Truth Magazine

By William V. Beasley

For years the people of God have exposed, from God’s word, the false standard of those who say, “Just let your conscience by your guide!” We have pointed out that Saul of Tarsus (Paul) “lived before God in all good conscience”

(Acts 23:1) while he was “breathing threatening and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord” (Acts 9:1). We read Jer. 10:23; Prov. 12:15; 16:25; 28:26; 1 Tim. 4:2 to show that man cannot guide himself. We turn to Psa. 119:105; John 17:17; 2 John 9 and show the word of God is the proper standard for our lives. We do all of these things but to no avail. Men still cry “Just let your conscience be your guide.” Why? Why are men so insistent the conscience is the standard we should follow?

One reason for such, apart from the obvious ignorance of God’s word, is that letting one’s conscience be one’s guide would in most cases be an improvement. Man does not live as good as he knows to live. He knows it is wrong to speed on the highway, cheat on his income tax, steal from his employer, etc., but does it anyway saying, “Well, everyone else does too.”

Most Christians would be improved if they “Just let your Biblically educated conscience be your guide.” We know we should be giving liberally (2 Cor. 9:6), studying God’s word more (2 Tim. 2:15), telling our friends and neighbors the good news (Mark 16:15; Acts 8:4; 2 Tim. 2:2), be with the saints every time they assemble (Heb. 10:25), etc., but we want a new tape deck for the car, the T.V. is almost five years old, there is a football game we want to see, we are tired, etc. Yes, “Just let your conscience be your guide” would be an improvement for most of us.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:23, p. 13-14
April 11, 1974

By Ronald D. Howes

When was the last time you opened your door to find a Jehovah’s Witness or Mormon spouting scriptures 90 miles an hour and keeping your mind in a tail-spin? You stood there red-faced with no other answer than “we don’t believe it that way” or “no, I’m not interested.” There he was, confident, commanding, and intelligent. A real smooth operator. Have you ever wanted to give him a few scriptures to chew on? This study is written with the purpose of helping you to stand firm for the faith and perhaps to save his soul.

Knowing The Opposition

In considering this series of studies, I almost decided to delete an introduction because of the overwhelmingly obvious need for at least an elementary grasp of this material by all Christians. However, this understanding should not be taken for granted. People need to know why they ought to spend a few hours of their time studying the cults. Therefore a defense is in order.

What Are We Talking About?

Whenever we use the Term “cult” in this series, the term will refer to those religious groups which base their system of belief on the so-called revelation of some latter-day, prophet. These include such groups as: Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, Christian Scientists, Bahai’s, and others too numerous to mention. Rather than write all year long, this series will be limited to those which claim some direct link to true Christianity.

These groups have some common factors which set them apart from the protestant world. These are:

 1. A belief that their founder was a true prophet of God.

 2. Associated with this, a belief that the writings of their prophet are every bit as much the word of God as our Bible.

3. Each cult believes that it is the one true Church.

4. All are intensely evangelistic and growing.

It is only fair to say that the cults themselves might not accept this list of definitions, and that any specific cult might vary slightly from this pattern. Generally, though, all share these common characteristics.

Why Should I Spend My Time Studying Them?

Many members of the Lord’s Church view the cults as harmless fanatics. And, because of that view, could literally care less what they teach, or spend time themselves learning how to refute their arguments. We all ought to remember that there is no such thing as a harmless fanatic. These zealots with their pamphlets, prophets, and provocation, provide us with the greatest challenge of the age. The Christian with his Ostrich-head stuck in the sand in a “see no evil” position is in for a rude awakening.

These cult religions have experienced phenomenal growth. In 1918 there were 746 full-time ministers or publishers spreading the Watchtower Gospel. In 1962 the number reached to 286,000. These figures are printed up each year in their yearbooks which are obtainable for a modest fee from any Kingdom Hall. Are there 286,000 evangelists in the Lord’s Church in the U.S.? Do we have 286,000 congregations in the U.S.? Certainly not. The watchtower has experienced a nearly 2000 percent growth in the last 50 years. The very least we could say about that is that it is impressive. A better word would be frightening. What has been our growth? 50 % , 75% , 100% ? Does that shake you up a little? It ought to. Mormons publish figures also. Their claimed membership in 1900 was 268,331. Recently that figure was 1,965,786. Call any Stake center and ask. That should put them at somewhere near 600% or 700% growth.

To us these figures mean that thousands of dedicated men and women with an inferior product, equipped with superior “Bible knowledge,” greater zeal, and better selling knowhow than the great majority of our members have, are beating us to the punch for the souls of the men and women of this generation.

Our lack of growth is due to the fact that the average member of the Lord’s church is uninformed, non-aggressive about the faith, and could not give you 20 scriptures on authority and salvation if he had to. Paul told Timothy to “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15). The idea is that God’s word is a tool given to us for the conversion of the world. This tool is to be learned and handled correctly. It is not an ornament for our bookshelves.

It is disheartening to know that preachers have their hands full just getting 75% of the Sunday morning attendance back to the services in .the evening and on Wednesday. There is no excuse for tardiness, absence, or ignorance in the Lord’s Church. The opposition is outstripping us by leaps and bounds. The handful of preachers in the Lord’s church cannot do all the work of stemming the tide and beating back the gainsayer. It is up to you Brother and Sister Christian to do the work.

Why should I study the cults? Be assured they are studying you and would like to add your soul to the list of the lost. They are aggressive, knowledgeable, and above all successful. Last but not least, they are damned (Gal. 1:6-9). (Next: The Watchtower Gospel)

Truth Magazine, XVIII:23, p. 8
April 11, 1974

By Larry Ray Hafley

The United Pentecostal denomination, which is commonly identified as the “Jesus only” or “Oneness” sect, wrests various Scriptures in lame and vain attempts to establish their fundamental keystone and cornerstone doctrine; namely, that Jesus Christ is the only person in the Godhead. They believe and teach that: (1) “Jesus Is The Father,” (2) AJesus Is The Son,” (3) AJesus Is The Holy Spirit.”(Gordon Magee, Is Jesus In The Godhead Or Is The Godhead In Jesus? pp. 14-16).

To prove the latter point, that Jesus is the Holy Spirit, the “Oneness” people often argue from John 14:18, “I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.” The Holy Spirit is the Comforter, yet Jesus says, “I will come to you.” So, Jesus is the Holy Spirit, or so they say. Mr. Magee uses Jn. 14:18 in this regard in the afore-mentioned tract.

Answers:

(1) Elijah and John the Baptist: The Old Testament states emphatically and unequivocally, “I will send you Elijah the prophet” (Mal. 4:5). Does this mean the literal person, Elijah? No, for in John 1:21, the Immerser was asked directly and specifically, “Art thou Elijah? And he saith, I am not.” Yet Jesus says, “this is Elijah which is to come” (Mt. 11:14). How do we .explain this? How can John the Baptist be Elijah while not being Elijah? Before the Baptist’s birth, the angel told his father Zacharias that “thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son …. And he shall go . . . in the spirit and power of Elijah ” (Lk. 1:17). Elijah was sent when John the Baptist came. But who regards them as one and the same person? Thus, if one can see how that Elijah was sent when John the Baptist came, he ought to be able to see how Jesus came when the Holy Spirit came.

(2) AAnother comforter:” Just two verses preceding the one in dispute, Jesus said, “And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Comforter” (J n. 14:16). The word “another,” says W. E. Vine, “expresses a numerical difference and denotes another of the same sort.” The Holy ‘Spirit could not be “another” Comforter if he was Jesus.

(3) What One Does The Other Does: There is a sense in which God, or Deity, works as one, or what one does the other does. Compare John 5:19, “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.” This statement must not be pressed to say that there is no distinction made between the work of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, for three verses later Jesus makes a separation between his work and the Father’s. “For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son” (Jn. 5:22). But John 5:17; 19, shows a oneness in work that may also explain how Jesus came when the Holy Spirit came.

(4) John 14:26: If Jesus taught in Jn. 14:18 that he was the Holy Spirit, then he surely clouded and confused the issue just eight verses later when he said, “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” Observe the clear difference Jesus makes between himself, the Father and the Comforter, the Holy Spirit. Why this obvious reference to separate and distinct persons if it is contrary to the immediate utterance of Jn. 14:18?

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

By Lynn Trapp

During the second semester of my stay at Texas Tech University, I took a course in Historical Geology in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a laboratory science. The textbook for the course was Geological Evolution Of North America by Thomas H. Clark and Colin W. Stearn. All authors of books on historical geology must from time to time attempt to make explanations of the problems, inconsistencies, and lack of evidence in the theory of evolution. This problem also confronted Clark and Stearn in their introductory chapter on the evolution of life.

To enlighten those who know very little about geology and the theory of evolution, Webster defines a phylogeny as “the evolution of a genetically related group of organisms as distinguished from the development of the individual organism.” What this means practically is that a phylogeny is the listing of certain plants or animals which have similar physical characteristics and are thus supposed by the evolutionist to have evolved one from another. For instance, the apes have five fingered appendages and stand erect, and man has five fingered appendages and stands erect; therefore, they conclude, man evolved from the ape or at least they evolved from the same creature.

The problem which exists on the face of this is that there is no “visible, direct, lineal relationship” which exists between the different species. The Phyla says that the modern man evolved directly from the “cromagnon man” who evolved from the infamous “Neanderthal man.” Yet, this is drawing more from the chart than is scientifically allowable. I could just as easily, and correctly, say that modern, man belongs between “cromagnon” and “Neanderthal” or any other combination which can be made.

In trying to answer this problem Clark and Stearn put themselves in hotter water than they would have been in had they simply failed to answer it. As Curtis Porter used to say, they would have been better off to have observed the “passover” on this point. Their statement shows their lack of evidence for the theory of evolution. Our authors say, “Two chief criticisms have for some time been leveled at such charts and phylogenies. First, the lack of a visible, direct, lineal relationship makes the charts hypothetical. With this we cannot quarrel; but we can say that a certain group of fossils shows characteristics that undeniably indicate its descent from some other group.” (all emphasis mine L.T.) Now, it would appear that the authors have granted that the charts and phylogenies are hypothetical when they say, “with this we cannot quarrel.” The question that must then be asked is, How can there be an undeniable indication of descent from other forms? An hypothesis is “a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences,” while “undeniable” is that which is “plainly true.” (Definitions from Webster) Those two statements are as opposite as North is from South. If something is hypothetical it cannot be undeniable and vice versa.

The evolutionist is always finding himself in problem situations. Thomas H. Clark and Colin W. Steam have added one more to the list of many.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:23, p. 10
April 11, 1974