle. After Elizabeth “conceived a son,” she was greeted by Mary and “the babe leaped in her womb” (Lk. 1:41). But Mary also conceived, gave birth to a son, and laid “the babe . . . in a manger” (Lk. 2:12). The same word “babe” is used in both passages. It is a baby in the womb and a baby out of the womb! If a baby in the womb can be declared subhuman and discarded as a wart or tumor, the same thing can be done to a baby out of the womb.

A child, a baby – a human body with a human spirit – lives in the protective care of his mother’s womb. If he is subhuman and expendable because he cannot breathe for himself in the womb, then we may dispose of him if he needs a respirator out of the womb. A human child, body and spirit, lives in the mother’s womb. Taking that life by abortion on demand is another name for murder.

Also, notice that the Jehovah’s Witnesses, 7th Day Adventists, and Armstrong’s 7th Day Church of God all claim that the spirit of man is just his breath – no immortal inner man dwells in the body. In that case, the prenatal child is subhuman, a body without a spirit, and so can be disposed of as a carcass. Such religious groups cannot consistently oppose abortion because a body without a spirit is not a human being. If the “body” or “mass of flesh” growing in a mother’s womb is not a human being, discarding it cannot be sinful anymore than removing a tumor! While these groups claim to hold the line on murder and morality, their theory on the soul or spirit of man fits the abortionist argument whether they realize it or not. These false religions must either join the abortionists or else admit that the unborn child is both body and spirit, outer man and inner man.

Does Exodus 21 Approve Abortion On Demand?

Exodus 21:22-25 is often used to defend abortion on demand, although the passage deals only with accidental abortion. Abortionists claim the passage requires a more severe penalty for harming a pregnant woman than for harming her child who may be aborted in the course of the injury. The fetus is not given full human status, it is said. The passage reads:

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (King James Ver.)

And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide.

But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life,

eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise (New American Standard)

If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she give birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows.

But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life,

eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise (New International Ver.).

The claim that anything in this passage makes the prenatal child something less than a human being is pure assumption!

Exodus 21 teaches that a fine is required if the baby is born prematurely because of injury inflicted on the mother. This fine is exacted even if the baby is unharmed and normal at birth. This takes into account that both the mother and her child were endangered by the blow, just as people are endangered by kidnapping even though not harmed. Both the mother and the unborn infant are valued and protected by this law.

The law went even further. If the mother or the baby was seriously hurt, the offender was subject to the law of retaliation (also called lex talionis or jus talionis). This law controlled and inhibited the passions of offended parties and of their relatives. The penalty inflicted upon the guilty party could not exceed the wrong suffered by his victim. Hebrew experts and famed Bible commentators C.F. Keil and F. Delitzsch point out that the penalties in Exodus 21:22-25, including the lex talionis, protect both the mother and her child:

If men strove and thrust against a woman with child, who had come near or between them for the purpose of making peace, so that her children come out (come into the world), and no injury was done either to the woman or the child that was born, a pecuniary compensation was to be paid . . A fine is imposed, because even if no injury had been done to the woman and the fruit of her womb, such a blow might have endangered life . . . . .. But if injury occur (to the mother or the child), thou shalt give soul for soul, eye for eye, . . . wound for wound”: thus perfect retribution was to be made (The Pentateuch, 11:134-35).

We should note that even if Exodus 21 required a more severe penalty for harming a mother than a prenatal child, this would not prove the child less than human. Different penalties for different people in various cases are not based on the premise that some offended persons are human, some sub-human, and some not human at all! Is the -punishment more severe for betraying military than business secrets because soldiers are fully human and other people are not? Why do the penalties differ for going to sleep on a factory job and on sentry duty in the army during a war?

Legal penalties take into account social, economic, and other implications. The loss of a family member is always treated more sternly than the loss of a slave. In Exodus 21:26-27, if a master put out his servant’s eye, the servant was freed rather than the master’s eye taken. Is this just? Does God not consider the slave human since an eye was not taken for an eye? Taking the master’s eye would only open the door to further abuse of the slave. Freeing the slave punished the master without jeopardizing the slave’s safety. The slave is treated as human though the penalties differ.

Might not a wife who served the family be more highly valued in the home than an unborn infant whose potential is undeveloped? The penalty of the law for harming one of them could take that fact into account without denying the full humanity of either!

Exodus 21offers no comfort to abortion on demand. Abortion is still just another name for murder.

Pro-abortionists may offer this argument, “The Bible does not say, ‘Thou shalt not perform an abortion.”‘ No, and it does not say, “Thou shalt not poison babies or cut up their defenseless bodies after they are born.” Abortion is a method of murder and the Bible does not list every method. But the Bible covers them all, including abortion, when it forbids murder (Rom. 13:9-10).

“What about a medical abortion?” someone will ask. Statistics show that about I percent of the abortions are performed because of the mother’s health problems. An uncle of mine who has been a doctor for many years said that he personally has never encountered a case of medical abortion nor known another doctor who has. It is rare indeed! A true medical abortion is comparable to rescuing one person from a burning house even when you cannot rescue another. This is mercy not murder and bears no relation to abortion on demand.

What Is The Solution?

What is the solution to abortion on demand? It ought to be against the law of the land because God ordained civil government to protect innocent life (Rom. 13:1-7). When a nation sheds innocent blood it causes the inner decay which leads to its ultimate downfall. “Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people” (Prov. 14:34). God rules over the nations of earth. He destroys and replaces them when they harden themselves beyond the hope of correction. We should pray for our leaders and encourage them to do what is just and right (1 Tim. 2:14).

But civil law cannot provide the final solution to abortion on demand. We must abhor it as a sin under divine law whether or not it is a crime under human law. Civil law may permit many things which are sinful before God -drunkenness, gambling, adultery, homosexuality, etc. “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). When we disobey God, the gospel convicts us of sin and points us to Christ for the forgiveness of all sin!

Respect for God and the humility to accept from Him the pardon of our sins is the only true solution to the sin of abortion on demand. The sin frequently begins with fornication – sexual relations outside the sacred bonds of marriage (Heb. 13:4). It is no solution for the schools and “Planned Parenthood” clinics to pass out information on sex and contraceptives without reference to moral values. That encourages moral decay. It is like expecting schools and the National Rifle Association to put guns into people’s hands “without reference to moral values” – without teaching that there is a “right” and “wrong” way to use guns because of the moral value of human life.

Abortion is not the answer to the sin of fornication. To murder someone (a defenseless infant) to escape the difficulties which follow our sin is just to compound sins and difficulties. It is like a bank robber shooting his unarmed witnesses to escape being identified!

Jesus reaches out in love to all of us who have sinned even to those who have committed fornication and murder by abortion – and says, “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11:28). By faith in Him, we repent of our sins, confess Him as the Son of God, and receive His cleansing blood in the waters of baptism (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38; Rom. 6:3-4). This brings us into God’s spiritual family. If we stumble and sin again, we are to repent and pray for pardon (Acts 8:22). God will patiently help us to “walk in the light” of His law and His love as we turn our backs on sin (1 Jn. 1:6-10). But will God forgive a sin so serious as murder? Yes, if we turn from sin, He will “cleanse us from all unrighteousness! ” (1 Jn. 1:9)

(NOTE: chart attached to next page)

Guardian of Truth XXX: 17, pp. 520-521, 532-533
September 4, 1986

By Robert F. Turner

Some time back I received a lengthy rambling dissertation which sought to prove its proposition that when “the church” functions, each individual member must have “full and complete understanding, approval and agreement” of and to that action. The writer did not deny the church could act as a “team,” nor that the elders should make “the final, reconciliatory, united voice decision.” But he says, “There must be communication with and approval of ‘the church’ before any lawful action can be taken in the name of ‘the church.”‘ The writer wished me to write something along this line for Guardian of Truth. I will begin the body of my article by a repetition of portions of my letter to the querist.

It seems to me such reasoning rides hard on something ill defined, on which the writer has been influenced by abuses, and by the same confused terminology seen in ___________ and a few others. These recognize a treasury “for specifically authorized purposes”; and conclude this may be used for benevolence to saints, edifying saints, preaching the gospel. Now it is my understanding that “specifically authorized purposes” are to be the basis for all giving into a treasury. The brethren should be taught the divinely authorized work of the church, desire to do this work as a team, and to this end pool their means (treasury) so that work can be done. Put another way, when the members pool a medium of exchange (money), it is for the express purpose of doing divinely authorized work, and such work is sanctioned and supported in intelligent giving. “Contributing” is not a sacrament, some “holy act of worship” which is its own end.

But there can be no “team” work without submission to some common mind – whether attained in a mass meeting or by scripturally appointed elders. The “specifically authorized purpose” of elders is the basis for their appointment by the brethren; and when such r4pointment takes place, and funds are collected for the work to be done as a team, those elders are acting under “specific authorization” when they implement the appointed work. It is ridiculous to think every detail must be discussed by every member; or that the elders are but rubber stamps for a “one man, one vote” process. The defining of elders’ work as “final, reconciliatory, united voice decision” (emphasis by my correspondent), is a contradictory and ambiguous statement. If elders await an “united voice,” elders are only vote counters. If they only “reconcile” the mass of votes and declare that decision, any labor union arbitrator could be an elder, and the elders make no decision. If their word is “final” the “united voice” part is invalidated.

Good leadership demands constant contact with the flock. When major changes or undertakings are before the church, good elders consult with the brethren specifically – perhaps by special called meetings, or by going to the home of the members for discussion. But most churches have a high percentage of babes and/or people with poor and untaught judgment. God’s plan calls for qualified men of experience to lead these sheep – not for mass meetings to lead the qualified men of experience (1 Thess. 5:12; 1 Tim. 3:4-6; Heb. 13:17).

Undoubtedly, both elders, and brethren in mass meetings, have been guilty of abuses when usurped power joined hands with personal inclinations. This is best corrected by developing greater dedication to the Lord and love for the truth – not by raving about it, But let us not throw out the baby with the wash water. If “the church” has entity, as my correspondent agrees, it can be considered in some ways other than distributively meaning, other than simply “all the saints” and this “team” or “flock” must be led in some way. The question is, who are the scriptural shepherds (1 Pet. 5:1-4)? Clearly, they are older men, but not just older; they are men who meet certain qualifications (1 Tim. 3; Tit. 1), and who are then recognized (appointed) by the brethren to serve in this capacity (Acts 14:23). We must not be deceived by verbal smoke screens, nor by the citing of abuses. We must take plenty of time to study the principles of collective activities, and to this end we write.

I fear some have had experiences with elders who abused their place, and have been led into a crusade that will only trigger further abuses. They become deeply involved in a local situation, and soon they see their pet peeve everywhere. All who try to check their mad rush are “soft” or digressive” or the like. The iconoclastic spirit can wreck both the image and the iconoclast – for it seems to promote wreckage that goes far beyond the initial goal. If brethren need teaching concerning elders, or anything else, we will best succeed by first gaining a thorough understanding of the principle at stake. Then, we must begin with compatible information, common to all views, and work with a sympathetic heart for those we believe in error. Often they will welcome our teaching if we show utter fairness and assume they want the truth, rather than that they want to ruin the church. We must demonstrate the humility demanded of all Christians. This is not to say, of course, that we can ignore specific error or obviously false teachers,

Finally, it is a mistake to furnish public forums to all who have a crow to pick. This is a very good reason for elders working in private on many aspects of their work, giving ample ear to the dissident in private, without making a Federal Case of every difference that arises. The radical sees this as “lording it over the flock”; but the wise and calmly working flock see it as reason to thank God for elders who function as God intended them to function.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 17, p. 519
September 4, 1986

By Dick Blackford

Many religious leaders have gotten carried away with the ecumenical spirit. A case in point is that of John Paul II’s historic visit to a Jewish synagogue on April 13, 1986.

He quoted from Second Vatican Council’s revolutionary 1965 document on non-Christian religions, “Nostra Aetate ” (In Our Times), which officially rescinded the accusation that the Jews killed Christ (Owensboro Messenger-Inquirer, April 14, 1986).

The only reason why this accusation would need rescinding would be that it had been proven false. But who made this accusation? The Apostle Peter, whom Catholics believe was the first pope!

On Pentecost, in Acts 2, Peter said:

Men of Israel . . . hear these words. Jesus of Nazareth was a man approved by God among you . . . Him, . . . you have crucified and slain by the hands of wicked men (vv. 22,23).

Therefore, let all the house of Israel know most assuredly that God has made both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified (v. 36).

At the healing of the lame man in Acts 3, Peter charged:

Men of Israel, . . . you disowned the Holy and Just One, and asked that a murderer should be granted to you; but the author of life you killed, whom God has raised up from the dead; whereof we are witnesses (vv. 12-15).

At the house of Cornelius (Acts 10) Peter again accused the Jews: “And we are witnesses of all that he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem; and yet they killed him, hanging him on a tree” (v. 39).

Even Jesus accused the Jews of trying to kill him (Jn. 8:37-40). What’s more, thousands of Jews admitted the charge and obeyed the gospel (Acts 2:36-41; 6:7). The pope lays a stumbling block that will discourage Jews from obeying the gospel by rescinding Peter’s accusation.

Who Blundered?

If Peter was also a pope, which pope was infallible? The one who was bodily present and was an eyewitness to what happened, or the one who is nearly 2000 years removed from the event?

Incidentally, the preceding Scripture quotations are from The New Catholic Version and printed by P.J. Kennedy and Sons, printers for the Holy Apostolic See. The first sentence in the introduction to this translation says:

THERE ARE THREE things about the Bible which Catholics must believe.- that it has God as its author, that its various books are all inspired, and that, because God is the author, no formal error can be admitted within the sacred pages.

The pope and those responsible for “Nostra Aetate” join the ranks of skeptics who claim to know more about what happened than those who 1 were there, including Simon Peter!

How can any conscientious person remain indifferent to such blasphemy and contradiction? The pope not only contradicted the Apostle Peter in the Scriptures, he also contradicted the introduction to an official Catholic translation which affirms the infallibility of the Scriptures. This must not be swept under the rug. Every Catholic should sit up and take notice of this glaring contradiction.

Now notice another strange turn of events.

Pope John Paul II said Saturday that the church should not follow any ideological or political banners because they are “foreign to the Bible” (Owensboro Messenger-Inquirer, July 6, 1986).

The pope opposes clear Bible statements when he doesn’t agree with them, but he holds it up as authority when he thinks it is on his side.

Your Reaction To This Article

Some who are reading this are Catholics. “Have I become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?” (Gal. 4:16) I mean no unkindness to you by focusing on these unpleasant matters. The last thing in the world I want, is to make you mad. Getting mad usually clouds our thinking, causing us to close our minds. I don’t want that to happen. We should not fear to give an honest and fair investigation to views which differ from those we have long cherished. The greatest kindness one can do for others is to warn against danger and deception (2 Cor. 11:13-15). This is what motivates this article. We must be jealous for the Word.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 18, pp. 545, 567
September 18, 1986