Truth Magazine

By Fred Holthouser

To show that we are dealing with a false religious organization and one that is a false prophet, at the end of this article I will give you a list of the false prophecies made by them and a list of some of the books where these false predictions can be found. So go to your library and look them up for yourself; many libraries have a copy of all their old literature. The predictions of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society have changed so much that it would take a long article just to list eh changes made int eh last thirty years. So it would be impossible for me to quote from all of them in this one article. When I give you the list of predictions made by them, then you should be able to judge for yourself if the Witnesses are true prophets or not. Remember the three point test that a true prophet must meet and pass.

What Is The End?

From 1914 until the present time, they have changed the prophecy of the end of the world on numerous occasions and are still trying to predict when it will end. They have been mistaken so many times that it looks like they would quit making such predictions. As the old saying goes, a child once burned is twice shy of the fire, but not these Witnesses. They still keep predicting right on in spite of the many times they have been mistaken. Remember that this is the only way that they have of putting “pep” back into the organization when the members start to wind down, do not do as much work in going door to door, and fail tot sell all the books and magazines the headquarter think that they should. Just tell them that he end of the world will be here next year or the years after, and watch them get busy in the field service!

The book called The Finished Mystery (started by Russell and finished by Rutherford) on page 62 states that the spring of 1918 will bring on Christendom a spasm of anguish greater even than the one experienced in the fall of 1914. The travail that is coming is to be on nominal Christendom (Babylon). It will be a great and sore affliction time of trouble such as was not since that was a nation. This was to be the fulfillment of Revelation 11:7-13.

According to their book by Rutherford, Millions Now Living Will Never Die (pp. 88-89), it is stated that 1925 would see the resurrection of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the other faithful men of old that are mentioned in Hebrews 11. These faithful men would lead the earthy class of people back to human perfection here on earth in fulfillment of Revelation 21:1-4. Some of the other book s that you can find their false predictions in are: You May Survive Armageddon Into God’s New World, Let God Be True, The Truth Shall Make You Free, and Everlasting Life in the Freedom of the Sons of God. There are many more that I can supply anyone a list of upon request and will be glad to do so. Look at 2 Peter 2:1-3, where Peter tells us that false teachers were in his day and that they would always arise. They still arise today.

A lot of these dates were changed as the need arose, so much so that it was hard for any Witness to keep up with what you were to teach at any given time. But to show that this is a false religious organization, let me quote in part from the October, 1968, Awake Magazine (p. 23). Teaching against false prophecies, the article said, “Missing was a full measure of the evidence required in, fulfillment of Bible prophecy. Missing from such people were God’s truths and the evidence that he was guiding them and using them.” Now I would like to ask one question. What organization is more famous for date setting and the missing of those dates than all other organizations on earth put together? I will answer this one for them: that organization is known as the Jehovah’s Witnesses. So by their own articles, they tell us that God is not using them as his visible and legal representatives on earth because never have any of their predictions ever come true on any date set for them to happen!

Let us look at some prophecies of God and see if they were fulfilled or not. Also let us see if God ever changed any of them before they were fulfilled. Take Isaiah 45:1-2. This prophecy deals with the fall of Babylon, and even names the name of the one that was to overthrow Babylon. Isaiah’s writings were completed about 732 B.C. and this prophecy was fulfilled in 539 B.C. by Cyrus the Persian, or 139 years after the prophecy was made. See also Jeremiah 25:8-9. God prophesied that Babylon would overthrow Israel and lead them off into captivity. This prophecy was given in the year 632 B.C. and was fulfilled in the year 607 to 609 B.C., or twenty-five years later. Let us stop for a moment. Did God change any of these prophecies just because they did not come true? Or, did He ever say that they came true but no one saw them come true because they were invisible to the human eye? God never said any of those things and all His prophecies came to pass just like He said they would. So we can see that the Witnesses have not spoken as the Lord commanded and they are to be considered false prophets by all Bible standards.

More False Claims

In the Witness Book of Government which was released in 1928 (pp. 247-250), the seventh trumpet was blown and the Theocratic government was to start to rule over mankind in fulfillment of Revelation 11:15-18. In their book of Paradise Restored to Mankind by the Theocracy, on pages 282-301 (which is a whole chapter), just like in other false organizations they claim to have unity in spite of all false predictions. This in itself is a false claim as the Witnesses have broken into several groups in the past. Some of them are still in existence today, such as the Dawn Bible Students, Back to the Bible Ways, and some others that could be named. But this is enough to show you that there is not much unity shown here, no matter what they claim.

Just like the Roman Catholic Church, in spite of all their wrong predictions and in spite of all that they have done to people and the false teachings that have been done in the name of God, the Jehovah’s Witnesses still claim to be God’s visible and legal representatives here on this earth. What nerve it takes to condemn someone for doing something when you are doing as bad yourself! One time I had the congregation overseer get all over me for my son playing with a toy cap pistol; when I went to his house to see him on some business of the congregation, there his two boys were playing with the same kind of toy cap pistols. He told me when I called his hand on this that I was to do as he told me to do and not as he did. This is typical of the hypocrisy in the way the organization is run from the top down. You just do not question them about what they teach no matter how false it happens to be. What they say goes. If they are wrong in their predictions they will just change them as the need arises for them to do so.

In the eleventh chapter of Revelation, the kingdoms of this world are not asked to join the kingdom of God, which contradicts what the Witnesses teach. The Bible does not teach that the kingdoms of earth with their governments are to become the kingdom of God. After the period we know in history as the Dark Ages, there was a change in the hearts of the world rulers and the change put the Bible back into the hands of the common people. In this way, they could learn the truth of God’s word and come into the kingdom of God in obedience to the gospel plan of salvation on an individual basis. Whole nations have never accepted the truth of God’s word and according to the Bible they never will this side of the judgment bar of God, but we must all stand before this judgment bar of God on an individual basis and not as a nation. We must answer for what we have done in this body whether it be good or bad, as the Bible teaches in 2 Corinthians 5:10 and Romans 14:12.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 3, pp. 72-73
February 3, 1983

By Aude McKee

As we continue our review of Olan Hicks’ tract on divorce and remarriage, we ask you to note some things he said in a paragraph that begins on page 5:

Rightly Dividing

After determining precisely what the text says, the next vital step is to make sure we apply it in harmony with apostolic example, that we give it the meaning they demonstrated. Here again the traditional position errs from the right course. It has long been standard among us to divide the testaments at the cross and to recognize that the new testament gospel began to be preached on Pentecost day in Acts 2. Examples of its terms being executed therefore, are not to be found before the cross. But being unable to find any examples in which the apostles thought of Matthew 19:9 the way the Council of Trent did, advocates of that tradition have turned to incidents before the cross and offer these as “examples” to support their theory. Usually the words of John the Baptist to Herod are cited, or the case of the Jews of Ezra’s time. But John was killed in Matthew the 14th chapter, and the words of our text occur in the 19th chapter, five chapters after John’s death. Thus that incident could not possibly be a case of these words being applied. The Jews of Ezra’s time, of course, are even farther away from being an example than that, since that incident occurred hundreds of years before Jesus spoke the words of Matthew 19:9. Neither incident is a case of a marriage being disallowed because fornication was lacking as the cause for a prior divorce. These are not examples of Matthew 19:9 being applied any more than the thief on the cross is a case of the great commission being executed. In both cases the incident took place before the words being considered were spoken. The simple truth is, there does not exist in scripture a single case, anywhere, of a marriage being “nullified” because fornication was not the cause of a preceding divorce. When we come over this side of the cross where the apostolic example is found, we see evidence that is altogether to the contrary. We find the gospel first being preached to the Jews, a nation which had been living under the law of Moses. This law, ironically, permitted divorce and remarriage for many causes (Matt. 19:3-8). But when these people asked the apostles, “What shall we do?” not a word was said concerning destroying any present marriages nor living celibately thereafter, as far as the divine record states. Peter simply replied, “Repent and be baptized everyone of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins . . .” (Acts 2:38). It is clear that repentance of former sins and a spiritual washing in baptism was sufficient. This is as far as our pattern goes. Neither the Council of Trent nor current enforcers have the right to give further elaboration as to what is “in the eyes of God,” and add into this pattern what is not supplied by the Holy Ghost. As J.D. Bales observed, “The Law of Christ is not Retroactive” (Firm Foundation, 6-13-78).

Olan wants an example of the teaching of Matthew 19:9 being carried out. Will he reject the clear meaning of Matthew 18:15-17, and the application of the passage to present-day circumstances, because he can find no example of its application after the cross? Olan is trying to make a new law!

He says that when Jews asked, “What shall we do?” in Acts 2:37, Peter didn’t say a word about destroying present marriages. “Peter simply replied, `Repent and be baptized . . . .”‘ We wonder, what does our brother think “repent” means? Those who followed the command to “repent” changed their minds about every action, thought and word that was contrary to the law of Christ! To those who might have been engaging in unlawful intercourse, the word “repent” covered that just like it covered lying, stealing and all other sins. According to Olan, these people could repent of adultery and keep on committing it – well, not exactly, because he wants to define adultery as divorce and remarriage: So the repentance would involve simply deciding not to divorce and remarry any more. Then the couple unscripturally divorced and remarried could go on sleeping together with God’s approval.

The very reason that there is adultery (Matt 19:9) in some marriages is simply because there is no marriage in God’s sight. God does not join two people who have no scriptural right to marry, any more than He “adds to the church” someone who has no scriptural right to be so considered (Acts 2:47). A person could come before an assembly, confess his faith in the risen Lord, and be immersed in water with the preacher saying, “for the remission of sins,” but the Lord knows whether or not he has met the terms of pardon, and it is only the Lord who applies the blood. If a man affirmed that the Lord would add a person’s name to the Lamb’s book of life simply because a local church added the name to their roll book, he would be totally in error. Just so, for a man to affirm that God recognizes a piece of paper issued by a civil court, dissolving a marriage because the couple disagreed over what breed of dog to buy, is just as ridiculous. In order for a person to be “added to the church,” God’s terms of pardon must be met. Just so, in order for what “God hath joined together” to be “unjoined,” God’s terms must be met! His terms are stated in these words: “Except it be for fornication” (Matt. 19:9). The clear import is simply this. If a marriage is dissolved and the reason for the putting away was not fornication, then any subsequent sexual activity, on the part of either one is labeled adultery by the Lord. It matters not whether the sexual activity is “one night stands” or activity made socially acceptable by another marriage, the result is the same before God.

Another very clear example among the apostles is that of Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians. In chapter 5 he cites a case of incest among them, involving the defilement of a marriage. In chapter 6 he mentions that others of the Corinthians had been “adulterers” (6:9-11): There is no question that people guilty of adultery, or marriage violation, were among those to whom Paul wrote this letter. But the procedure by which they were rehabilitated was exactly the same as that which Peter gave at Pentecost. “And such were some of you, but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.” The teaching of tradition insists that, following repentance and washing, former adulterers are required by the demands of repentance, to “become a eunuch for the kingdom of heaven’s sake,” and finish their lives without a mate. But Paul takes the opposite position. As we read on here, we find him in chapter 7 taking up matters they had written him about, particularly marriage. His first statement on the matter is, “to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife and let every woman have her own husband” (1 Cor. 7:2). Remembering that this was written to people among whom Paul had just cited the existence of former adultery, it is clear that this command cannot be harmonized with the tradition established at Trent, namely that former adulterers are not capable of entering a valid marriage but are consigned to permanent celibacy. Here is a clear indication that Paul did not view the matter that way. And again, one must choose between inspired scripture and human opinion.

Let us impress on the minds of our readers that Olan’s position from beginning to end depends on his definition of “adultery.” His definition is, the act of divorcing and the act of getting married. And so, when he comes to a case of conversion, the repentance involved simply means that the person, regardless of how many marriages and divorces he may have had, just agrees mentally that he will not do that anymore. If a person is allowed to define Bible words to suit his purpose, then I suppose there is nothing in this world that could not be “proven” right! The closest that Olan has come to finding his definition of the word “adultery” is Thayer’s statement that the Greek word is used figuratively in Greek writing “to usurp unlawful authority over the sea” and then the examples he gives are all outside the Bible! Mr. Vine agrees with Thayer when it comes to the literal meaning of “adultery”: “Denotes one who has unlawful intercourse with the spouse of another” (Vol. 1, pp. 32-33).

How could the Corinthians have been “washed, sanctified and justified”? Why, by obedience to the gospel (Acts 18:8). This obedience included repentance (Acts 17:30), which meant they had to have a change of mind about committing the sin of adultery. When did Jesus say the adultery occurred? Read Matthew 19:9: “And I say unto you, whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” (Emphasis mine, a.m.). We have heard it said, “You have to have help to misunderstand,” and it seems that is what Olan is determined to give. But it is going to take more than a far-out definition of “adultery” to accomplish the task! The “fornication” in Matthew 19:9 must be understood literally, and so the “adultery” in the passage must be understood literally, also.

Every position Olan takes is colored by his definition of “adultery,” in verse 2 of 1 Corinthians 7, Paul said, “. . . to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. ” This verse must be understood in the light of everything the New Testament teaches regarding marriage, divorce, remarriage, adultery and fornication. With his definition of “adultery,” Olan can say to all the divorced people in the world, “Go out and get you another husband or wife in order to avoid fornication.” But Jesus said that if the former marriage was not broken for the cause of fornication, then any subsequent sexual relationship was adultery. That has to be understood and taken into consideration when reading 1 Corinthians 7, or any other New Testament passage dealing with this subject.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 3, pp. 71-72
February 3, 1983

By Irven Lee

It was several years ago that I saw a comic strip which pictured a little boy’s asking his mother, “Why did we get daddy?” Many children have not been blessed by their fathers as they should have been. We are being reminded in newscasts now that many little ones are being abused by the very people who should love and protect them. Some are neglected; some are brutally beaten; some are sexually assaulted. A nation is very sick spiritually when many helpless children need protection from their own fathers. Unbelief, drugs, and ungodly forms of entertainment have in some cases destroyed the part of man that is in the image of God, making him into a “natural brute beast” (2 Pet. 2:12 KJV).

A child should find a wonderful place of refuge in the presence of his father. He has a right to feel very secure in his arms. Food, clothing, shelter, and other essential things that money can buy should be considered the responsibility of the man who begat them (1 Tim. 5:8). A man who will not provide these things has denied the faith and is worse than an infidel. It seems evident that there are many thousand men who cannot be depended on to meet these basic needs. Such men are not likely to read articles like this, nor do they read and meditate on the law of God.

Money is not the only thing that a man should provide for his children. If it were, he would not be missed if he died leaving a large insurance policy for his family. Children do not know how to use money, so if that is all they have from their father they are poor instead of rich. They can be destroyed both physically and spiritually by an ample supply of cash (Matt. 19:23, 24; Mk. 10:23-26). A good father may be a real blessing to his children in teaching them to restrain themselves and to have wisdom in the use of money. The young certainly need to be taught to earn. Citizens who prefer stealing, begging, or arranging for tax money for all their needs are unworthy of the food they eat. (See 2 Thess. 3:10.) One generation that will not work tends to bring up another generation in its own likeness.

Proper discipline is a prerequisite to righteousness. It is not a joyous experience to receive or to administer the chastening, but the peaceable fruit of righteousness is a wonderful thing to see (Heb. 12:5; Prov. 13:24; 22:6). Bringing up a child in the way he should go is not just a matter of wise use of the rod of punishment. There is need for teaching the wisdom of the past and the revealed will of God so that each generation may not make the same old mistakes that have characterized the past. Instruction may be given morning, noon, or night (Dent. 6:6-9). The wildest elements in America today are ignorant of things people have learned in past experiences, and of the revealed wisdom of God. They perish through lack of knowledge. The failure of a father to teach is a serious and inexcusable failure.

Israel’s history in the early period of its national existence gives an impressive example. “The people served the Lord all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that outlived Joshua, who had seen all the great works of the Lord, that he did for Israel . . . . All that generation were gathered unto their fathers: and there arose another generation after them, which knew not the Lord, nor yet the works which he had done for Israel. And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord, and served Baalim” (Judg. 2:7-11). Think how different the story would have been if the people had taught their children as earnestly as Moses asked them to do as recorded in the book of Deuteronomy.

Fathers should win their children’s respect through their good examples and through their loving patience as they spend time with them. Children need to be guided into the company of worthy companions. Souls are involved (1 Cor. 15:33). Children are to be guided and trained just as they are to be fed and clothed.

A man has reason to rejoice if he has a pleasant, profitable, and challenging occupation, but he should also know that his position as a father can be just as pleasant, profitable, and challenging if he will put time into this work with precious material. Children are a heritage of the Lord (Psa. 127:3). Failure as a father can bring sorrow beyond measure. Success is possible (Prov. 22:6).

Fathers should provide training, chastening, physical needs, worthy examples, proper environment, and a family name of which their children will have no occasion to be ashamed.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 3, p. 70
February 3, 1983

By Hoyt Houchen

Question: Are overhead projector charts authorized by the Scriptures? If one or two people conscientiously oppose their use, should the elders and preacher cease using them for fear that they will be guilty of “offending” a brother (Rom. 14:21; I Cor. 8:13)?

Reply: The use of overhead projectors is an effective method of teaching. It is in the same category as black boards, cloth charts, song books, baptistries and tracts. They are all expediencies – means and methods. It cannot be shown that their use violates any Scripture. If a critic objects to overhead projector charts, but at the same time approves of a black board, he is inconsistent because both are in the same category. Elders have the responsibility of feeding the flock (Acts 20:28) and, in providing spiritual teaching, they should employ the best and most effective methods available.

As to “offending the conscience,” a few brethren need to do some studying in this area. They do not understand what is involved in Romans 14 and I Corinthians 8. If they have an opinion that some method used by the church is wrong (usually because they do not like it), it is easy for them to object on the ground that it “offends” their conscience. They completely miss the point of Paul’s teaching. In neither Romans 14 or I Corinthians 8 is Paul saying that we must give up anything and everything that “hurts the feelings” of some objector. The local church would be in a mess if every grumbler is pacified by discontinuing some effective means of teaching. This would mean that the local church would have to cease having Bible classes or using individual containers at the Lord’s Supper because somebody says he is offended by their use. It is time that some objectors learn the real meaning of Paul’s teaching.

The weak brother in both passages is not the one who merely has his feelings hurt. The idea in Romans 14 is that a stumbling block is not to be put in a brother’s way. This would be an occasion for him to fall (v. 13). In the Roman passage Paul is dealing with a brother who was weak in faith (v. 1) and could only eat herbs (v. 2). If such were influenced to eat meat by a stronger brother, even though he believed it was wrong to eat it, he would be led to sin (v. 15). To grieve a brother in this instance is not merely hurting his feelings. The next sentence says, “Destroy not with thy meat him for whom Christ died.” The word “destroy” means “ruin or loss.” To offend a man’s prejudice or notions is not to destroy him. Rather, his ruin or destruction would result from him being encouraged to do that which would lead him to sin. And, it is interesting that usually the member in the church who is offended or who has his feelings hurt about something, is the last one to admit that he is weak. Who is the weak brother referred to by Paul? He is the one who could not conscientiously eat meat because he considered it unclean. He was not to be given an occasion for falling (v. 13). This lesson is illustrated in verse 21, “It is not good to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor to do anything whereby thy brother stumbleth.” Please note that the verse does not say that we are to refrain from anything that merely hurts the feelings of a brother. The “offense” is that which would make him sin.

The word “offense” as defined by Webster is “a cause or occasion of sin: stumbling block” (Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 586). Thayer explains the Greek word proskomma (stumbling-block): “i.e. an obstacle in the way which if one strike his foot against he necessarily stumbles or falls; trop. that over which the soul stumbles, i.e. by which it is impelled to sin” (Greek-English Lexicon, p. 547).

The lesson that we as Christians are not to do anything that will cause a brother to sin is also the one taught in 1 Corinthians 8. At Corinth there was the situation of eating meat sacrificed to idols. The weak brother in this case was a converted brother who was still susceptible to Pagan influences. He could not eat meat that had been dedicated to an idol. As he grew spiritually in Christ, he might come to realize that there was nothing in an idol. Until then, the brother strong in faith should not eat meat if it would cause the weaker brother to follow his example and thereby sin. This is why Paul wrote in verse 13, “Wherefore if meat causeth my brother to stumble, I will eat no flesh for evermore.” This is afar cry from merely hurting the feelings of some grumbler who dislikes some method being used by the church.

Sometimes a disgruntled member, in order to have his own way, will attempt to exert pressure on the elders and preacher by threatening to leave the congregation because some method does not suit his fancy. This attitude denotes spiritual immaturity. Brethren who object to such methods of teaching as the use of overhead projectors should first be taught and admonished. They should be shown that the use of such is an expediency like a song book, black board, Bible classes or individual containers at the Lord’s Supper. They should also be made to realize that they have no right to bind their opinion or encroach upon the liberty of others who favor their use. Brethren who object to such methods usually do not consider the desires of others. They selfishly think only of their own dislikes. Elders and preachers should not be intimidated by such childish actions. If a few are disgruntled and leave because they are “offended,” this is better than having the unity of the congregation disrupted and an effective teaching program thwarted. If they leave the congregation, they leave because their own personal whims were not satisfied. Such brethren have not been destroyed – made to sin.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 3, p. 69
February 3, 1983