Truth Magazine

By Dorris V. Rader

Two neatly dressed young men came calling at my door a few days ago. They were very polite and courteous. After giving their names, they quickly commented about a sticker near the door that gave warning to any would-be burglars. They inquired if I had considered why we have need for such warnings. That fit right in with their little speech and the head-lines on literature they intended to leave. (Incidentally, they forgot to leave their piece of literature.) They asked if I would like to see an era of peace and good will right here on this earth? At this point, I said, “Why don’t you come inside and perhaps we can talk a little better inside?”

When we were seated, I said, “Now before we begin to discuss such matters, let us try to come to some agreement as to what we will both be using as our standard of authority for determining truth.” They tried to quickly dismiss this as not a need worth mentioning. They said, “Oh, we will just use the Bible as the standard.” I suggested that I needed some assurance that this would really be the case. I suggested that my reason for pursuing that matter is because I understand that you believe that there is a “faithful and wise servant” who ministers the spiritual food to God’s people in due season. And, “I understand that you feel that Matthew 24:45-47 justifies your position.” They looked at each other a second, each seemingly waiting for the other to respond, then one of them said, “Yes, that is what the Bible teaches, so we just take the Bible on that.” They went on to indicate that anything we teach we will just accept the Bible on it.

I suggested then that I needed to be convinced on that and to know more about that “faithful and wise servant (slave) whom you feel gives you the proper food.” They both got busy trying to change the subject, but I was just as insistent that we talk about the “servant.” I pointed out that I surely needed to know who this is that the Bible is talking about. They changed the subject, and I changed it back. So, I suggested that we set an appointed time to get back together and just talk about the standard of authority which we accept in settling matters of truth. They finally said they would come back one week from that day. Really, from their action, I did not believe they would be back. At least, I was sure they would not come without bringing in a “trouble shooter” who was much older and more experienced. I’ve had this happen more than once. Sure enough, the latter is what happened.

At the exact time appointed, one of the original young men came accompanied by an older gentleman. The older man said, “I think I should tell you right up front that I am a full-time minister with over 30 years experience in this work.” I said, “That is fine, so let us get down to the discussion agreed upon. We agreed that we would discuss the standard of authority that will govern us in determining truth.” He quickly tried to dismiss this by saying, “We will just use the Bible.” I suggested that I certainly expected that he would “use” the Bible, but the is-sue is whether the Bible would be the standard for settling matters. At this point I placed on the table in front of us a flip chart with the following points.

What Will Be Our Standard

of Authority?

1. The Bible Alone.

2. The WTBTS (Watchtower Bible and Tract Society).

3. The Bible as interpreted by the WTBTS.

4. If other than the above, please explain.

They glanced over it and said, “Let’s just close this up and put it away and talk about the Bible.” I said, “No, I have no intention of putting this aside until you tell me which of these you are using as your standard of authority.”

It was at least twenty minutes later before I forced a choice out of him, and guess what! It was not the Bible, but #3 (the Bible as interpreted by the (WTBTS). I told them that I have here before us photocopies of pages from the literature you people always leave with people. I said, “Is it good to read that literature?” They said, “Oh, yes, but do you have a lot of stuff here that our enemies have said about us?” I assured them that all I intended to read was their own literature as we discuss what our standard of authority is to be. So I read how Charles T. Russell claimed that the “servant” was a class or group, and then at later dates that it was individual and that he was that “servant.” Then, still later the WTBTS claimed that Russell never made such a claim about himself. I then read where they claimed they never had published even a biography of Russell, but I read from their literature his biography not once but a number of times. The society claimed that the teaching that Russell was that “servant” led to “creature worship,” yet they published and sold his literature in which he made that claim.

That, I pointed out, is what you claim as “the Faithful and Wise Servant.” I asked if a “faithful witness” will lie? They said, “No.” But, then they began to get ready to go. The thirty year veteran began packing his things in his briefcase and said, “I don’t intend to sit and listen to this. I won’t sit by and let the `servant’ be attacked in such a way.” He, himself, had just finished an attack on the King James Bible, claiming that it was a translation dictated by King James through one man. I said, “Now, you have answered my little chart and you have chosen #3, haven’t you?” He admitted this was the case. I said, “You were less than honest with me when you entered and said that the Bible alone would be used.” Although he intended to read some passages, he knew that he would not give a single interpretation unless it was endorsed and set forth by the society.

In the short time the “Witnesses” remained, they attacked the King James Bible and grossly misrepresented it and perhaps to a lesser degree others except the New World Translation. But he got mighty upset when I just read from photocopies of their literature published by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. I pressed them about the contradictions and false claims I had read from their literature. The “veteran of thirty years” denies that there was any error or false doctrine taught in any of that literature. Yes, there were “mistakes” but certainly no error or false doctrine, for “they were sincere in what they taught.” I’m not quite sure how he could be so positive about sincerity in all those cases, but he felt that they were. It was a case he said of “new light” as time went on, but none of them could be charged with false teaching or error for they were sincere.

Somewhere in the back of my mind it seemed I had heard this plea made by some of my brethren to protect brethren who were guilty of false teaching. But they pleaded that this was not to be charged against them because they were of good character and sincere. Yes, they were wrong in what they taught, but they were not teaching error. Could this “Witness” have been reading after some of my brethren? Wonder how some brethren would respond to their claim? Is that a valid argument for my brethren, but not for the Witnesses?

Before they left they wanted to know if I was a former Jehovah’s Witness. They began to plead for sympathy talking about how they were persecuted. One of them said people would jump on them for little minor matters or mistakes in their literature. I said, “Don’t come with that martyr complex for you people have had no more persecution than others.” They wanted to know if I treated other religious groups as I had them, going into their history and attacking what they teach  say like other denominations or maybe the Hindu religion. I said, “I have not had any Hindu people coming around spreading their views, but if they do I’ll take it up and expose it just as I have yours.” At about this point they allowed that it was a good time to leave “in peace.”

For a number of years when I first began preaching, I would let the Jehovah’s Witnesses talk and then I’d answer. When I would answer their perversion of some passage, the other Witness would read another passage and take off in a different direction. I’d go after what he had misrepresented and by this time the first one would start reading or talking in still another direction. They had designed it this way, so as to be able to “hit and run.” Somewhere along the way, someone helped me to find a much better way of dealing with the JW’s. They reminded me that, after all, they don’t really use the Bible as the standard of authority. They may read from it, but back in their minds they are listening to the WTBTS believing it to be the “faithful and wise servant” giving food to the people of God. As you can see in this case, they will not hesitate to misrepresent what they really believe, especially about their standard of authority in order to slip up on the unsuspecting. So, you have to make them admit where their loyalty really is. They believe the Bible is a “sealed book” and that only by listening to the “servant” can people know the truth. Don’t be fooled by their sweet talk about just trying to get their foot in the door. By deceit, trickery, and down right lying about their real position, they are able to delude a lot of people. Once you knock them out of their little path of chosen speeches and selected topics they are totally frustrated and get really upset.

Just remember you have to force their hand on what is their real standard of authority. Don’t back away just because they say, “Oh, we’ll just take the Bible.” Press the point and you will see where their real loyalty is. Until they come to really respect the Bible as the source of final authority, you are just spinning your wheels in any kind of discussion with these people.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 24 p. 12-13
December 18, 1997

By Mike Vestal

The name “Ichabod” means “without glory” or “the glory has departed” (1 Sam. 4:20-21). How we should all pray that Ichabod never enters the pulpit! After all, preaching Jesus Christ necessitates proclaiming a message that glorifies and exalts him as Lord, and that remembers what he has done for sinful man (1 Cor. 1:18, 31). Every man who ever has the privilege of preaching the gospel should deeply relate to what Paul said in Galatians 6:14, “But God forbid that I should glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and Ito the world.” The focus of our preaching must be to glorify Christ. In a very real sense, all other ground is “Ichabod”  without glory.

Those who preach and teach the word of God dare not be guilty of a conflict of interest as it relates to whom goes the glory and praise. It all goes to God, not to us! “I am the Lord, that is my name; and my glory I will not give to another” (Isa. 42:8). Everything we do as Christians ought to be done out of an intense desire to glorify God, and in nothing should this be more true than when we are communicating the very message of God (cf. 1 Cor. 10:31; Col. 3:17). But this is where the ideal con-fronts reality, for it is all too easy to allow our pride, comfort, and lust to supersede the preeminence of Jesus. It is then that Ichabod enters the pulpit.

Ichabod enters the pulpit when sermons and Bible classes are filled with jokes, stories and secular philosophy instead of with the clear bringing out and application of God’s word (1 Cor. 2:1-5; 2 Tim. 4:1-5). Scripture is dealt with superficially from too many pulpits, if it is actually dealt with at all. Due to this misguided approach, classes and sermons have come to be judged more for their entertainment value than for the edification of the saints, evangelization of the lost, and glorification of the Lord. In real exposition of God’s word, truth does indeed meet life. And it changes those lives who lovingly and humbly embrace the will of God (Jas. 1:21; 1 John 1:4).

Ichabod enters the pulpit when through “smooth and fair speech,” false doctrine is taught and brethren are led astray (Rom. 16:17-18; 2 Pet. 2:1-3). Those who pro-claim the gospel must be constantly aware that Satan wants to take God’s servants and to make them his own. The devil will seek to tempt us to become self serving rather than Master driven, and the strategies he uses are both ingenious and insidious (2 Cor. 2:11 ). Whatever may prompt one to teach false doctrine and to lead others astray, one thing is certain: Satan has been at work. If the devil gets a foothold in the life of a person who preaches and teaches, it is only a short step to Satan’s getting a foothold on the pulpit!

Ichabod enters the pulpit when an evangelist lacks the boldness and conviction to deal with sin as he should. On one occasion, Paul withstood Peter “to his face, because he was to be blamed” (Gal. 2:11). Such action on the part of Paul was doubtless neither pleasant nor easy, but it was necessary in order for the gospel of God’s grace to be vindicated (cf. Gal. 2:12-14). Men of God must have the strength and courage necessary to deal with sin. It is interesting to note that in 1 Timothy 4 Paul first mentions sins such as unfaithfulness and hypocrisy (vv. 1-5), and then goes on to deal with the character qualities that are a must for servants of God (vv. 6-16).

Ichabod enters the pulpit when one manifests a harsh, vindictive, uncompassionate spirit completely out of harmony with the Lord whom we are supposed to be lifting up before others (Eph. 4:15). Are we truly motivated by a sincere love for God and for the souls of others? Without such motivation, we accomplish nothing of lasting value (cf. 1 Cor. 13:1-3). Our logic may be impeccable, the force of our arguments unavoidable and our will indomitable, but if the love of Christ does not constrain us (2 Cor. 5:14), we are robbing God of his glory.

Ichabod enters the pulpit when a preacher refuses to declare “the whole counsel of God” out of fear of repercussions (Acts 20:20, 27). It seems that some individuals sadly fear so much a loss of income, friends, security and popularity that they can rationalize their silence on matters pertaining to eternity. Could it be that the only one who finds our preaching and teaching offensive is God? Gospel preachers are not mercenaries; we are not hired hands to merely tell people what they want to hear so as to fill our pockets. We are ministers of Christ. We are ambassadors of the King and soldiers of the Lord (2 Cor. 5:19-20; Eph. 6:10-24). It is God’s will, God’s pleasure, God’s way and God’s blessing we must seek. Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 9:16 are especially appropriate: “For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast of, for necessity is laid upon me; yes, woe is me if I do not preach the gospel!”

Ichabod enters the pulpit when preachers and teachers allow a short fuse to take the place of patience and longsuffering. Second Timothy 2:24-26 lists qualities such as gentleness, ability to teach, humility and patience as qualifications for a servant of the Lord. Those who proclaim God’s word are to “convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching” (2 Tim. 4:2). If we are prone to “fly off the handle,” how does such an attitude manifest the glory of God? True, there is such a thing as godly anger (cf. John 2:13-22; Eph. 4:26), but that is not what is under consideration here. The proper exercise of self control and the manifesting of a Christlike character must not be underemphasized lest Ichabod enter the pulpit (cf. Gal. 5:22-23).

Ichabod enters the pulpit when preachers care more about themselves and self-promotion than their Savior and the souls they are trying to reach (1 Cor. 9:22). As often as we may have heard and read Philippians 1:21, its message still needs to be appreciated and applied: “For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain.” Some grunt and groan to climb ‘the brotherhood ladder of success,” but shouldn’t the privilege of preaching Jesus and touching the lives of people for eternity be enough? Won’t the greeting from God, “Well done, good and faithful servant,” be more than we could have ever comprehended? Self-promotion is not what preaching Christ is about; it is about praising the glorious Savior (cf. Phil. 3:7-21).

There really is no glory when Ichabod is in the pulpit. John the Baptizer struck at the heart of effective minis-try centuries ago when he said of Jesus, “He must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:30). When the Lord is so glorified, so magnified and exalted through our proclamation of the word of God, that people are drawn closer to him, that is glory enough. Gospel preachers should rejoice to be little servants of an illustrious God!

(From The Restorer, September 1994, via The Knight Arnold News, October 21, 1997.)

Guardian of Truth XLI: 24 p. 16-17
December 18, 1997

By Leslie E. Sloan

Sin is the universal problem of man. Ever since the transgression in the Garden of Eden, all men (with one exception) have become guilty before God through sin (Rom. 3:23; 1 John 1:8-10). And just like Satan’s deception through human reasoning then, men are induced to accept his lies now. Sin is man’s constant enemy and is ever before him. Sin is a sovereign in the life of a sinner, as he allows sin to reign in his mortal body (Rom. 6:12). One who is “sold under sin” (Rom. 7:14) is brought by sin into a state of wretchedness (Rom. 7:24). (Do you suppose that John Newton had this in mind when he penned the lyrics of the time-honored old hymn, “Amazing Grace”?) Ultimately, sin destroys everything worthwhile that man possesses, his soul in a devil’s hell. Now, is there any subject of greater significance to all of God’s creatures than this one? No.

In this article, I do not propose to waste your time or mine to discuss the senseless, unprofitable, and impractical question of whether man has to sin. I prefer a more sensible approach to the subject. The problem is not contained in that question, and no one is helped by the answer, either pro or con. If you want to help me, then deal with the problem of sin. Regardless of the interest and enthusiasm one may have for his position on this question, to argue such is simply being impractical. There is no practical application which may be made of the conclusion whether pro or con.

The apostles of Christ did not address or argue the question, but rather addressed the problem. And, beloved, this should be our approach to this question today. Our work as Christians, and especially preachers, is to help those who are in sin to be able to free themselves of slavery (Rom. 6:16-18).

Beloved, it is a waste of time and energy to discuss a question within a context of whether or not the problem had to exist. Reality demands that we not get “caught up” in such divisive questions.

If I am drowning in a pool of water somewhere, it doesn’t help my situation for my preaching brethren to stand by the pool and argue about whether I had to be in the water. To be of assistance, they should urgently implement a rescue operation  get me out of the water. To stand by and allow me to drown while they argue the question is, in effect, what brethren are doing today. While lost souls are drowning in the sea of sin, some are discussing whether they had to be there. If we want to help, then we need to urgently. Because the situation is urgent, implement a rescue operation that involves dealing with the problem of sin. The gospel is the remedy for this, and to rescue souls from the depths of sin, the gospel has to be proclaimed; nothing more, nothing less, and nothing else.

Interesting, too, is that you may question those who affirm that man doesn’t have to sin, and they readily admit sin in their lives (1 John 1:8-10). Well, why? This, to me, is inconsistent. I make no argument here either way, but simply point the reader to this aspect of the question. I would, however, in closing, like to encourage all my beloved brethren to be more zealous in dealing with real problems and less energetic in the direction of such questions as our subject. Brethren, this is badly needed for I fear that some have made a hobby of the question of our subject. And, to argue such questions, is in reality, a diversion from reality.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 24 p. 5
December 18, 1997

By John Wallace

Call it a fetus, an embryo, a blob of tissue or a product of conception, but don’t use the profane ‘B” word. It’s the worst vulgarity, almost as bad as saying marriage, family, or husband. It must be eradicated from our dictionaries and its users’ mouths washed with abortionists’ soap. The reality that it’s a b _ _ _ must be denied at all costs. It must be depersonalized and compared to a venereal disease. The terrible “B” word must be forgotten, because it makes it human, encourages an emotional bond, ignites a natural affection, and envisions something warm and cuddly.

So, what name did you give to your fetus? How much did your embryo weigh? What did your product of conception wear when you left the hospital? Did your husband witness the birth of your blob of tissue?

Seriously now, why are abortionists so terrified of this “B” word. The following quote will reveal that the avoidance of the “B” word has been the planned agenda of the feminists and abortionists from the early seventies.

In the December 1971 issue of Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology, a pro-abortionist instructing nurses in the care of induced abortion patients said, “Through public conditioning, use of language, concepts and laws, the idea of abortion can be separated from killing.” She further cautioned nurses, “If you say, ‘Suck out the b ,’ you may easily generate or increase trauma; say instead, `Empty the uterus.”‘ Similarly, Hitler’s command to take Jews to the death camps was, “Empty the ghettos.”

If it’s a “B” word inside a mother’s womb, abortion would be killing a “B” word  so it can’t be a “B” word. It has to be called something else. Should we call it a hippopotamus or a kangaroo  what about alligator? Some innocent, naive person raised in the abortionists’ camp who has never heard the “B” word may ask, “Is that profane, vulgar, never to be mentioned, must be eradicated word “baby?” Oh! Oh! He said that naughty word, wash out his mouth with abortionists’ soap.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 24 p. 11
December 18, 1997