Truth Magazine

By Steve Springer

In Acts 26, Luke records a familiar scene of Paul testifying before King Agrippa regarding the accusations made against him by the Jews. There are many lessons that can be drawn from this section of Scripture but I would like to examine the characteristics of those who are present.

1. King Agrippa is described as one who is a pompous dresser (25:23). He was one who was familiar with Jewish customs and beliefs (26:3). He seemed to be a fair man in his judgment of Paul’s case. He let Paul speak on his own behalf. He also did not “play the crowd” with his rulings. Agrippa did not appear to be a man of wickedness and deceit as have been many of those in authority throughout history.

2. Festus was a newly appointed public official; he appears to be a true politician. He was willing to do the Jews a pleasure (25:9), even if an innocent man had to die. He wanted to take Paul to Jerusalem to be judged. Jerusalem was where the “heart and core” of Paul’s accusers dwelt. Festus was a scheming politician.

3. Paul was a man appointed by Christ to preach the gospel to the Gentiles (26:17). He had zeal in doing God’s work. He told of his experiences in persecuting Christians, bringing them into bondage. He told of his determination to put Christians in prison, not only in Jerusalem, but also in other cities as well. He also implied that he had been in high standings with the chief priests (26:12). When Paul saw the risen Christ, he realized he was wrong in his works (26:19), and had a repentant heart.

As Paul testified in his defense, he told of his past and why the Jews now were against him. He simply believed what had been taught about the coming Messiah by the prophets of old. As he spoke, Festus, the politician, interrupted and told Paul that he was crazy for believing in the resurrection of Jesus. Paul was the only one in the room who believed in Jesus, which was filled mostly with Jews and/or those of Jewish persuasion. Note the reply from Paul (Acts 26:25-27), “But he said, I am not mad, most noble Festus; But speak forth words of truth and soberness. For the king knoweth of these things, before whom I also speak freely; For I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in corner.” Showing his conviction and zeal, Paul states that he is not crazy and knew what he is saying. Paul then asked Agrippa to answer whether or not he believed the prophets. Not waiting for Agrippa’s reply, Paul said, “I know you do.” Agrippa’s well known response was, “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian” (26:28).

What if, when Festus told Paul he was “beside himself” and did not know what he was saying, Paul had not replied? What if Paul just thought to himself that Agrippa will not believe me just as everyone else in this room does not? What if Paul had decided to say only the things necessary to save his own life? What if Paul had thought that Agrippa was already religious enough or that he was involved with a false religion as were the others in the room and deserved their spiritual fate?

If Paul had not said what he did in verses 1-27, Agrippa would not have been “almost persuaded.” Paul’s deep faith in God and burning desire to convert the lost motivated him to convert the lost, even trying to convert the lost officials who were judging his case. The intensity of his faith in Christ was felt by King Agrippa who was “almost persuaded” on that occasion.

If a person tries to set a piece of wood on fire, he needs to have a strong enough flame that a sprinkle or two of rain will not put it out. If the fire burns strongly enough, it will not only withstand the rain but also catch the wood on fire. What about our fire of faith? Is it strong enough that we do not have to bring it in when it begins to sprinkle a little bit? Can it withstand the “sprinkle” of criticism by fellow workers, rejection by those strangers to whom we speak about Jesus, and abuse by those unbelieving scorners? If not we need to strengthen our fire for the Lord.

Paul exhorted Christians to persevere with these words: “Finally brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil, for we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand” (Eph. 6:10-13).

On many occasions, Paul’s preaching resulted in someone’s salvation. Although his preaching did not convert King Agrippa, it did not release Paul from responsibility for his soul (see Ezek. 3:17-19). King Agrippa faces judgment as one who heard, but rejected, the word of God’s grace. Paul faces judgment free from the blood of King Agrippa. But, what would Paul’s condition have been if he had said nothing? And, what is our condition when we say nothing to our family, friends, and work associates whom we see every day?

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 18, p. 558
September 20, 1990

By Ferrell Jenkins

The Examiner does not oppose a treasury. With regularity it urges its readers to send their contributions to the Truth and Freedom Ministry, Inc. so its spiritual work of speaking and printing their message may continue. They tell their adherents that much good work will fail to be done if they do not give more (5:1, p. 32). The Examiner does oppose a treasury. The writers attack with regularity the concept of a local body of saints maintaining a treasury collected on the first day of the week, administered by the overseers of that group, and used for evangelism, edification, and benevolence.

I have read several articles in The Examiner, most of them by my friend and brother, Dusty Owens, and heard Stanley Morris speak on this subject at the Truth and Freedom Forum in Tampa, Nov. 4, 1989. Brother Morris was introduced as the “principal translator” of The Simple English Bible. Rather than deal with each point made by these brethren, I think it the part of wisdom to set forth a positive case for the local ekklesia treasury. I sincerely and confidently believe that this material adequately answers the contentions of The Examiner.

Other articles in this series will deal with the teaching of The Examiner about the local church. Rather than use the word church, I have chosen to transliterate the Greek word ekklesia. This is the word translated church in so many English versions of the Bible.

Guiding Principles

The reader should keep in mind certain principles as he reads this article. This writer does not oppose a group of saints (ekklesia) in a given locality meeting in someone’s house. In the New Testament an ekklesia did frequently meet in someone’s house (Rom. 16:3,23; 1 Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15; Phil. 2; et.al.). We understand that individual saints may, even must, use their funds to help others in benevolence (Matt. 5:43-48; 25:35-40; Lk. 10:30-36; Acts 4:36-37; 9:36,39; 20:34-35; 1 Cor. 16:15-16; Gal. 6:10; Eph. 4:28; 1 Tim. 5;16; 6:18; Heb. 13:15-16; Jas. 1:26-27; 2:15-18; 1 Jn. 3:17-18). Individual saints may also use their funds or their facilities – which also cost money – for the support of gospel preachers (Gal. 6:6; 3 Jn. 5-8; Rom. 16:1-2; Acts 16:15; 21:10). The example of some brethren from Corinth seems to belong in this category (1 Cor. 16:17).

Much of the case against the common treasury, made by Owens and Morris, is the abuse which they see rampant in the “Churches of Christ.” We would agree with them that this practice is sometimes abused as other divinely ordered things are abused. The home, the state, and the ekklesia of Christ have often been made into something other than that which God intended. When we see the abuse we should correct it rather than discard the concept. The brethren associated with The Examiner are not the only ones who love the truth and they are not the only ones who are sincere in their belief and practice.

The Treasury in the New Testament

Saints in New Testament times did give a portion of their funds into a common treasury, Incidentally, Jesus and his disciples had a treasury and Judas served as the treasurer, at least for a time (Jn. 12:6). We ha ve records of various women contributing to the support of Jesus and the apostolic band (Lk. 8:1-3). Sometimes the funds got low (Jn. 6:5-7). Groups of people act as one through appointed workers or through their common funds. Let us look now to the New Testament examples of a treasury.

1. The saints at Jerusalem had a treasury. To care for the needy, saints at Jerusalem sold their property and brought the proceeds of the sales and laid them at the apostles’ feet (Acts 4:34-35). In this case we have a treasury and treasurers. Luke singles out the example of Barnabas. He sold his land and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet (Acts 4:36-37). In contrast to the good example of Barnabas, Ananias and Sapphira sold property and pretended to be bringing the whole amount. You know the story. The funds they brought were laid at the apostles’ feet (Acts 5:2). This account states that even after the property was sold the income remained under the control of the owners. The account implies that they no longer had control after they laid it at the apostles’ feet (Acts 5:4).

Even churches with apostles have problems! As the disciples grew, one ethnic element among them perceived that their widows were being neglected in the daily serving of food (Acts 6:1-6). This was a group activity and must have involved the use of funds. The congregation was instructed to select seven men to look after the need. Since the apostles could not leave the ministry of the word and prayer, it is reasonable to conclude that the oversight of the treasury may have been passed, at least in part, to these men.

We might wish for more information about the activities of the ekklesia in Jerusalem, but we must be content with what we have. The book of Acts includes no record of the expansion of the word throughout Judea. Later, however, we read of saints at Lydda (Acts 9:32). Luke refers to the brethren dwelling in Judea (Acts 11:29). Paul affirms the existence of ekklesiais (plural of ekklesia) in Judea and informs us that his work extended throughout all Judea (Gal. 1:22; Acts 26:20). To know the truth one must read everything God has said. The book of Acts was written when ekklesiais were in existence through the Roman empire. Other references from Acts and the epistles will help us to fill out our knowledge of the activities of the saints of that period.

2. The Antioch contribution for Judea. When the Christians at Syrian Antioch were informed that a great famine would leave the brethren of Judea in need, “each of them determined to send a contribution for the relief of the brethren” there (Acts 11:2730). The Greek text says they determined to “send” (Greek: pempsai). The NASB has added “a contribution.” The KJV, NKJV, and ASV use the term relief. The NIV has “to provide help.” The Simple English Bible, which is highly praised by The Examiner movement, states that “the followers of Jesus decided that they would all try to help.” This same version renders verse 30 as follows: “They gathered the money and gave it to Barnabas and Saul. Then Barnabas and Saul brought it to the elders in Jerusalem. “Their use of italics for “in Jerusalem” shows that they were supplying the phrase. They have missed it on this one, but the focus of this article does not allow further discussion.

Brother Charles Holt gave me a much-appreciated copy of The Simple English Bible during the Truth and Freedom Forum in Tampa (Nov. 4, 1989). The SEB states that the believers “gathered the money and gave it to Barnabas and Saul.” Even without the looseness of this paraphrased translation, we can state that the money went into a common fund (treasury) either before it was given to Barnabas and Saul or at the time it was given to them. It is also clear that the elders “dwelling in Judea” received the funds. There was a treasury in Antioch and a treasury (or treasuries) in Judea.

3. The ekklesia at Philippi had a treasury. Paul commends the saints at Philippi because, at a certain crucial point in his ministry, they were the only ekklesia to have fellowship with him in “giving and receiving” (Phil. 4:15-16). This ekklesia had a treasury; otherwise they could not have sent funds to Paul more than once. No group, of any sort, can long operate as one without a common fund (treasury). The only way an ekklesia, like the one at Philippi, can send as a unit is from its treasury.

4. Ekklesiais sent wages to Paulfor preaching. Paul told the ekklesia at Corinth that he robbed “other congregations, taking pay from them, to help you” (2 Cor. 11:8, SEB). This passages has been used effectively in the past to show that a preacher of the gospel may receive wages. The Greek term opsonion is used of pay, wages, or salary (see Lk. 3:14; 1 Cor. 9:7; BAGD, 602). Paul had earlier taught the brethren that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living from the gospel (1 Cor. 9:14). These congregations could not send wages to Paul unless they had a treasury from which to send it.

5. The ekklesia at Corinth had a treasury (1 Cor. 16:1-4). Many questions have been raised about the instructions in this verse. Did the Corinthian ekklesia have a treasury? Did the saints contribute to this treasury each first day of the week? Does this text provide authority for a congregational treasury today? May the collected funds be used for purposes other than benevolence?

Many commentators see the crux of the issue in the phrase “put aside and save” (NASB) or “lay by him in store” (ASV) (Greek: par’ heautoi titheto thesaurizon). Many scholars believe that the laying by or putting aside is to be at home. Others see the context favoring a treasury common with other disciples. Aside from this point, I believe the passage shows that the ekklesia at Corinth had a treasury. Let us look at some of the other terms in the passage.

Collection (Greek: logeia). This word is used only twice in the New Testament, but Deissmann has shown that it was commonly used in Egypt and in Asia Minor “of religious collections for a god, a temple, etc., as St. Paul uses it of his collection of money for the ‘saints’ at Jerusalem” (Light From the Ancient East, 104-107; Bible Studies, 142-144). Paul insisted that the saints put aside funds from their prosperity on the first day of the week so no collection would be necessary when he arrived. If the funds were at home, it would still be necessary to make a collection when he arrived. If there was no group collection, how would Paul know a year later that they had not collected much? See 2 Corinthians 8:10.

That the collection at Corinth involved a group treasury is indicated by the fact that the brethren were able to approve men to take these funds to Jerusalem (1 Cor. 16:3). This shows that a local ekk1esia could make its own decisions (autonomous) regarding the use of its funds.

First day of every week. This is the earliest reference in the New Testament to the first day of the week as a day of meeting for Christians. We know that the disciples at Troas gathered together on the first day of the week to break bread (Acts 20:7). The habitual practice of assembling with other saints is mentioned in Hebrews 10:25. The saints at Corinth came together as an ekk1esia to eat the Lord’s supper (1 Cor. 11:18ff). The theological reason for such a meeting on the first day of the week is built on the resurrection of Christ on that day. A strong case also can be made for the Lord’s day of Revelation 1:10 being the first day of the week.

There is no logical reason for individual disciples putting aside funds in their home each first day of the week, when they regularly gathered in an assembly on that day. The fact that they did assemble on that day would provide adequate reason for them to pool their funds on that day. Could it not be that the phrase “by him” (par’heauto) emphasizes the individual’s decision according to his prosperity?

Paul had given the same order or direction to the ekklesiais of Galatia. The epistle from which we are quoting is addressed to the ekkIesia of God which is at Corinth and to “all who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1:2). Paul taught the same in every ekk1esia (1 Cor. 4:17). This causes us to expect, and to find, uniformity of practice among the ekkiesiais of the New Testament.

The late W. Curtis Porter prepared a written discussion with A.N. Dugger of the Church of God (Seventh Day) which was published as The Porter-Dugger Debate. Dugger’s sabbatarian theology caused him to deny the existence of a common treasury in 1 Corinthians 16:1-2, and to deny that the meal of Acts 20:7 was the Lord’s supper. Brother Porter set forth in a clear, logical fashion the case for the first day of the week as a day of worship for the people of God. Brethren who are enthralled with the individualistic views of The Examiner would do well to study this debate.

Miscellaneous Questions

Who Controls the Treasury? The apostles were in charge of the treasury in Acts 4 and 5. The funds from Antioch were sent to the elders in Judea (Acts 11:30). The brethren at Corinth were able to decide about the use of their funds (I Cor. 16:3).

For what may the funds be used? 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 is the only passage which tells us the day on which the collection is to be taken, but it is not the only passage which states the use for the funds. We have already shown above that the brethren at Philippi and other brethren of Macedonia had a treasury from which they supported gospel preachers. I am willing to affirm that anything for which the ekk1esia is obligated may be taken from the first day of the week collection.

Conclusion

If we depart from the information revealed in the New Testament about the activities of the ekklesiais, then we are left to our own human wisdom to devise a plan of work and worship. This, my brethren, is dangerous ground. It is exactly the ground on which so many of the articles in The Examiner are built. Brethren, we plead with you to reconsider.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 19, pp. 586-588
October 4, 1990

By Mark Mayberry

In our first article we provided an introduction to astrology. After having defined the subject, we examined the history, prevalence, and appeal of astrology. In this second article, we will see that astrology cannot pass the test of science.

There is no “real world” evidence that astrology works. All scientific efforts to confirm its power have failed. Scientists are agreed: Astrology is a pseudo-science! It is pure fiction. Several years ago some 18 Nobel Laureates and 172 other leading scientists joined together to express their vigorous objections to astrology.(1) Last year The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), released a statement saying, ‘Dozens of tests in recent years by scientists can find little, if any, evidence for astrological claims. Horoscopes have been shown under the most rigorous scientific analysis to fail completely in predicting future events.” The statement continued, “If the United States is to continue its leadership in scientific research, it is vital that the public have a clear understanding of the difference between science and pseudo-science, and that decisions be based on the real world without resorting to mystical fortune telling and other primitive forms of prognostication.”(2)

It Has Failed Repeated Attempts At Validation

1. Test by Carlson. “Study after study has failed to support claims that astrology can predict the future or offer insights into personality,” said Shawn Carlson, a physicist at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratories in Berkeley, California. He added, “There is absolutely no merit to the basic claims that astrologers make.” Carlson made one of the most recent attempts to test the power of the stars. He asked 26 respected astrologers to match the personality profiles of 265 people with their astrological charts. They were right only about a third of the time, which is about the same as chance.(3)

2. Test by Barth & Bennett. James Barth and James Bennett, Economists at George Washington University, examined the horoscopes of tens of thousands of men who had reenlisted in the Marine Corps. They were looking for a trend among soldiers that favored astrological signs ruled by Mars, the god of war. However, they found instead an equal number of men who were born under the influence of Venus, the so-called planet of love.(4)

3. Test by Silverman. Psychologist Bernie Silverman of Michigan State University tested the effect of astrological compatibility on marriages. He surveyed astrologers across the country on the compatibility of the twelve Zodiac signs. In studying, 2,978 marriage and 478 divorce records in Michigan, Dr. Silverman found couples whose marriages were made in horoscope heaven united and split up just as frequently as those who were not astrologically compatible.(5)

4. Test by McGervey. In another experiment, physicist John McGervey of Case Western Reserve University in Ohio looked up the birthdays of 16,634 scientists listed in “American Men of Science” and 6,475 politicians named In “Who’s Who in American Politics.” Astrological theory would suggest that these non-average Americans would tend to cluster more among certain signs and certain personality types. However Dr. McGervey found as many Virgos, defined astrologically as weak leaders, as any other sign.(6)

5. Test by Culver. Astronomer Roger Culver of Colorado State University decided to determine whether astrological signs were related to such physical traits as bicep size, baldness, blood type, freckles, weight, neck size, etc. Were Leos more likely to go bald or Gemini to wind up ambidextrous? He found no trends among the 300 volunteers.(7)

6. Test by Gauquelin. The French psychologist Michel Gauquelin undertook a statistical test of personalities of people born under various signs of the zodiac. In this massive study, he listed 50,000 character traits that typified 16,000 famous people. Gauquelin then labeled each trait according to the appropriate astrological sign. One trait might be characteristic of a Leo, another of a Pisces, and so forth. Finally he looked to see which sign the person was actually born under. He found no correlation between personality traits and the sign a person was born under.(8)

7. Other Scientific Considerations. Astrology fails to adequately answer a number of other important questions. What is the mechanism the planets use to exert their influence over men? Supposedly we are affected by the gravitational pull of the heavenly bodies at the exact moment of our birth. However, this is absurd! At least this is the opinion of Andrew Fraknoi, executive officer of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific in San Francisco, an international scientific and educational organization. “The (gravitational) pull of the obstetrician is six times that of Mars,” said Fraknoi. He also pointed out that the hospital building in which a person is born has 500,000 times the gravitational pull of Mars.(9) So much for the supposed gravitational influence of the planets!

Another fact must also be pointed out. Everyone’s astrological “sign” is wrong! The Zodiac charts were set more than 2,000 years ago, but since then the position of the Earth relative to other heavenly bodies has shifted. The earth is spinning on its axis, wobbling like a top, completing one great loop every 26,000 years.(10) The constellations are no longer in the same relative viewing positions they were in when the Zodiac charts were devised. “In effect, all of the constellations have moved,” said Fraknoi. “This puts the signs of the Zodiac off by one whole sign.”(11) Astrologers have stuck with tradition, even though their maps of the heavens are out of step with reality. Thus, right now everybody is reading the wrong horoscope!

Its Claim to Analyze Character Is Deceptive

We are fascinated by astrology’s claim to be able to reveal a person’s character. However, the system is especially deceitful and manipulative in this regard. Astrologers tell people what they want to hear. This classic technique is used by salesman, hypnotists, advertising experts, and not a few preachers. Psychologist Ray Hyman said, “To be popular with your fellow man, tell him what he wants to hear. He wants to hear about himself. So tell him about himself. But not what you know to be true about him. Oh, no! Never tell him the truth. Rather, tell him what he would like to be true about himself!”(12) This is the key to manipulating other people. The human mind is more willing to accept what is would like to believe rather than what evidence indicates is the truth. As an example, Hyman cites the following astrological analysis:

Some of your aspirations tend to be pretty unrealistic. At times you are extroverted, affable, sociable, while at other time you are introverted, wary and reserved. You have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. You pride yourself on being an independent thinker and do not accept others’ opinions without satisfactory proof. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety, and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. Disciplined and controlled on the outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure on the inside. . . While you have some personality weaknesses, you are generally able to compensate for them. You have a great deal of unused capacity which you have not turned to your advantage. You have a tendency to be critical of yourself. You have a strong need for other people to like you and for them to admire you.(13)

Sound familiar? Does it describe your personality in any way? This spiel was first used in 1948, composed mostly from a news stand astrology book. Statements that supposedly would describe people born under various signs were combined together. This pitch is designed to apply to everyone but not seem that way. In a controlled study, psychologists gave a group of college students a detailed psychological questionnaire and then made a detailed analysis of each student. They gave the students a copy of their customized analysis and a copy of the fake psychological sketch found above. The students were then asked to identify which was which. Fifty-nine percent of the student thought the fake sketch was a more accurate description of their personalities.(14)

It Fails to Accurately Predict the Future

1. Jeane Dixon. Astrology appeals to our curiosity by claiming to reveal the future. No astrologer is more famous in this regard than Mrs. Jeane Dixon. She has been the psychic star of the last generation, having made thousands of public and private predictions. Her many devout followers think that she has the power. Her critics argue that she is simply a lucky guesser. Jeane Dixon views herself as being divinely inspired. She is a devout Roman Catholic who freely mixes Christianity and the occult. Mrs. Dixon uses a crystal ball, a deck of cards, numerology, astrology, etc. to predict the future. She does, however, credit God with her prophetic powers. “The Holy Mother comes to me. God comes to me. He talks to me.”(15) She claims that her major predictions come from visions she receives as she faces east and recites the 23rd Psalm at sunrise each morning. They also come to her as she kneels before a statue of the Virgin Mary in St. Matthew’s Church in Washington, D C.(16)

Jeane Dixon’s predictions fall into four basic categories:

a. Statements go general and obvious that they cannot possibly be wrong. It took no spiritual gift to predict, as Mrs. Dixon did during the 1960s, that America would be torn by racial conflicts.

b. Statements that are open to a host of interpretations. in this regard, I am reminded of the ancient story of Croesus and the mythical Oracle of Delphi. Croesus, king of Lydia from 560-546 B.C., asked the oracle if he should attack the Persian Empire. The oracle replied that if Croesus did so a great empire would fall. He therefore attacked, was defeated, and lost his empire. Croesus sent a angry message to Delphi, complaining that the oracle had lied to him. The oracle slyly replied, “You didn’t ask which empire.”(17) Likewise, a great number of Mrs. Dixon’s declarations are vague and ambiguous. She cleverly states things so that they can be interpreted in a variety of ways. For example, her prediction that in 1963 education would be a fashionable topic of conversation was later said to be a prediction of the school integration crisis of that year.(18)

c. Statements that are dead wrong. An examination of her published prophecies reveals some astounding errors. For example, she said that “World War III will break in October, 1958.” “Red China will be admitted to the United Nations in 1959. ” “Richard Nixon will defeat John F. Kennedy in the election of 1960.” “President Charles de Gaulle will surrender his powers in 1964.” In speaking of the 1964 presidential contest between Johnson and Goldwater, she said, “The crystal ball shows a paper-thin majority for the Democratic slate.” Mrs. Dixon said, “No particularly new or brilliant legislation will be passed by Congress in 1965 (the year of Medicare, the poverty program, the Civil Rights Bill, the education bill, etc.).”(19)

Other predictions that misfired include the following: In 1954 she said, “By 1964 . . . one man – a swarthy skinned part Oriental – will rule the combined countries of Russia and China.” In 1955 Dixon said, “Walter Reuther [CIO President] will make his first bid for the Presidency in 1960, but will not win his heart’s desire until 1964.” On May 17, 1966, she was quoted in the New York Post concerning Fidel Castro: “My vibrations now tell me that he’s nowhere around. He’s either in China or he’s dead. I haven’t been able to pick up his vibrations in a week or two.”(20) Moreover, she prophesied that 1980 would see a great war with China that would devastate mankind.(21)

As you can see, not only are many of her predictions contradictory, but a startling number of them are dead wrong. Not surprisingly, Mrs. Dixon has created an escape route for herself, even when faced with failure. In such cases, she has said that she was shown the correct symbols, but acknowledges that she misinterpreted them. In other instances, she simply will not admit that she was wrong. She still claims that two Russian cosmonauts, a man and a woman, were killed in an attempted moon landing.

d. Statements that are nothing more than lucky guesses. Jeane Dixon has been in the public eye for over 30 years. Anyone who makes hundreds of predictions year after year will eventually get a few right. Yet, even here Mrs. Dixon does poorly. When closely scrutinized, her famous warning of John F. Kennedy’s assassination turns out to be less than awe inspiring. In 1952 she stated that “a young blue-eyed Democratic President elect in 1960 would be assassinated while in office.”(22) This warning was repeated by Mrs. Dixon in a 1956 article in Parade magazine.(23) However, this was the only public forecast of Kennedy’s death that she made. In fact, she later contradicted herself by predicting that Richard Nixon would win the 1960 elections. When he didn’t win, she sidestepped by saying that Nixon was the rightful winner, but the Democrats had stolen the election. In her annual New Year’s predictions for 1963 she said nothing about an assassination.(24)

It is a fact that Mrs. Dixon wrote in 1968 that a “wiretapping” scandal involving President Richard Nixon was “yet to come.” It is also true that she correctly predicted that Georgia governor Jimmy Carter would be elected president in 1976. However, both forecasts should be read in their entirety.

On October 21, 1968, the Washington Daily News published this statement by Mrs. Dixon: “A wiretapping scandal which I have predicted previously is yet to come. It will involve Richard Nixon, but will show him as a sincere man and will help his public image. . . The entire matter will affect Mr. Nixon favorably and would seem to put him in a position to right a great wrong, which would be for the good of the image of the United States.”(25) As everyone knows, the Watergate affair was a disaster for Richard Nixon. He was driven from office and resigned in shame.

Mrs. Dixon’s predictions for the 1976 presidential election appeared in the National Enquirer on March 30, 1976. By this point in his campaign, Carter’s candidacy was surging in the polls. She did not step out very far on a limb to predict that he would win. However, she did chance it: Mrs. Dixon confidently stated, “Jimmy Carter will become President of the United States after a photo-finish race against Ronald Reagan.”(26) As everyone knows, Jimmy Carter beat Gerald Ford in 1976.

One of her most elaborate visions is of the coming of a new savior. Mrs. Dixon says that on February 5th, 1962, a child was born somewhere in the Middle East, who will one day unite all humanity into one all-embracing Christian religion by the year 1999.(27) On this date (February 5, 1962) five planets came together in a rare conjunction. Astrologers around the world predicted earth-shaking events for the occasion.(28) None came to pass. Those who trust the Bible know that Mrs. Dixon’s vision is unfounded and false. This is just another one of her harebrained predictions.

When all is said and done, Jeane Dixon is a person who likes to speculate about world affairs, as well as about the personal lives of her friends. She makes a prodigious number of predictions each year. Some are so vague that they are open to many interpretations. Many are dead wrong. A few are lucky guesses. If anyone makes enough guesses, some are bound to be right. So what? The only thing phenomenal about Mrs. Dixon is the amount of attention that she has been able to gather.

2. 1984 Conference. In December of 1983, psychics gathered in Jerusalem for the “First Multi-disciplinary Congress of Prognostication and Prediction for 1984.” The four-day assembly brought together 40 mystics from at least six countries. These prophets, who claimed to see the future in everything from palms to planets, predicted a turbulent 1984. The following predictions issued forth from this gathering: Ronald Reagan would not be re-elected to a second term. Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat would be killed in July or August. Syrian President Hafez Assad would also be assassinated. Syria was expected to attack Israel in the spring, touching off a new Middle East war. This would bring on the danger of an American-Soviet confrontation. One participant, Dr. Da Da of India, a yogi wearing an orange turban and robe, said that in 1984 another World War would begin in the Gulf states and continue until 1995. “At the end of the year 2,000, a new spiritual leader will emerge, like a messiah, and there will be peace,” he said .(29)

3. 1983 Conference. Some astrologers, soothsayers and exorcists gathered in November, 1983 for a two-day conference on ESP in Turin, Italy. They put their heads together and came up with the following predictions for 1984. Libyan leader Moammar Khadafy would be assassinated. A wave of unidentified flying objects were to arrive on Earth the following April. There would be notable advances in finding a cure for cancer. Two trains carrying radioactive waste would collide in West Germany, etc.(30)

4. 1979 Predictions. In the fall of 1980, the editors of The Skeptical Inquirer tabulated the predictions of 100 famous psychics for 1979. They listed the top 12 predictions in order of frequency, and then left the readers to judge the accuracy of these psychic visions of the future. The number one prediction of 1979 (made by 86 psychics) was “Longer lives will be had for almost everyone as aging is brought under control.” The second most frequent prediction (made by 85 psychics) was, “There will be a major break-through in cancer, which will almost totally wipe out the disease.” The third most frequent prediction (also made by 85 psychics) was, “There will be an astonishing spiritual rebirth and return to the old values.” And so on. The sixth most frequent prediction (81 psychics) was, “Contact will be made with aliens from space, who will give us incredible knowledge.”(31) Glory be! Marvels never cease!

5. Test by Culver & Ianna. The astronomers Rogers Culver and Philip Ianna checked the outcome of 3,011 specific predictions made during the past decade by well-known astrologers and astrological organizations. Ten percent came to pass.(32)

There is something pathetic, even desperate about such predictions. Psychics always forecast calamities, sickness, assassinations, and global disaster. Their focus is on the morbid, the outrageous, the unreal. Furthermore, they play the numbers game. If enough predictions are made, a few are bound to be right. People remember the correct guesses, and the wrong ones are forgotten. Few ever go back and check to see if the predictions came true. This gives the illusion that astrologists have clairvoyant powers. However, open investigation reveals that this illusion is false. Astrology cannot accurately predict the future.

In our final article, we will see how astrology fails the test of Scripture.

Endnotes

1. The Humanist, September/October, 1975.

2. Paul Recer, “Scientists Find Fault With Astrologers’ Use of Stars,” The Dallas Morning News, May 9, 1988, p. 6D.

3. UPI News Release, Dateline: Boston, MA, June 4, 1988.

4. UPI News Release, Dateline: San Francisco, CA, January 23, 1984.

5. UPI News Release, Dateline: San Francisco, CA, January 23, 1984.

6. UPI New Release, Dateline: San Francisco, CA, January 23, 1984.

7. UPI News Release, Dateline: San Francisco, CA, January 23, 1984.

8. Nigel Henbest, “Misreading the Stars,” Word Press Review, September, 1987, p. 55.

9. UPI News Release, Dateline: Boston, MA, June 4, 1988.

10. Henbest, p. 55.

11. Recer, p. 6D.

12. Douglas R. Hofstadter, “Meta-magical Themas,” Scientific American, February, 1982, p. 20.

13. Hofstadter, p. 20.

14. UPI News Release, April 13, 1985.

15. Bill Davidson, “Jeane Dixon Predicts the Future,” Ladies Home Journal, November, 1965, p. 76.

16. Davidson, p. 135.

17. Cohen, p. 473.

18. Cohen, p. 470.

19. Davidson, p. 136.

20. Hugh Tyler, “The Unsinkable Jeane Dixon, “The Humanist, May-June, 1977, pp. 7-8.

21. (NOTE: No corresponding source information provided in original article).

22. Davidson, p. 74.

23. Cohen, p. 470.

24. Cohen, p. 471.

25. Tyler, p. 8.

26. Tyler, p. 8.

27. Davidson, p. 135.

28. Cohen, p. 471.

29. (NOTE: No corresponding source information provided in original article).

30. UPI News Release, Dateline: Turin, Italy, November 14, 1983.

31. Hofstadter, p. 23.

32. UPI News Release, Dateline: San Francisco, CA January 23, 1984.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 18, pp. 560-563
September 20, 1990

By Dick Blackford

The few times I have met Charles Holt and Dusty Owens have been amicable. I have no personal dislike for them and I desire their salvation. However, I believe much of the doctrine taught in The Examiner to be dangerous to one’s faith and destructive to the body of Christ. I am also concerned about the biting sarcasm with which many articles are written which, in some cases, are downright slanderous of gospel preachers and the “people in the pew.”

The Examiner’s Attitude Toward the Assembly

The Examiner teaches that “there is no specific ‘assembly’ that is required of God and if missed (‘forsaken?’) is sinful” (Demetrius, Vol. 1, No. 6, p. 19). That New Testament Christians were in the habit of assembling regularly is abundantly clear from Hebrews 10:24,25. Christians were told to “consider one another to provoke unto love and good works: not forsaking our own assembling together, as the custom of some is, but exhorting one another.” One cannot forsake that which has never begun. This writer contends that the reason they were in the habit of assembling regularly is inherent in the things they were authorized (yes, required) to do in their collective worship and periods of edification. That these gatherings were not just a “one time occurrence” is clear from the word assembling (episunagoge), continuous action.

The teaching of The Examiner encourages “floating membership” or “membership-at-large” who have no responsibility to a particular local body of Christians. They are free-wheelers left to “free-lance” their religion with no organization to it. If anything is done with other Christians it is decided democratically. Contrary to it being a meaningless thing, the Lord had local congregations established in which Christians are to worship together, be fed, overseen, and provoked unto love and good works.

Terminology

We will be using terms that are not accepted by the Truth and Freedom Ministry, Inc. In objecting to “local church,” “universal church,” and “church treasury,” Holt says, “We have developed a large vocabulary of words, terms, and names that do not come from the Bible” (Vol. II, No. 1, p. 7). Of course, the editor and staff of The Examiner frequently use phraseology not found in the Bible, such as the word Bible! Let is be observed that not all Bible things have been given names. Whatever term would accurately describe such things would be in harmony with the Scriptures. (The term Great Commission does not appear in the Bible but describes a Bible idea.) This does not mean one is not “speaking where the Bible speaks” if he uses terms that describe Bible concepts. Here is a partial list of words used by The Examiner but not found in the Bible: individual, functional unit, Truth and Freedom Ministry, Inc. (TAFMI), non-profit organization, the people in the pew, Bible, regular contribution (to TAFMI), congregations of the Lord’s body, mutual edification, portion of God’s people, group of disciples, reformation, renaissance, etc.

Are they speaking where the Bible speaks? With all those references to financial support, regular contributions, etc., surely they could find room for a treasury. The Examiner is playing word games.

TAFMI Surplants Local Church’s Worship

Truth and Freedom Ministry, Inc. is the name of the corporate body which publishes The Examiner. While teaching that there is no such thing as a local church, no command for God’s people to assemble for worship, no authority for a treasury, etc., The Examiner argues for the right of TAFMI to conduct such worship. Note: “If we (TAFMI) should meet on Sunday, as such a group, would it be scriptural for us (the gathering or assembling) to sing, pray, study God’s word, take up a contribution to help a needy family and support to a worthy preacher in Nigeria, and observe the Lord’s Supper? If not, why not?” (No. 4, p. 7) What Scripture would they use that would not authorize a local church to do the same?

TAFMI is not a local church. It has a Board of Directors – 4 men, 2 women. While on a smaller scale, TAFMI operates on the same basis as the ministries of the electronic evangelists. They solicit donations and sell merchandise. In fact, Holt’s corporation discourages giving money into the local treasury and encourages readers to send it to his ministry.

“My brother and sister, you alone are responsible for the decision for the use of your ‘contribution’ . . . You dare not give away this responsibility. You will be held accountable before God. It is easy to merely drop our contribution into the plate and let the organization decide its use according to the operational budget. But it is a cop-out on your part!” (No. 1, p. 9) Then in soliciting for TAFMI, “This means that all monetary contributions are fully tax-deductible. The same as if dropped into the plate at what is called ‘the worship services of the church’. . . And we do need and desire your help” (Ibid). Notice the use of the word responsibility. What verse gives us that responsibility according to TAFMI? Do away with the local church and its collective worship and send your money to us! The local church and its assemblies (including the treasury) is a financial threat to TAFMI. The Examiner expresses much bitterness toward local churches. We should shut all of them down and act responsibly by sending our money to Holt’s corporation. If that were to ever happen Holt’s ministry would cause Jimmy Swaggart’s to pale in significance. Swaggart’s ministry is also “non-profit” and you can get a tax deduction for donating to it (The Examiner frequently gives this incentive for donations).

“Official Worship Stations”

Dusty Owens looks at local churches as “official worship stations.” “That makes this ‘local church’ the official meeting place where the five acts of worship are to take place” (Vol. I, No. 2, p. 17). “But we can’t think, nor can we do anything without ‘an assembly.’ That is the way we have been brain-washed. If someone took our ‘assembly’ . . . away we wouldn’t know how to behave” (Vol. III, No. 3, p. 9). Anybody knows the local church is not a place. The church is people, remember? I have never known anyone who argued that the church was a place. Owens builds a straw man. Straw men are easier to oppose. He belittled the “five acts” of worship. It so happens that there are five things that Christians are authorized to do together in assembling. Does he belittle the five acts because there are more or because there are less? Let him tell us how many there are in the assembly.

But notice again, Owens says, “While God has not commanded us to assemble for the specific purpose of worshiping him, he has commanded us to do things while assembled that when done constitute a service (worship) to him!” (Vol. 1, No. 2, p. 17) Earl Kimbrough answers Owens well in his booklet Destructive Heresies (p. 26): “If we are commanded to do certain things while assembled, how can those commands be obeyed without assembling? Would this not imply the necessity of assembling even if there were no commands, such as Hebrews 10:24,25? Owens’ reasoning is about like saying, ‘While God has not commanded us to enter the water for the specific purpose of being baptized, he has commanded us to do things while in the water that when done constitute obedience to him.'”

Five Acts of Worship

There is no question that worship is an individual matter, but it is not individual only! This is where The Examiner errs. It so happens that there are five things Christians are required to do collectively.

Owens says “they have supplicated to some extent the mind set of the Catholics that you assemble for the purpose of worshiping God” (Vol. III, No. 3, p. 8). He believes the assemblies were man-centered rather than God-centered. God forbid! Both purposes were served in that God was worshiped and men were edified. Owens arrays one against the other. That Christians assembled to worship God is seen in the things they did when assembled. Owens is requiring itemization. Whether he calls it a command or not, Christians are required to assemble to worship God.

Does God want to be worshiped? Yes (Matt. 4:10; Jn. 4:23,24). Are there acts he wants done toward him in our assemblies? Yes.

1. The Lord’s Supper. Paul said, “For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you” (1 Cor. 11:23). The only way Paul could have known God wanted the Supper in the assembly was that he “received it of the Lord.” It was done “when they came together” (1 Cor. 11: 17-20,3 3,34). Is the supper an act of worship? Yes. Jesus said, “This do in remembrance of me” (vv. 24,25). It was an act of worship directed toward the Lord. Christians assemble on the first day of the week to eat the Lord’s supper (Acts 20:7). The Examiner cannot find any place where the Supper was taken outside the assembly. I deny that an assembly of the TAFMI was what the Holy Spirit had in mind.

2. Singing. The singing we do together is to be “with your heart unto the Lord” (Eph. 5:19) and “with grace in your hearts unto God” (Col. 3:16). This is in keeping with Jesus’ example. “In the midst of the congregation (ecclesia, assembly) will I sing thy praise” (Heb. 2:12). The singing we do in assembling is worship.

3. Praying. All prayer is addressed to God (Matt. 6:9f). Praying was done in the assemblies and included giving God thanks (1 Cor. 14:16; Acts 6:6).

4. Giving. Giving is an act of worship (Phil. 4:18). To prevent Paul from having to make collections, each disciple was to give on the first day of every week. This was an order (1 Cor. 16:1,2). As to the frequency of giving, this is the sum total of God’s revelation. The Examiner says this was a special contribution, for the Romans were not commanded to participate (A. Roberts, Vol. 1, No. 6, p. 25). The faulty reasoning is obvious and it essentially would destroy any obligation for us to worship today. What do they have against God anyway? Note the “logic”: Singing in the New Testament was “special circumstances” for the Philippians were never commanded to sing. The Lord’s Supper was “special circumstances” for the Thessalonians were never commanded to eat the Supper. Praying was “special circumstances” for the Galatians were not told to pray. And preaching was “special circumstances” because the Galatians were not told to preach.

5. Teaching. Speaking “as the oracles of God” glorifies him (I Pet. 4:11; 1 Cor. 10:31) and is to be done in our assemblies (1 Cor. 4:17).

Owens ignores these and says, “God has placed the emphasis of ‘coming together’ on our mutual edification. Man has distorted the teaching by placing the emphasis on ‘worshiping God.'” When Jesus said “this do in remembrance of me” he must have misplaced his emphasis, according to Owens. The point is, Owens minimizes worshiping God. He makes our coming together man-centered rather than God-centered. Both purposes were served in the assemblies (worship and edification) and neither should be minimized. Nor should one be maximized above the other.

Neo-Orthodoxy

My impression is that those aligned with The Examiner long to hear “some new thing.” Not all traditions are wrong (2 Thess. 3:6) and it just may be that once in a while the orthodox position is the correct or permissible one. A case in point: Steven Clark Goad tried to make a list of what he calls the “Church of Christ” Creed (Vol. IV, No. 1, p. 14). In his desperation he listed the use of a “wooden box or pulpit” as part of the creed. He asks, “Did Peter have a pulpit on Pentecost? Did Paul have a pulpit on Mars Hill? Did Philip while riding in the eunuch’s chariot?” Nobody knows what they had, not even Goad. And I know of nobody who says we have to have a pulpit or that it is the only way to preach. It is simply a convenient tool when speaking to a group. A kitchen table is more convenient when in someone’s home. But Goad so desperately wanted to attach a creed to the church that he listed the pulpit. Boy!

Slander

A reader wrote to Owens about his position that Christians don’t have the responsibility to assemble to worship and gave Scriptures. Owens replied that this was “the same line of argument that . . . I have used personally . . . (until I learned better). Preachers have made these points in order to keep their ‘members’ obligated to attend . . . . and support the ‘work of the church’ with their money . . . . They need the numbers and they need the money, so they assemble these Scriptures to make it sound authentic and hurl their thunderbolts from the pulpit, oh, so convincingly. The members are intimidated.”

Owens gives neither the preachers nor the listeners credit for being honest and sincerely believing these Scriptures. Instead he chooses to slander them. Is he saying these were his motives “before he learned better”? Owens does not know the mind of any man (1 Cor. 2:11). Because he so vehemently disagrees, he impugns the motives of others. Much of what I have read in The Examiner is of this nature. The Examiner needs to examine itself.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 19, pp. 583-585
October 4, 1990