Truth Magazine

By Donnie Rader

Time robs me of pleasant memories. Oh, I don’t mean that the memories are gone. But, with time changes come and things are not like they used to be. The pleasant memories of the past are quite different from what I see at the present. And it’s painful. The emotion you feel when you reflect and realize that it’s not like it used to be is indeed a painful journey. How many of us have not wished that we could go back and relive an earlier experience? In some ways it hurts to know we can’t do that.

Such journeys are especially painful when it comes to people. I think of those I’ve loved who are now gone. As I wonder back to the time when they were still with us I sometimes feel this big lump in my throat. Then I look at people that I never thought of as being “old” and notice grey hair, less hair, wrinkles, a slower walk, a bend in the back and other signs that say they are older than I want them to be. Though I know the answer, I still sometimes wonder, “Why does it have to be this way?” At times I wish I could turn this journey around and reverse the process.

The saddest of all is to look at those you love who no longer serve the Lord  some who even live ungodly and immoral lives  and remember when they feared God. Nearly as disturbing as that is to consider those who are showing signs of getting weaker and looser in their faith. I see those I care about tolerating and practicing things that they would have abhorred not too many years before. In both of these the painful part is recalling when they were not like they are now. The real “punch” of the pain is when I think about how we don’t have as much in common as we used to have. Our faith is no longer the “like precious faith.” It is neither “like” nor “precious” anymore. And, in some cases is no longer “faith.”

In the last few months I’ve made this journey time and again. On more than one occasion I’ve been in gatherings of extended family. While others at the gatherings may have had their minds on other things, I was taking one of my painful journeys. I noticed things I wish I had not seen.

Recently, at a relative’s funeral, I sat looking around the room at family I had not seen in a long time. I glanced at one cousin, then another, then aunts and uncles. I thought about those who were not even there. At one moment I was thinking about how such a large family had been “raised in the church” with the influence of the gospel of Christ having such an impact on one family. (We have five preachers, one elder, two church treasurers and two deacons in the family. Be-sides that, my granddad and great-granddad were both elders.) The next moment I thought of all the fun we used to have together. I paused and savored the thought of how we once had a closer bond. As I let that thought go, another, not so pleasant, came. This one was to think about the spirituality of many of those I was looking at or thinking about. It’s sad enough to attend a relative’s funeral, but my thoughts were really painful. Oh, how I wished that it was like it used to be  before time brought so many changes.

Sometimes, I hate time! It robs me of pleasant memories. It leaves me feeling empty and disappointed. Yes, I know that time has made a lot of things better. Changes are really for the good. While I know that, it doesn’t remove my disappointment  at least right now.

What scares me is to think what my enemy time may do to me and my own children. What will ten or twenty years bring? Maybe the pain of my journeys will be worth it. For, you see, I’m more determined than ever to serve God with fear and do all I can to prevent my children from departing from the way they should go (Prov. 22:6). In the middle of one of my journeys, I stopped, bowed my head and said to God, “Help me, Father, to serve you better and to raise my children right.” If I can do that, maybe time won’t be so bad after all.

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 17, p. 5
September 5, 1996

By Irvin Himmel

Eddie was a clerk in a hardware store. He made a name for himself as the most inefficient and contentious sales-man ever. The atmosphere when he was absent one day was like the tranquil beauty of summer weather after a bad thunderstorm. One regular customer remarked on the difference. “Eddie ain’t just away for the day,” said the proprietor, “He don’t work here no more.”

“Do you have anyone in mind for the vacancy?” asked the customer. “Nope,” said the proprietor cheerfully, “Eddie didn’t leave no vacancy.”

This little story reminds us of some folks in the church. It is so seldom that they attend services that no one really misses them when they are absent. They are such that no great loss is felt if they move to another city. Like Eddie, they leave no vacancy. Others can be absent for only one or two services and they are missed. Why? Because they are dependable. When their seat is vacant people take notice.

Church attendance is not the only matter of importance in the life of a Christian. However, it is a pretty good index to the temperature of one’s fervor for the Lord. Non-attending members are usually non-participating in other aspects of the Lord’s work. One must fill a place, render needed service, and be a participant before he can leave a vacancy.

Guardian of Truth XL: 7 p. 4
April 4, 1996

By Johnny Stringer

Introduction

“Behold, how good and how pleas-ant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity” (Ps. 133:1). Unity is surely to be desired, but differences arise and interfere with unity among brethren. This article will discuss the various categories of differences and the scriptural ways of handling them.

Differences in Matters Pertaining

to Congregational Activity

We must agree to the point that we can worship and work together in the local church. Paul instructed the Corinthians that they were to have no divisions but be joined in the same mind and judgment (1 Cor. 1:10). He did not mean that they could have no disagreement about anything. Romans 14 shows that there is room for some differences within limitations. Paul was condemning the divisions among the Corinthians. He was requiring them to agree, therefore, to the point that they could avoid division, worshiping and working together in harmony. Similarly, the Philippians were required to strive together as one in furthering the gospel (Phil. 1:27).

Such agreement is possible when brethren look to the same authority to guide them (2 John 9; 2 Tim. 3:16-17; Col. 3:17). If it were not possible, God would not require it, for God does not demand anything beyond our abilities.

There are two kinds of differences involving congregational activity:

1. Differences that arise because some will not be guided by the Scriptures. Some, for example, may insist that the congregation engage in an unscriptural practice. In that case, we must not yield to the advocates of error in order to have peace and unity. Truth must not be sacrificed or compromised (Prov. 23:23; Jude 3; John 8:32).

2. Differences in matters of personal judgment. In carrying out scriptural mandates, congregations must make decisions regarding specific details that the Scriptures have not spelled out. For example, in carrying out the command to assemble, decisions must be made as to the times the congregation will meet. Such decisions are matters of judgment. In making such judgments, meekness and the de-sire for peace must prevail (Eph. 4:1-3; Gal. 5:22-23; Heb. 12:14; Jas. 3:17). If it does, brethren will be willing to yield to the judgment of others rather than press their own judgment to the point of causing strife.

Differences in Private,

Personal Matters

There are four kinds of differences in this category:

1. Differences of opinion about matters not vital to salvation. For ex-ample, some brethren have wasted their time arguing over what Paul’s thorn in the flesh was. Such questions are of no consequence and should not be a source of strife. Brethren should heed 2 Timothy 2:23.

2. Differences in matters of judgment regarding one’s personal service to the Lord. As they planned a second journey, Paul and Barnabas had a disagreement over whether they should take John Mark. This was a matter on which God had not revealed the truth; it was a matter of personal judgment. The disagreement resulted in each preacher acting in accordance with his own judgment. They separated, Paul taking Silas and Barnabas taking Mark. This was not a disagreement that affected whether they could worship in the same congregation. We have already seen that in judgments regarding congregational matters, there must be compromise, for without it, peace in the congregation cannot be preserved. In private matters, how-ever, each one may practice what he believes to be best without disturbing congregational unity. For example, one couple may think it best to home school their children and may try to persuade another couple to do so. The other couple may judge such not to be best. These couples may strongly disagree, and each couple may act in accordance with its judgment; but each couple continues to love the other couple and worship and work with them in the congregation.

3. Disagreements with brethren because they are teaching or practicing things that are clearly sinful. The congregation must not tolerate sinful conduct or teaching among its members (Eph. 5:11; 1 Cor. 5; Tit. 2:10; 2 Thess. 3:6-15). Romans 14 does not deal with things that are clearly sinful. If it did, it would contradict the above passages.

4. Disagreements with brethren regarding practices that are questionable. The practices discussed in Romans 14 were not condemned; yet some could not engage in them with a clear con-science. There are things some Christians today cannot do in good conscience; yet, there is no clear-cut condemnation of those practices in the Scriptures.

Some, for example cannot in good conscience observe Christmas, even in a non-religious way; some cannot in good conscience serve as policemen; some cannot in good conscience play cards even when no gambling is involved. Most brethren who cannot do these things, however, do not consider the scriptural teaching to be so cut-and-dried that they can bind their conclusions on others. We must recognize a distinction between cases of clear-cut sin and cases that are not so cut-and-dried. Certain scriptural principles may be clear as a bell, but devoted Christians may reach different conclusions regarding the application of these principles in all the varied circumstances of life. We must make allowances for differences in such matters.

Here is where Romans 14 must be applied. When practices are involved that are not clear-cut cases of sin, let each individual act according to his conscience, not condemning those who differ. Otherwise, the church will be endlessly splintered. If brethren get to the point that no brother can ever worship or have fellowship with anyone who can engage in a practice in which he cannot engage, enormous problems will ensue. We simply must recognize, whether we like it or not, that there are practices in the questionable category.

A question arises at this point. We have said that when the Scriptures clearly condemn a practice, we must not tolerate it, but when the matter is not so clear-cut, we must allow for differences. The question: Who decides whether a matter is clear cut or not? Is someone going to provide a list for us? No list is needed. Discipline is exercised on the congregational level. When a situation arises within a congregation, the brethren in that congregation must decide whether it is a matter of unquestionable sin that cannot be tolerated or whether it is not. It is the business of the congregation to deal with such situations to the best of its ability in the light of scriptural teaching.

What about the divorce and remarriage question? There has been much discussion lately as to whether the principles of Romans 14 should be applied when those who have unscripturally divorced and remarried seek acceptance in a congregation. I believe that as brethren in any congregation make this decision, they should consider the clarity of New Testament teaching. Matthew 19:9 and Romans 7:1-3 clearly teach that if one did not put away his first mate for the cause of fornication, his second marriage is adulterous. There is another point that cries out for consideration: In view of the seriousness and magnitude of the problem of divorce and remarriage in our society, it is vital that God’s people take a firm stand against unscriptural divorces. But how can a congregation exert a strong influence for truth on this matter if there are people in the congregation who are clearly living in adulterous marriages?

It should be pointed out, however, that the question of whether the first mate was put away for fornication is not always cut-and-dried. Some-times, when there is some doubt regarding that question, we must al-low an individual to act according to his conscience; we must leave the matter between him and God.

The fact is that if the truth about divorce is firmly preached in a congregation, it is unlikely that it will be necessary for that congregation to decide whether or not to accept those who are in adulterous marriages. Usually, when the truth is preached strongly and forthrightly, those in adulterous marriages will either repent or leave because they find the preaching intolerable.

Conclusion

I do not claim to have all the answers to all the questions that arise regarding fellowship and Romans 14. I only hope that this contribution to the discussion will be helpful.

Guardian of Truth XL: 7 p. 6-7
April 4, 1996

By Ed Brouillette

Note: The following article appeared in the San Jose Mercury News, World Section, page 29-A, Sunday, November 12, 1995.

“Jehovah’s Witnesses Revise End-time Date

London  Armageddon has been delayed and the end of the world is no longer nigh, say Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Charles Russell, founder of the movement that now boasts 5 million members, first forecast the world would end in 1914.

Two more “false alarms” occurred in 1925 and 1975 and now the movement has decided not to give any more exact forecasts on Judgment Day, when it believes only its followers will be saved.

Senior church figures, cited in its official Watchtower Magazine, called for an end to Armageddon speculation.

“We do not need to know the exact timing of events,” they said. “Rather, our focus must be on being watchful, cultivating strong faith and keeping busy in Jehovah’s service.”

Some of us have been trying to teach Jehovah’s Witnesses the truth for a long time. In discussion with them I have used their book (which they have seen fit to no longer print) Millions Now Living Will Never Die to prove their founders and foundations to be false. Their excuse has been, “Men make mistakes.” This would be acceptable if their founders had not claimed inspiration.

In Studies in the Scriptures, Series VII, the Finished Mystery, International Bible Student’s Association, Brooklyn, 1918, the claim is made, ”  the following from the pen of Pastor Russell is further proof that he was sent of God in this generation” (3).

In making comments upon Revelation 10:7 concerning the “voice of the seventh angel,” the following is claimed, “Pastor Russell was the seventh angel” (169).

Then, on page 377, we read, “When the full import of the Word was discerned, Pastor Russell took a firm stand. The spirit, power, influence of God entered into him, never to leave.”

We read in Deuteronomy 18:21-22:

But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that (is) the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, (but) the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

Other quotations from the works of Russell, Rutherford, and other prognosticators among Jehovah’s Witnesses could be quoted to show that their entire system is false but these should suffice for the honest seeker of truth. From the claims made and from the Scripture reference we can conclude one of two things: (1) Pastor Russell was a false prophet and was not sent from God, neither was he the seventh angel of Revelation. His prophecies were false because they did not come to pass and The Watch-tower being built upon such foundation is a false institution and should be exposed, (2) If Pastor Russell was indeed prompted by God to make the predictions then God led him into falsehood, or God was directing Russell to made predictions about which he, himself, was ignorant. I cannot accept the second conclusion for it is blasphemous.

I am told by Scriptures that God is omniscient and that God will not lie. I prefer to reject Pastor Russell and his system and plead with all who have been entrapped by his falsehoods to leave this false religion. Just saying, “We are men and men make mistakes,” is not enough. The claim of inspiration was made and the leaders of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society need to acknowledge that all along their system has been based on falsehoods and manufactured “time tables.”

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 17, p. 11
September 5, 1996