Truth Magazine

By Raymond E. Harris

I. Study. Upon becoming a Christian we should let God speak to us every day, through His Word. In 2 Timothy 2:15 Paul wrote, “Study to skew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”

2. Pray. Talk to God everyday! In Philippians 4:6, Paul wrote, “Be careful for nothing; but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanks giving let your requests be made known unto God.” Also, “Pray without ceasing. In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you” (1 Thess. 5:17-18).

3. Be Faithful. It does no good to become a Christian unless one remains a Christian! Jesus said, “. . . he that endureth to the end shall be saved” (Matt. 10:22). Likewise he told the saints at Smyrna, “Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life” (Rev. 2:10). Then in Acts 2:42, we learn that the early Christians were steadfast in doctrine, fellowship, breaking of bread and in prayers. Hence, Christians must be faithful to God in regular worship and in every day life.

4. Behave Yourself. In Ephesians 4:1 we find Paul imploring church members to, “Walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called.’ In other words, Christians must always behave like Christians. One way to accomplish that is by constant and continued self examination. In 2 Corinthians 13:5 Paul encourages his readers to know themselves and prove themselves. If we will conscientiously judge ourselves we will not be condemned under the judgment of God. Remember, Paul wrote, “For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world” (1 Cor. 11:31-32).

5. Add To Your Faith. Many have made “shipwreck” of their faith because they did not sustain themselves spiritually after becoming Christians. In thirty years of observation, 1 have never known an able bodied person, who only attended one service or less per week, who could really be considered faithful! To be faithful is to be active, serving and working. To be faithful is to personally be involved in the spreading of the Gospel, furthering the up building of the church and ever growing as a Christian.

6. Visit The Sick. Christian living is a life of love, concern and service to others (Matt. 25:30-34). It is truly more blessed to give than to receive! Jesus went about doing good. And saints are admonished to follow in His footsteps.

7. Abstain From All Appearance Of Evil (1 Thess. 5:22). In Ephesians 5:26-27, we learn that the church is likened unto the bride of Christ. We learn that the bride (the church) is to be glorious, without spot, wrinkle or blemish. The church is made up of Christians. Therefore, if the church is to be pure and without blemish, its members will have to be pure and without blemish. To be a member of the bride of Christ is a great blessing but it carries with it grave responsibilities.

“Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord” (1 Cor. 15:58).

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 2, pp. 42-44
January 20, 1983

By Aude McKee

For a number of issues to follow, the Lord willing, we plan to review a tract written by Olan Hicks and sent to us by the author. We plan to reproduce that part of the tract each time that will be under consideration so that our readers may see for themselves what the author said.

We know of no subject today that is more “alive” among our brethren than the matter of divorce and remarriage. For the most part, the religious organizations around wrote the subject off a long time ago. Most denominational bodies accept members without concern for the number of marriages and divorces they have had or the reasons for those divorces. In the past gospel preachers have presented a somewhat united front, but of late voices are being heard that certainly present a more liberated viewpoint, to say the least. Brother Hicks is one of those voices.

The Question At Issue

In the year 1545 in a town in Germany named Trent, a Roman Catholic Council convened and, with interruptions, over the next 18 years rendered decisions that were to have far reaching effects on religious concepts around the world. Although it was not at first thought to be a very important council, this one produced rulings of such a nature that in later years many Catholic historians have referred to the Council of Trent as the most significant of all the councils. It was here that “Tradition” was ruled equally inspired with the scriptures and equally authoritative. But the decree most directly relating to problems of marriage and divorce today, is the one in which this council “defined” that marriage is a “sacrament.” This means that it is an institution directly involving an action on heaven’s part, and as such, is not subject to breakage by human hands. The Council decreed, in effect, that each marriage contract is enacted in heaven, is entered into permanent records there, and so the execution of the ceremony must be presided over by a priest and two witnesses. Further, once the marriage contract is solemnized, it continues to be kept intact in heaven regardless of the will or actions of the involved human parties on earth. The church, represented by its officers, is seen as obligated to impose judgments upon the people in harmony with these premises, including the refusal to recognize any marriage contracted in any other way, as a marriage at all.

In this first article of the series we ask our readers to observe that the very first thing the writer did was to introduce us to the Council of Trent, and then in the next paragraph he said, “Within the restoration movement the problems associated with the basic viewpoint have mostly lain dormant for about 175 years, with some believing according to the Roman theory and others rejecting it.”

In the tract, the Council of Trent is mentioned about 15 times and “tradition” is referred to at least that often. We wonder if our brother is, either consciously or unconsciously, trying to prejudice the minds of the readers. The tract has about 26 paragraphs, so this means that the idea of tradition or the Council of Trent is introduced on an average of more than once per paragraph! Brother Hicks seems to be operating on the principle that if you tell a fellow often enough he is following Catholic tradition, he will eventually believe it. We wonder what he would say to a Seventh Day Adventist who insisted he worshiped on Sunday rather than Saturday because of Catholic tradition? We suspect that Olan would say, “What the Catholics teach makes no difference whatever, but what does the Bible teach?” So the purpose of this review will be to examine the teachings of the Bible in contrast with what brother Hicks has to say on this vital subject.

We want our readers to know that there is no ill will between this writer and brother Hicks. This review is undertaken solely for the sake of truth. We will now go to the heart of the doctrine taught by brother Hicks.

A Thus Saith the Lord

Close examination reveals that the traditional viewpoint, far from representing accurately what Jesus said in Matthew 19:9, actually denies every statement made in that verse. The ruling of the council and the view of subsequent tradition is that, even though the partners to a marriage obtain a divorce and cease their relationship, God does not accept that and continues to hold them married to each other. It is this premise that produces the judgments of “invalidity” concerning future marriages, and finally leads to a direct denial of every statement given in Matthew 19:9. In that verse, the Lord actually said four things as follows:

1. If a man puts away his wife, except for the cause of fornication,

2. and marries another,

3. he commits adultery.

4. If a man marries a put away woman, he commits adultery.

In saying that the man in such a case does not actually put away his wife, in the eyes of God, man denies number 1, “shall put away his wife, except for fornication.” In saying that he is not actually married to the second mate, man denies number 2, “and shall marry another.” The Lord’s third statement is that these two acts taken together constitutes the committing of adultery. But tradition holds that adultery cannot be committed apart from the acts of sexual intercourse and thus could not consist in the actions of putting away one and marrying another, as Jesus said. This denies number 3, “commits adultery.” The same reasoning produces a similar denial of number 4, saying that the man who marries a woman put away, does not commit adultery until later when they cohabit. Limiting the meaning of the word “adultery” to sexual cohabitation is a mistake. Thayer gives also this definition of it: “to usurp unlawful control over the sea, to falsify, to corrupt” (Lexicon, pg. 417). The Bible also uses the term variously. James uses it of friendship with the world (Js. 4:4). Jeremiah used it of Idolatry (Jer. 3:9). Jesus used it of lust in the heart (Matt. 5:28). Thus it is a mistake to restrict its meaning to physical sexual intercourse (p. 3).

One of the writer’s mistakes is assuming that God must take an action simply because man takes it. A man “puts away his wife” and our brother wants us to believe that God also takes the same action simply because the man did. According to 3 John 10, Diotrephes was casting some out of the church. Does this mean that God did the same thing? According to Matthew 19:6, the man and woman become “one flesh” when married and are “joined together” by God! Man can no more undo that union without God’s agreeing than a man can be declared an unfaithful Christian without God’s approval. Our whole point is, God is not regulated by man’s mandates but rather man is regulated by God’s. “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” We do not deny that men can withdraw fellowship, but whether God does is another matter. We do not deny that a man can divorce his wife, but whether God unties the knot is the problem.

Now, brother Hicks, no one denies #2. Of course the man in Matthew 19:9 married another woman according to whatever civil laws prevailed at the time. The man took that action just like he took the divorce action. In Mark 6:17, Herod had married Philip’s wife. That’s what the verse says. But the next verse calls her Philip’s wife.

The whole problem in this matter is the result of the action of the man. He “commits adultery” according to Jesus. Our brother does not deny this, but he avoids the consequences by defining “adultery” in the strangest sort of way. In effect, he defines the word to mean, “the act of getting an unscriptural divorce and the act of acquiring another wife.” To support his claim that it does not mean “to have unlawful intercourse with another’s wife” (Thayer’s first definition), he cites Thayers statement that it means “to usurp unlawful control over the sea.” This, Mr. Thayer says, is a figurative use of the word and then shows that that use is never found in the Bible! Brother Hicks then says that the word “adultery” is used of friendship with the world, idolatry, and lust in the heart. The first two are figurative uses of the word, and in the last one the man had intercourse with the woman in his mind. But what leads brother Hicks to suppose that “adultery” in Matthew 19:9 is figurative? Is the word “fornication” in the same verse literal or figurative? In all the false positions we are confronted with, I don’t think I have ever seen one based on a shakier foundation than this.

The truth of the matter is, if a man puts away his wife, and she has not been guilty of immorality, then if and when the man marries another woman the intercourse he has with her is unlawful. That’s not nearly what the verse teaches, that’s exactly it. And, in addition, the man who marries the put-away-woman is committing an unlawful act when he has intercourse with her. This is putting it bluntly, but we believe, in the light of the false doctrine that is being spread, bluntness is called for. Or perhaps we ought to say, this is putting it in the words of the Greek scholar, Mr. Thayer!

Also, in view of statements made in the paragraph reproduced above, we think it would be interesting to have some discussion of when a marriage is a marriage. When the blood test is obtained, the license acquired, the ceremony said by the preacher or justice of the peace, or when the couple have a physical relationship? It is clear that Olan wants “marriage” to mean something that takes place prior to the physical union of the two bodies. And then he wants to define that action as “adultery.” Want to risk your soul on that?

We do not deny that when civil law requires a blood test, a ceremony by an authorized person, etc., these things are necessary to a marriage. A Christian must obey the law of the land in which he lives (Rom. 13:1-7). But we may be too prone to define “marriage” according to the customs and laws of the society in which we happen to live. To see how simple marriage can be, look at the beginning of that relationship between Isaac and Rebekah in Genesis 24. Abraham did not want Isaac to marry one of the Canaanite women, so he sent his servant back to, the city of Nahor to get Isaac a wife. You will want to read all the story but for our point we will begin with verse 61: “And Rebekah arose, and her damsels, and they rode upon the camels and followed the man: and the servant took Rebekah and went his way. And Isaac came from the way of the well Lahairoi; for he dwelt in the south country. And Isaac went out to meditate in the field at the eventide: and he lifted up his eyes, and saw, and behold, the camels were coming. And Rebekah lifted up her eyes, and when she saw Isaac, she lighted off her camel. For she had said unto the servant, What man is this that walketh in the field to meet us? And the servant had said, It is my master: therefore she took a veil and covered herself. And the servant told Isaac all things that he had done. And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah’s tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death.”

What are we saying? Simply that the physical union of the two persons who marry is such a vital part of the relationship, it is easy to see why the Lord said, “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 committeth adultery.”

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 2, pp. 40-42
January 20, 1983

By Fred Holthouser

In establishing the fact of whether a person or an organization is a true prophet or a false one, we must go to the Word of God. That should be the standard that we go by. There are three things that one must consider. First, we must consider whether the thing prophesied is true. Deuteronomy 18:22 tells us that if a prophet speaks and the thing that he has spoken does not come to pass, then that prophet has not spoken what the Lord has said and is a false prophet. Everything that a true prophet says must come true just like he spoke it without change or else we are not to pay any attention to such a person. We had better not follow such a one or we will lose our souls in hell.

Secondly, that which a true prophet speaks must promote true worship. That is to say that it will cause one to want to do God’s will and to be a member of the true church that we can read about in the pages of God’s word. In John 4:24, we find that God is a spirit and those that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.

Thirdly, whatever is prophesied must be in harmony with the revealed will of God. It must be in accordance with what we can find in the pages of God’s word. From 1917 to 1928, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society changed its doctrines or what it prophesied no less than 148 times. This can be clearly and simply proven from their own books of that time period. Now we must remember the three points just mentioned. It takes only one false prophecy to make a person a false prophet. It is not necessary to miss as many as are on the record of the Witnesses.

As can be seen from God’s own word, a true prophet must meet and pass all of these requirements or else be labeled a false prophet. Obviously, a person is not speaking the words of Jehovah if he changes again and again what he has prophesied. A prophet who changes his message many times surely must be false. We should try to teach them the truth of God’s word so as to save their souls from hell if they will let us. We must not let them take us into the error of their ways so that we will be lost also.

Let us look at the claim of the Watchtower and Tract Society to being the visible and legal representatives of God here on earth. Does not that have a familiar sound since the Catholic Church makes the same claim for themselves as do the Witnesses? They are both wrong according to the word of God. This claim is one of assumption and cannot be backed up by any Scripture that I know of. Maybe someone else does know of one that they will share with us, but I do not think that they have found one either. I do know that in Matthew 7:21 Jesus says that not everyone who says to him, “Lord, Lord,” will enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that does the will of my Father which is in heaven.

If this failure of the fulfillment of prophecies can cause one to be labeled a false prophet, then what has the record of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society done for them? Just look at some of their books and magazines to see how many things they have taught and the outcome of those things that were taught. Not one of the prophecies that they have ever made has come true on the date set for them. And to think that they have the gall to say that they are the visible and legal representatives of God here on earth! In every case they have failed to meet and pass any of the three points that a true prophet must meet and pass in order not to be called a false prophet by God’s word. There is only one conclusion that can be drawn. That conclusion is that, just like the Catholic Church, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society are false prophets. They are to be avoided as blind guides lest they lead us into a burning hell to which all false ‘prophets will go.

Most of this information I got first hand from over twenty years as a Watchtower slave and by making a study of their literature. Other information was obtained by talking to old time Witnesses and seeing the books, magazines, and other things that they had on the Society. I used to have a lot of their old publications myself, but when I got sick they disappeared from out of my house somehow. I still have a few of them left, enough to show what they used to teach that they have now changed. What they once taught as the truth is not the truth to be taught anymore (see Jude 3). They do not want me to get my hands on any of their literature because they know what I do with it. It is used to teach people how false the Witnesses are, and to show people from the Bible that the Witnesses are false teachers.

People React Differently To Truth

In 1975 I went to Waverly, Tennessee to conduct a gospel meeting on the errors of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and to give what help I could to a lady there that had been studying with the Witnesses. She was a member of the Lord’s church, but she got so angry that she stormed out of the building and never came back for the rest of the meeting. She still wanted to believe in the doctrine of the Witnesses that there is no burning hell for the wicked to go to after the judgment. I asked her if she believed in everlasting life in heaven, and of course she said that she did. So I pulled a half dollar out of my pocket and asked her to pick up that half dollar and just take the head side but leave me the tail side lying there. She told me that you know I cannot do that. I told her neither could she accept the doctrine of life in heaven without accepting torment in hell. Just like the heads and tails of a coin go together, so do the doctrines of life in heaven and torment in hell that will continue forever. She got angry because she could not have her cake and eat it too. The reason I put this in this article is to show you the effect that a false teacher can have even on a member of the church. We should not wonder at this since Peter said in 2 Peter 2:18 that there were false teachers at work in the days of the Apostles.

Not everyone reacts as that lady did. While holding a meeting in Tompkinsville, Kentucky, I taught the same truths and a man came to the meetings that had been studying with the Witnesses. He was about to join that false organization. But he attended our meeting four nights; on the fourth night he obeyed the gospel and was buried with his Lord in baptism and was raised to walk in newness of life, all previous sins blotted out. The same thing happened in Mason, Ohio, only this time it was a lady and she had been studying with the Witnesses for quite some time. But after hearing the lessons for a week, she continued to study. It must have been a few months later that she obeyed the gospel in obedience to what the Lord said for her to do and stopped studying with the Witnesses. So you can see the effect that God’s word has on honest hearts in spite of the false teachers of any and all false religious organizations.

I have had brethren in Christ tell me that I was wasting my time in presenting these types of lessons. If that is the case I pray that God keeps on letting me waste my time as long as it will save one person from joining these false teachers and false prophets. Then it will be time well spent. In addition to the two that have already been helped to leave these false teachers alone, there was another lady in Newton, North Carolina, that I hope I also helped. My desire is to see them all obey the gospel for the forgiveness of their sins as found in Acts 2:38, to the glory of the God of heaven and to the saving of their souls.

Since I have left the New World Society or the Jehovah’s Witnesses, they have branded me as an evil servant (using Matt. 24:48). According to them, I do not even come in for a resurrection if I should die before the Lord comes again. The only way I could get life is to be able to hide until the battle of Armageddon was over. (Speaking of false teachings and false prophets, I will leave the battle of Armageddon for a later article; it will take several pages to discuss all that they teach on this one subject, and none of it is true according to God’s word.) My “sin” is that I reject false prophets! Let us not fear what men call us when we stand with truth and against error.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 2, pp. 39-40
January 20, 1983

By Irven Lee

The mother has a special place of responsibility in the home. Aged women are to teach “the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discrete, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed” (Tit. 2:4, 5). This one passage does a wonderful job of outlining the role of the mother in the home.

Let us think of that mature woman who still has a responsibility to her daughters even though they may also be homemakers. The training should have started early while the daughters were young, but the teaching may continue because there are many important lessons that need to be deeply implanted in these young women. One way the older women may teach the young is by their own example of chastity, modesty, and good judgment in clothing, and in behavior. If there were more mothers with strong convictions, there would be more daughters with strong characters.

Who will turn our immoral and unchaste generation back to purity and sobriety? It is very evident that comparatively few older women have been training the young women in the way they should go. Divorce, unfaithfulness to the marriage partner, drunkenness, and a complete lack of spirituality have come to many young women in America. Such people are in no position to be the mothers of the next generation. Many do not want children because they are so in love with money and with worldliness. Are there those who can get to these young women with the Bible to instill the principles their mothers should have taught them? It will not be easy. Most of the ungodly will continue to sow to the flesh and to reap of the same (Gal. 6:7, 8).

To “guide the house” as a “keeper at home” is a special assignment to young women (1 Tim. 5:14). Eunice and Lois must have done their work well at home because Timothy was given the “unfeigned faith” and knowledge of the Holy Scriptures that helped make him the great servant of the Lord that he was (2 Tim. 1:5; 3:14, 15; Phil. 2:19-23). Is there a more important and satisfying work than guiding and training such excellent people to be the salt of the earth? The work of a good mother is so important that nothing should hinder or turn her aside from this glorious task.

It may seem to some that young mothers will naturally love their children, but very many young children are at home by themselves in summer. Some mothers forsake their husbands and children to live with companions to whom they have no legal right. The Lord knows that young women need to be taught to love their children, and to have a proper discretion and soberness of mind to be guides for these children. Mothers and fathers are accountable to God for what they make of their homes. It would be impossible to over emphasize the importance of the role of the father and of the mother in the home. The failures that are made in this realm could hardly be more evident. Worthy and successful parents are blessed, and they deserve our congratulations.

Many children are now growing up in the homes where there is only one parent. In some cases they are with one parent a while and then with the other. It is next to impossible for a good man alone to give his children all they need in the way of guidance and training. If the mother still sleeps at home but is hardly with the child this is only one degree better than her being gone into another state. She who bears children should guide the house. Money cannot replace a mother’s love, example, and companionship. Are there not many women in the labor market in the very period of life when they are so much needed at home?

The word mother was once considered to be a word with very great significance. As more women began using vulgar and blasphemous language, drinking alcohol, forsaking the home in search of money and notoriety, and becoming immodest and immoral, the special respect for women in general was lost. There are still some of the very best mothers, and their children love and honor them. We should all thank God for these virtuous women because it is the influence of His word that causes them to be so worthy of respect.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 2, p. 38
January 20, 1983