Truth Magazine

By Herschel Patton

We have been saddened lately by a few brethren, mostly among the young, abandoning strict adherence to a “thus saith the Lord” and casting their lot with liberal brethren, even to the extent of “open fellowship” with the denominations – as advocated by Carl Ketcherside. Several young preachers, who were brought up on “soundness,” are numbered with these. The question naturally arises, how and why did this happen? What led to this radical change in their belief and actions?

Conditions A Contributing Factor

Most of these young people grew up in the “thick of the fight” against liberalism. Their parents (some of their fathers were preachers) stood firm for truth, demanding a “thus saith the Lord” for everything, and consequently were opposed, ridiculed, slandered, maligned, and sometimes made to suffer socially and economically by the liberal minded who pressed for unscriptural practices. These young people grew up with “trouble in the church,” and were, themselves, made to suffer as their parents were among those hated “antis,” in the minority, and in many cases put in economic straits. They were sick and tired of all the bickering, contending, debating, and disfellowshipping, going on. They wondered about the love and unity they had heard so much about. They knew true love demanded exposure and dethronement of soul destroying things, and that loyalty to Christ must be maintained, even to the alienation of father and son, mother and daughter, brother and brother, etc., but in the midst of such standing, love and unity seemed obscure. It was a confusing situation. These conditions made those who thus grew up ripe for a teaching (theory) that would allow fellowship in the midst of differences. This is exactly the teaching of Carl Ketcherside. He tells the confused young, there was, and is, no need for all this contending, charging (you are liberal – you anti), and disfellowshipping, and consequently, the suffering you have endured because of it, for the Lord’s word provides for love and fellowship even though there are differences. But, just how does he argue this?

Gospel And Doctrine

It is argued that “the gospel” only involves the things about Christ, the scheme of redemption, and does not include the epistles or instruction given to saints. Such passages as Jude 3 (“Contend for the faith”) and 2 Jno. 9 (“Abide not in the doctrine of Christ”) have only to do with things about Christ and His mission. Therefore the only differences that would break fellowship would be a failure to believe in Christ and obey the gospel. As long as one believes that Christ is the Son of God and obeys the commands of the gospel, he is contending for the faith and abiding in the doctrine. Questions about the worship of saints, organization and work of the church are no part of “the faith,” but merely human opinions and should never divide those in Christ. Now, if these contentions be true, then indeed, what brethren have been contending about, and dividing over, for the past two decades are immaterial. But, are these contentions so?

The Scriptures do not bear out the claim of a difference between the gospel, doctrine of Christ, and teaching in the epistles. Some perverted the gospel Paul preached to the Galatians, not by denying that Jesus had come in the flesh, died, was buried, and resurrected, but by trying to bind practices of the Mosaic law on Christians (Gal. 1:6-7). The “gospel” Paul laid before the apostles and elders in Jerusalem (Gal. 2:2; Acts 15) involved Jewish practices not being bound on Christians. Paul’s charge that, at a certain time, Peter and others “walked not according to the truth of the gospel” had to do with their refusing to fellowship Gentile Christians (Gal. 2:11-14). Truly, the gospel involves more than just things having to do with the divinity of Christ. “Observing all things whatsoever I have commanded you” is just as much “gospel obedience” as being baptized (Matt. 28:19-20). Paul addressed Christians, people who had obeyed the gospel, in Rome and said “I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also” (Rom. 1:15). This gospel that Paul preached in Rome was God’s power to save (vs. 16) and revealed the “righteousness of God from faith to faith.” Are all that is needed to be saved and be the righteousness of God in Christ included in the acceptance of the fact that Christ came in the flesh and compliance with the commands to repent and be baptized? What about the matter of being “raised to walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:4), and “henceforth we should not serve sin” (vs. 6)? Paul says “the wrath of God is revealed . . . against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth (or gospel Paul preached) in unrighteousness” (vs. 18). Paul’s gospel, therefore, embraced not continuing the practice of sin or uncleanness (vs. 24). The teaching that gospel or doctrine of Christ only involves things about the Christ and not the’ teaching in the epistles, which would allow fellowship among all obedient believers while differing on the name, worship, organization, and mission of the church, is simply false teaching, based on a perversion of the Scriptures.

Romans 14 Also Perverted

In this chapter, Paul teaches that brethren who differ about observing days and eating meats must not “set at naught thy brother.” Likewise, it is claimed by “open fellowship-minded-brethren” that those who differ over the use of instrumental music in worship, the organization and mission of the church must not disfellowship one another. After all, they say, brethren differ over many other things (war question, the covering, posture in prayer, etc.) and continue fellowship, so why not with reference to matters over which we do disfellowship?

According to the teaching in this chapter, brethren may differ over things which are personal and individual in their nature, wherein “to his own master he standeth or falleth” (Rom. 14:4), and continue fellowship. For one to press his feeling on others to the violation of their conscience in so acting would be wrong. To apply this passage to actions that do involve others, as worshiping with instruments of music, contributing funds to be used in unscriptural endeavors, or being a part of unscriptural body functioning, is to misapply it, or pervert it. The passage is properly applied, however, to such private, individual matters as the war question, posture in prayer, and the covering. This is why brethren may continue in fellowship with those who differ with them on individual matters, but not with those who would involve them in unscriptural actions.

Love, Peace, And Harmony

These desired virtues, we are told are found among the liberals but lacking among the conservatives (antis), and are impelling motives for identifying with the liberals. The majority having embraced unscriptural practices, and believing them to be matters of indifference, naturally feel no need to contend or furnish proof for their actions. All opposition is brushed aside with “just a bunch of antis” and their teaching involves platitudes on love and declarations of “the good we are doing.” On the other hand, we are charged with spending our time discussing the issues, examining every thing in the light of Scripture, and seeking to “cast down every imagination” contrary to truth, which,, we are told, creates confusion, animosity, and indicates a lack of love.

Love, peace, and harmony are indeed necessary virtues. But, love will not close it’s eyes to destructive and damning forces, and there can be cries of “peace, peace, when there is no peace.” And, there can be an ecumenical harmony that is a far cry from the “unity” taught in the Scriptures. Paul loved and desired peace and harmony as much as anyone could, but he “would give place by subjection, no, not for an hour,” to some who would bind unscriptural practices on others, “that the truth of the gospel might continue” (Gal. 2:5).

True love, peace, and unity are exhibited more by those who are continually “proving all things,” “contending for the faith,” “convicting the gainsayer with sound words,” “pulling down strong holds,” “casting down imaginations,” “speaking the truth in love,” and “marking them that cause division contrary to the doctrine learned” than by those who wrap themselves in the contented blanket of deception or self-righteousness, beaping out ear-tinkling platitudes.

These perversions of Scripture and feigned virtues have, indeed, led some away from truth, and our hearts ache for them. Our efforts and prayers are aimed at opening their eyes with the eye-salve of God’s word that they might see, and turn, before they die.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:24, p. 8-9
April 18, 1974

By Ronald D. Howes

In the front of the rising tide of Satan’s servants, one will find the hard-selling, pamphlet-passing servants of the Watchtower. They are well-trained, attractively dressed and smooth talking. They keep right up with the latest techniques of salesmanship and are fantastically successful in doing their job.

The Organization, as seen today, exists because of the determined efforts of a few dedicated men around the turn of the century. Charles T. (“Pastor”) Russell incorporated the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society in 1896 as an outgrowth of his earlier efforts. He is personally responsible for most of the strange beliefs of the “Witnesses,” including the nature of the spirit of man, the existence of torment in Hell, and their own peculiar brand of premillennialism.

The mantle of leadership passed to J. F. (“Judge”) Rutherford on the death of Russell. Presently Nathan Knorr rules in the tower and continues in the grand tradition of his predecessors. During his tenure of office, the Witnesses have doubled. Nathan Knorr, however, differs significantly in his approach to the work. Both Russell and Rutherford loved publicity and more than once got into trouble with the papers of their day. Knorr rules quietly and apparently absolutely. We ought not to underestimate the ability of these men to do what they have set out to accomplish.

The Witnesses, as most of the cults do, have a colorful history which makes for good reading. Walter R. Martin’s Kingdom of the Cults, and Hoekema’s The Four Major Cults contain material well worth the price of the books.

The simplest way to find out what the Watchtower teaches is to get hold of their books. I firmly believe that every Christian ought to have a copy of their Truth that Lends to Eternal Life, with significant paragraphs properly noted and cross-referenced to the real truth of God’s word. The “Little Blue Book, ” as it is commonly called, sells for 25c. It is well worth the investment as it gives an insight into he Watchtower’s thinking.

The Soul and Spirit of Man

A . . .the human soul is man himself, then it cannot be some shadowy thing that merely inhabits the body or that can exist apart from the person” (The Truth That Leads to Eternal Life, p. 36.)

“. . . Whereas the human soul is the living person himself, the spirit is simply the life force that enables the person to be alive. The spirit has no personality, nor can it do the things a person can do. It cannot think, speak, hear, see, or feel . . . In that respect, it might be likened to the electric current of a car’s battery . . . .” (p. 39, op. cit.)

Pretty fantastic isn’t it? A “car battery?” Every informed Bible student knows that the Bible does use the term soul to refer to a living creature (Len. 2:7), and that animals have souls as the Watchtower claims. (Len. 1:20, see margin for “life”). However, they limit their definitions of these terms to what they would like the Bible to say. The Scriptures, from which we know that there is more to the soul and spirit of man than an over-charged car battery, are conspicuously absent from Watchtower publications.

As to the validity of the first statement, the New Testament very plainly teaches, much to the chagrin of the Witnesses, that the soul or spirit of man can exist apart from the body.

“We have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens …. Therefore we are always confident knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: We are confident I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.” (2 Cor. 5:1, 6, 8).

“For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart and to be with Christ; which is far better; Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you.” (Phil. 1:23-24).

Paul says that while “we” (persons, us, etc.) are in the body we are absent from the Lord, and that he was confidently looking to the time when “we” (persons, us, etc.) could depart from our bodies and be with the Lord. In the Philippian reference he wants to depart and be with Christ and contrasts that with abiding in the flesh. That should make it sufficiently clear to those concerned that the “spirit can exist apart from the body.”

Other objections to this view are seen in several related verses throughout the New Testament. For instance in Rev. 1:10 John says “I was in the spirit on the Lord’s day.” Does that mean that he was really “living it up” or that God was charging his veins with DC power from his own voltage regulator? John 4:24 says that “God is a spirit.” Jehovah’s Witnesses are quick to point out that they are the only ones who properly worship the One God, Jehovah. Will they admit that He is merely an unintelligent electrical force?

The real clincher to this whole question is what the Old Testament says about the spirit or soul of man. These references show beyond a shadow of a doubt that the spirit or soul of man has the attributes of personality and intelligence and emotion, that are not just the result of dumb life force. Gen. 41:8 – Pharoah’s spirit was troubled – Was he breathing hard? Deut. 2:30 – Talks of a hardened spirit C Hardening of the arteries? 2 Chron. 36:22 – Spirit of Cyrus is stirred up – Asthma, or St. Vitas dance? Psalm 51:10 speaks of a “right spirit” – Is that the opposite of bad breath? Psalm 32:2 talks of a spirit with guile – Perhaps this is talking about breathing hard.

Last but not least, Jesus said in Matt. 5:3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit.” Is he giving his blessing to all with shortness of breath? Certainly not. These scriptures show us the other side of the coin that Witnesses do not wish to see. Our soul and spirit are not always the easiest thing to define. Sometimes they do mean life, or breath. They are occasionally used interchangeably. But one thing is for sure: Witnesses will have to live with the fact that they can be absent from the body and live and that the spirit of man lives on after death and is more than the life force within us.

(Next: The Watchtower Gospel (Part II): Heall and Punishment)

Truth Magazine, XVIII:24, p. 6
April 18, 1974

By Cecil Willis

Alcohol consumption probably is at an all-time high. The last figures that I have immediately available show that Americans consume yearly an average of 28 gallons of beer per man, woman, and child. The whiskey, rum, and brandy upon which taxes are paid amount to four gallons per year per man, woman, and child in the United States. No doubt considerable additional amounts of alcoholic beverages are made, but upon which payment of taxes by one means or another is avoided. The reports in most reference books are about two years old, and I do not even have before me at this moment the latest reference sources. But in 1969 the stupendous sum of 985,000,000 gallons of whiskey, rum, or brandy were consumed in this country. Also in 1969, 122,657,000 barrels of beer were consumed. About $12,000,000,000.00 (that is 12,000 million! !)are spent yearly in this country on alcohol.

Reports show that 80,000,000 Americans are “fairly regular drinkers.” By the time you eliminate the small children from our 200,000,000 people, that leaves a large percentage of Americans as “fairly regular drinkers.” In -fact, statistics show that 69% of all men in America are “fairly regular drinkers.” The women are not far behind in this statistic; 54% of all women are “fairly regular drinkers.” Perhaps the most shocking statistic is the one which shows that the heaviest drinkers are those between 18 and 24 years of age. Though judging from the young people I know personally, the following statistics seem impossible to be correct, nevertheless it remains a fact that studies show that 71 % of all college students are “fairly regular drinkers,” and 67% of all High School students fall into this ignoble category.

Our affluent nation has the dubious distinction of having more alcoholics than any other nation in the world. There are at least 25,000,000 alcoholics in the world, and one fourth of all these live in our fair land. America is followed by France, and Sweden in number of alcoholics. The figures also show that one person out of twelve who drinks becomes an alcoholic.

There are some in the church who join nearly the whole of society in an effort to justify social drinking. It would be very interesting to know just what percentage of people who are members of the church do some drinking of alcoholic beverages. Many in the church who would categorically condemn drinking whiskey or brandy would still try to justify just an occasional beer. Quite a few brethren can see nothing wrong in drinking a glass of wine now and then. I have even known of an elder in the church who served champagne at his son’s wedding supper. Several brethren whom I have known have sold various forms of alcoholic beverages in their business establishments. One leading and very active member in my home congregation, when I was a boy, was County Distributor for the Falstaff Beer Company. He stayed in this business until retirement age, and retired in the good graces of both the Falstaff Beer Company and the brethren. I feel quite sure, in the light of what he has said, that he did not live or retire in the good graces of the Lord.

What some brethren seem to forget is that a man can get enough alcohol to make him drunk by any of several different means. In fact, it has been stated that the “average drink” of the various kinds of alcoholic beverages contains approximately the same amount of alcohol. A report from the International Narcotic Research Foundation states: “The average `drink’ of beer, wine, or whiskey contains about the same quantity of alcohol (by weight) although the amounts of liquid differ. So the drinker can get practically the same effect from a 10 ounce bottle of 4 1/2 % beer, or 2 1/2 ounce glass of 20% wine, or a 1 ounce glass of whiskey.” And the same report adds, “And if he drives, the pedestrian he hits will be just as dead.”

Many sociologists and many preachers do not wish to come out plainly and to state that drinking is sinful. They seek to give those who drink a defense, so they state that the alcoholic is simply sick, and cannot help himself. Thus he should not be blamed if he gets drunk, and should not be severely punished if he causes a serious automobile accident, or kills a man in his alcoholic fury. Somewhere, several years ago, I picked up the following good points to reply to those sentimental tear-jerkers who want to apologize for the beer guzzlers, or wineos, or alcoholics. One writer said, if alcoholism is a disease:

1. It is the only disease that is contracted by an act of the will.

2. It is the only disease that requires a license to propagate it.

3. It is the only disease that is bottled and sold.

4. It is the only disease that requires a half-million outlets to spread it.

5. It is the only disease that provides a revenue for the government.

6. It is the only disease that provokes crime.

7. It is the only disease that is spread by advertising.

8. It is the only disease that is habit forming.

 

9. It is the only disease without a germ or virus cause, and for which there is no corrective medicine.

 

10. It is the only disease that bars the patient from heaven.

The Bible is replete with teaching against the usage of alcoholic beverages. Though this article is not intended to prove the point, I think it can be shown from Scripture that what man today would consider to be a mild alcoholic drink would be under the Biblical condemnation as “strong drink.” The sage of the Old Testament, Solomon, stated that in his quest to find out “what it was good for the sons of men that they .should do under heaven all the days of their life” (Ecclesiastes 2:4), he discovered when he tried wine that it “is a mocker, strong drink a brawler; And whosoever erreth thereby is not wise” (Prov. 20:1).

Few things are more repulsive than a drunk person. One of the methods used to try to get some to break the alcohol habit is to make movies of the person while he was drunk, and to let him see after he has sobered how stupid and repulsive he was while drunk. Solomon said that the wine drinker is “not wise.” That is to say, he is a fool. A drunk person will do all kinds of stupid things. One of the best descriptions of a foolish drunk man is that one given by Solomon in Prov. 23:29-35, which reads as follows:

“Who hath woe’ who hath sorrow? who hath contentions? who hath complaining? who hath wounds without cause.” who hath redness of eyes? They that tarry long at the wine; They that go to seek out mixed wine. Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, When it sparkleth in the cup, When it goeth down smoothly: At the last it biteth like a .serpent. And stingeth like an adder. Thine eyes shall behold .strange things, And thy heart shall utter perverse things. Yea, thou shalt be as he that lieth down in the midst of the sea, Or as he that lieth upon the top of a mast. They have sticken me, and I felt it not: When shall I awake? I will seek it yet again.”

A man who would lie down in the midst of the sea, or upon the mast of a ship would be acting crazily, but this is the depiction of a drunk man. Solomon’s description of the wine while “it sparkleth in the cup” sounds as though he had the glamorous, television-alcohol-industry commercials in mind. But after the wine has done its dastardly work, the man or woman suffers the pain and sickness of a hang-over, and wonders when the painful and sickening effects of the hang-over will cease. One would think that one who has gone through the sickness of one hang-over would thereafter avoid drinks that drunken. The saddest words in Solomon’s entire sordid picture are these, AI will seek it yet again.”

Solomon gives some descriptions of the irrational actions of a drunk man, and of the aftermath of a big spree or “night on the town.” A medical doctor recently stated precisely from a medical and chemical point of view what happens physiologically when a person gets drunk. Perhaps you would like to know precisely what occurs within the person who becomes drunk, so I am printing a medical question and answer column that appeared in the Marion, Indiana Chronicle-Tribune, March 28, 1974. in a column entitled “The Doctor Says” written by Dr. Lawrence Lamb.

“Dear Dr. Lamb – I think it would be of interest to many of’ us if you would explain just what happens to a person when he has a hangover.

“What causes those awful eye pains and headache? Is it the alcohol’s reaction on veins or muscles or both? Some people’s hands shake so bad they can’t hold a cup of coffee? Why? How about being thirsty all the time? What organs are affected to cause both vomiting and diarrhea? Are all organs of the body affected by alcohol?

“DEAR READER – Alcohol is a cellular toxin. It seeps directly into any cell it comes in contact with. It coagulates protein, and you know that our cells contain lots of protein vital to their function. Our food and many other substances are transported into the cells through complex chemical processes, but alcohol goes right through.

“In the bloodstream it causes the red blood cells to tend to stick together. In this way they can clump and plug up small arteries. This in turn interferes with getting oxygen to vital cells.

“The headache and the eye ache, which can be a part of a hangover. are caused by the over dilatation of the arteries in the brain region and around the skull. These arteries have small nerve /fibers in their walls. The over-stretched arteries stimulate the tiny nerves too much and set up the pain pattern. Coffee contains caffeine, and this drug causes the arteries to constrict. By this action coffee sometimes helps to relieve the hangover headache.

“The problem with using coffee is that the caffeine also stimulates the stomach to pour out a lot of acid pepsin juice. This is hard on a stomach already irritated by alcohol. The alcohol tends to dissolve away the protective mucus coating over the lining of the stomach, and the cells are exposed directly to the action of alcohol. This leads to inflammation c~/’ the stomach, pain, sometimes nausea and vomiting. A similar action is irritating to the intestines that disturbs their /unction which can lead to diarrhea.

“Alcohol also causes the kidneys to eliminate a lot of water. This is brought about by a complex endocrine reflex mechanism. The end result is that the body loses a lot of water that it needs. That causes the thirst after the drinking episode. The thirst stimulates you to replace the needed body water.

“With each alcoholic episode some brain cells are damaged, possibly from the alcohol action and possibly indirectly because of plugging up the small arteries with clumped red blood cells, decreasing oxygen delivery. In any case the person who drinks a lot loses the normal ability to learn, and after death the damaged areas of the brain can be observed.”

With this divine description and medical explanation of what occurs when a person becomes drunk, one would like to think the time-worn aphorism “A word to the wise is sufficient” would indeed now be sufficient.

Truth Magazine,XVIII:24, p. 3-5
April 18, 1974

By Roland Worth, Jr.

Though men can go to Hell on any terms they wish to set for themselves (the Devil is a very flexible negotiator), they can go to Heaven only on the terms set by God and revealed through His Son, Jesus. We have all heard the song “everybody wants to go to Heaven but nobody wants to die.” Equally true would be a song, “everybody wants to go to Heaven . . . if they can do it their own way.”

We do not have that kind of flexibility. God does not ratify the foolish inventions of men, conjured up by mortals more interested in the illusion of progress than in obedience to the Divine will. Rather, He reveals how men should act and expects men to live up to that standard, not in violation of it or in subversion of it through hair-splitting distinctions that preserve a verbal image of obedience while gutting the substance. God wants man to be fully obedient to His will, both in act and in intention.

“Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few” (Matthew 7:13-14).

Truth Magazine, XVIII:23, p. 14
April 11, 1974