News & Views, August 2001 - Edited By E. L. Bynum

Defenders of KJV Attacked - By E. L. Bynum

Old Ecumenicalism: New Ecumenists - By Bill Mosley

"From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man" - BOOK REVIEW By Thomas M. Strouse, Ph.D.

Heresies Of Jehovah Witnesses - By By Pastor B.H. Hillard

"The Baptist Challenge" - M. L. Moser, Editor

"From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man," By James B. Williams, Editor, is nothing less than a not so thinly veiled attack upon the King James Version and the people that defend it. I cannot help but believe that this is a product of the thinking of Bob Jones University. While they pretend to stand for the KJV, members of their faculty continue to lead assault after assault against the KJV. Bible believing people sent their children to BJU, only to see many of them come forth criticizing the KJV. Surely, the founder of this school did not have that in mind when starting this school.

It would be most interesting to see a list of the colleges, universities, and seminaries where James B. Williams and his eleven authors went to school. I suspect that many of them would have a connection to BJU and some other like minded schools. While these schools go under the banner of fundamental, some if not many of their faculty members have gone off to do graduate work at liberal schools as Princeton, Harvard, University of Chicago, and even Notre Dame. It would be wiser to let your child bathe in a hog pen than to send someone off to such liberal schools. Take a bath in a hog pen and if you live, you will come back loaded with germs. Go to these liberal schools and you will come back with spiritual germs produced from long ago by Westcott and Hort. These germs of unbelief are then spread from fundamental (?) schools into churches. That is how the process works, and we had better wake up, before it is too late.

We would also like to know who is behind the publisher, Ambassador-Emerald International, who lists two addresses. One address is listed as Greenville, South Carolina, and the other is Belfast, Northern Ireland.

I want to thank James B. Williams for giving me the honor of being mentioned in this book. On page 8, he wrote, "There are others who have joined in this parade of misinformers, including D. A. Waite, E. L. Bynum, Jack Chick, and Walter Beebe. The list increases with time as more unqualified proponents of the KJV Only view join in the confusion." His condescending attitude is revealed, when he adds, "In general these are devout, sincere, well meaning-men who in their efforts to uphold the testimony of an inspired, inerrant, infallible Bible have followed others who have been misguided in their position." I know who the misguided men are, and it is not the men who are defending the KJV.

Why any Bible believing church or pastor would give one thin dime to BJU, Baptist World Mission, or any other organization or school that backs this book, is a mystery to me.

From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man. By James B. Williams, Editor. Greenville, SC: Ambassador-Emerald International, 1999. 231 pp.

This recent volume entitled From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man is the product of James B. Williams and his eleven authors. These writers and their book appear to represent Bob Jones University and the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship. This inference is established by the connection of the authors to BJU and the endorsements by the leadership of the FBF. Williams states that his purpose is "to provide accurate, understandable information that will serve as a guide for laymen when selecting a translation" (p. 10). Although this may be a commendable goal and many may therefore read the book, it should be received with extreme caution for two reasons: first, it falls short of its stated goal; and second, it points toward a dangerous trend.

From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man should be received with extreme caution in the first place because the book falls short of the editor's stated task. It does so due to the following eight factors.

To begin with, it is of questionable literary quality. There are glaring spelling, grammatical and format gaffes. For instance, Westcott is regularly misspelled (e.g., pp. 172-178). Typos and misquotes (e.g., p. 3) and noun-verb disagreement (e.g., p.170, footnote 2) appear, and font sizes vary (e.g., pp. 2-3). It appears that the rush to publish jeopardized the literary quality of the book. While some may excuse literary errors as inconsequential, they do reflect on the arguments raised by the writers. Careless literary preparation may suggest careless scholarship as well. More significant, though, are the seven additional factors that cause the book to fail in the editor's purpose.

For instance, a substantial reason for the book's failure is its curious approval of apostasy. The cover of the book pictures a copy of the Revised Standard Version. Since its publication in 1952, this version has been identified with apostate liberalism (p. 198) through the National Council of Churches because of its anti-supernatural renderings of Isaiah 7:14 and 2 Timothy 3:16. Why would those purporting to advance fundamentalism use the liberal's version of the Bible on their cover? Furthermore, Williams accurately outlines the theological battles fundamentalists have had with liberals, neo-evangelicals and charismatics, yet the editor and authors, in toto, commend the textual works of liberals, neo-evangelicals and charismatics. They give absolutely no warning or condemnation about the men or their heresies (cf. footnote 5, p. 71). Is the uniting of fundamentalists with liberals in the text/translation issue a new way to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ?

A third factor for the book's failure is its misstatement of fact. Several authors declare that the variants between the modern texts/translations and the Textus Receptus (TR) and the Authorized Version are so small ("less than one page of my entire Testament" p. 86) that no concern should be taken (pp. 97,183). The fact of the matter is that the Critical Text of Westcott-Hort differs from the TR, mostly by deletions, in 9,970 words out of 140,521, giving a total of 7% difference. In the 480-page edition of the Trinitarian Bible Society Textus Receptus this would amount to almost 34 pages, the equivalent of the final two books of the New Testament, Jude and Revelation. This certainly does not sound like "no cause for concern."

Furthermore, no fundamentalist would deny that the 93% common text is the very inspired and preserved wording of the autographa. What one does with the remaining 7% is the crux of the issue. Does one receive the preserved words of God as found in the Received Bible, or does one attempt to restore/reconstruct what God allegedly has not preserved?

Another misstatement of fact is that Textual Criticism is a pure, objective, and untainted discipline. Shaylor states, "textual criticism, not to be confused with other types of criticism, is not a negative attitude toward the inspiration of the Bible. It is in reality an effort to assure us that we have the inspired Word of God" (p. 24, cf. p. 61). This statement is insensitive to historical fact and oblivious to Biblical teaching. Historically, Biblical Criticism as a movement (17-19th Century) and all its spawned criticisms (higher, lower [textual], form, literary, historical, etc.) are permeated with anti-supernatural, evolutionary rationalism. The tenets of Textual Criticism, such as the oldest is best and the shorter is probable, bespeak the evolutionary principle of simple to complex. The Received Text is not the product of evolution and conflation, whereas the Critical Text not only is the product of rationalism but also manifests textual "deflation." Man cannot restore what God allegedly has not chosen to preserve. Biblically, the Lord Jesus Christ promised to preserve all of His Words (logoi, Matt. 24:35) for every generation (John 12:48). Assurance in God's having inspired and preserved His Words does not come through Textual Criticism but through "faith [which] cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Rom.10:17). This is the historical faith of those of whom Jesus declared, "My sheep hear my voice" (John 10:27).

A fourth factor for the book's failure is the extreme defense of fallible mortals such as Westcott and Hort. Williams assures the readers that "these men are now with the Lord" (p. 4). This is a gratuitous assumption that cannot possibly be proved and shows the "hero-worship" mentality of the Critical Text proponents (pp. 6, 212). The proponents of the Received Text position do not, on their part, magnify the men involved. The originator of the Received Text is not Erasmus, Stephens, Beza, Burgon, Wilkinson, Hills, or Fuller, but the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. He it was Who promised to preserve all of His words perfectly and requires believers to receive them (John 17:8, 20). He is the sovereign One alone worthy of exaltation, Who both promised verbal plenary preservation and used fallible men to achieve it.

A fifth factor causing the failure of From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man to achieve its purposes is the unbiblical nature of the major premise of the Westcott-Hort position. The very title of the book suggests that God gave His concepts to man so man could translate His concepts into translations. Fundamentalists have rejected the liberal Conceptual Inspiration View of Scripture and presently defend Verbal Plenary Inspiration. It is very difficult to understand why fundamentalists resist the Biblical and theological teaching of the Verbal Plenary Preservation View and yet default to the dangerous Conceptual Preservation View. Westcott and Hort wanted to restore the 4th Century text, based on Catholic (B) and Egyptian (papyri) MSS, arguing that there was no textual tampering and utilizing inapplicable Genealogies, assumed Text-types, and the supposed Lucianic Rescension to dispose of the Textus Receptus. The goal of modern Textual Criticism is to restore or reconstruct the Biblical text (p. 106) that God apparently chose not to preserve. The liberals' humanistic approach seems obvious, but why do some fundamentalists fail to see that the Lord does not need man's help? It is strange indeed for fundamentalists to countenance liberal views, either deliberately or by default.

A sixth factor for failure is the book's acrimonious spirit not towards liberals, modernists, neo-evangelicals, or charismatics, but towards other fundamentalists. The very attitude Pickering denounces in his Preface runs rampant throughout the essays. He bemoans that some KJV proponents have practiced "vilification of character, personal attacks, and a generally unchristian spirit." He assures the reader that "the authors of this work have presented their information objectively and without attacks on the character of their opponents" (p. ix). But such is not the case. The author who betrays the most glaring example of an acrimonious spirit is Williams the editor. He deliberately lumps all that use the KJV into one of the five categories of King James Version Onlyism concocted by James White (who is no expert in the field of bibliology). Williams labels all of these who are lumped together (where do fundamentalists of his stripe fit in?) as extreme (pp. 2-3). Without any evident distinction, Williams attacks representatives from the various categories of the whole spectrum as "misguided misinformers," whose heresies are a "cancerous sore" (p. 7). The book thus gives evidence of a double standard.

Hypocrisy is the seventh factor for the book's failure. Both Minnick and Gephart argue that the text/translation issue may be a "rabbit trail." They argue that no one should be beating their drums for or against the KJV but rather be preaching Christ. Gephart questions the worth of the issue, asking, "can we afford to spend so much time on this issue?" (p. 218; cf. 97-98). Is not their hypocrisy apparent that they can spend time and money writing this 231-page book, using twelve authors and the input of eight academicians, and yet the defenders of the KJV have no right to do the same? They evidently feel that the time spent to produce their book is well spent, but time spent by their opponents is ill spent. Such an attitude is partisan hypocrisy. It shows a Catholic-like lordliness of silencing the opposition and has no place among fundamental Baptists.

The eighth and final factor for the book's failure is the unscriptural call for unity at the expense of doctrine (pp. xii, 2, 98). Since verbal plenary preservation is a teaching of Scripture (Pss. 12:6, 7;119:111,160; Luke 21:33, et al), it is a doctrine. Those who hold to differing doctrinal views concerning preservation or any other doctrine cannot and should not unite. Paul taught the Thessalonians to separate from those who held to a different eschatological doctrine and its resultant practice (2 Thess. 3:6,14). Should not fundamentalists follow this Pauline principle with regard to all biblical doctrines? Theological compromise is far worse than the lack of unity.

This dangerous call to compromise for the sake of unity is the second reason that From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man should be received with extreme caution. Historically, Bible-believing people have not hesitated to part from those taking a differing view of biblical doctrine. Now, however, the reader is being told that this issue, doctrinally significant though it may be, is nothing to separate over. Unity is more important. This is certainly an alarming trend among those who would call themselves fundamentalists.

In contrast to the opinion of the book's contributors, God has revealed both His intention to preserve perfectly all of His words for every generation and His means of doing so through the local churches (Matt. 4:4, 5:17 and Matt. 28:20; 1 Tim. 3:15, respectively). Liberals hold to Dynamic Inspiration. This leads to Dynamic Preservation, as manifested in the Critical Text, translated with Dynamic Equivalence to produce the Modern Versions. Historic fundamentalists hold to Verbal Plenary Inspiration which demands Verbal Plenary Preservation, manifested in the Textus Receptus, and translated with Formal Equivalence to produce the KJV. Strangely and dangerously, neofundamentalists hold mixed views regarding Verbal Plenary Inspiration, Dynamic Preservation, the Critical Text, Dynamic Equivalence, and Modern Versions. This mixed and fluid position moves in only one direction: away from fundamentalism and into liberalism. For one to take the initial step into this moving stream, either deliberately or by default, may lead to drowning in the ocean of apostasy.

The Lord Jesus Christ has required believers of all ages to receive His preserved words (John 17:8, 20; Acts 2:41; 8:14; 11:1; 17:11; 1 Thess. 1:6; 2:13). Since man cannot restore what God allegedly has not preserved, it is folly for fundamentalists to embrace any of the modern translations. Fundamentalists must return to the centuries-old confidence of God's people in the Traditional Text. They must not be swept away with the relatively recent, rationalistic theories of Westcott, Hort, and others. Fundamentalists must realize that we have the Lord's preserved words in the received texts of the Bible ( Masoretic Text and Textus Receptus). May Christians believe that the WORDS OF GOD have been given to the HEART OF MAN.

This BOOK REVIEW by Thomas M. Strouse, Ph.D. was taken from a 50-page book containing two reviews of "From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man." We are grateful to Pensacola Theological Seminary for publishing this book.

One worldism had its beginning with Satan. His every scheme to bring about a unity between devil worship and true religion are centered around his inmost desire to be worshiped. His primary ambition is to be like the Most High. (Isa. 14:14) His first significant challenge to man was to instill in him the same desire. "...and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil," sounded good to Adam and Eve in the garden. (Gen. 3:5) Satan's challenge to the Saviour was to "fall down and worship me." (Matt. 4:9) This thought planted in the human heart, not only lingers there but has germinated and taken root in the depraved mind of humanity. It is both cultivated and satanically enriched by the devil. Man's constant desire is to devised and implement a plan to reach into heaven. "Let us build us a city and a tower...let us make us a name, lest we be scattered," is the appeal made by all ecumenist. (Gen. 11:4) The same symptoms of the underlying disease called "me first," is now epidemic. (Luke 9:61) Modern ecumenists are even more determined to make "Let Me First" be their motto.

Realization of what changes ecumenicalism has brought about in the Lord's churches is largely overlooked or condoned. Whether this is a determined effort or simply a lackadaisical disregard, the fact is, entering into the worship(?) service of some Baptist churches is a shock to many of my generation. Do I believe I know what sincere worship should involve? I'm sure I would be shocked as well, to travel back to the days of Jesus' ministry on earth and listen to His teaching first hand. One thing is certain, all worship to God the Father and His Son must be Holy Spirit led if it is to be glorifying to God. Far too much of so-called worship to God is noticeably glorification of the flesh. To say the least, going in that direction is disturbing to any pastor concerned about the future of the Lord's church under his care.

The discussion considered here entails old ideas under new management. Although they are called new proposals they are simply new administrations of an old theory.

Sectarianism must go if the new ecumenists are permitted to succeed. Don't talk of your God as though He were the only god, is their campaign platform. No ecumenist can possibly believe in the Holy Trinity of the true God. God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are in unity and are one God. The God of the Old Testament is the same God of the New Testament. Those who wonder why the separate divisions of religion or denominations should be as they are, also want to defragment God to accommodate their personal whims of religious thinking. "Why should the Baptists be over here, the Anglicans over there, a few Orthodox in the corner, and a few Presbyterians down the hall," someone has asked? New ecumenists are simply joining the chant of the by-gone days of Sanballat and Geshem to Nehemiah to "meet together in some one of the villages in the plain of Ono." "Ono" has the underlying suggestion of making an effort with the strength to succeed. To follow their suggestion would mean a turn to vanity or emptiness that would lead to wicked rebellion against a Holy God. Their intent was to stop the progress of rebuilding the fallen down work of God. (Neh. 6:2) Oh, for the wisdom of Nehemiah to ponder their purpose: "But they thought to do me mischief."

As surely as Satan made the forbidden fruit attractive to Eve, the new ecumenist will point out every presumable advantage of breaking down denominational barriers. A few years back it was the Full Gospel Business Men's Fellowship, later the Promise Keepers movement, and others, appearing on the global state to perform. Today it is the Regeneration Forum and the Vine movement, along with others, all having the same initiative, to propagate what they call the "defragmentation of the church," bringing all religions under the same canopy to worship the god of their choice. These folks do not have the faintest clue of the true nature of the Lord's church. And very likely many of these folks do not know the true Foundation of the church. (1 Cor 3:11) "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." So what is the problem?

If the new ecumenists can make their religious commodities attractive enough, those weak in doctrinal teaching will sooner or later purchase their wares. Is this happening? Most assuredly. Many of the Lord's churches today are buying into Satan's religious market. Often legitimate spiritual desires of the heart can be beguiled into perverted actions in the name of religion. Various personal and collective crusades have been conceived in sundry places and times, yet all fulfilling their purpose to the end result of ecumenism.

Centering our thought on one in particular will be adequate to represent my point. In August 1940, with WWII raging in Europe, a young man left his native Switzerland and settled in a small community named Taize, in eastern France. His desire to be free from Nazi tyranny and to pray and provide shelter for refugees, especially Jews, was certainly admirable. Others joined him in his prayer life. One article stated their lives became rooted in a tradition akin to life in a monastery. Six decades later, to join this community or brotherhood, making a life of commitment to celibacy and to material and spiritual sharing is a must. It has grown into a doctrine of religion of prayer and worship for some 90 dedicated members. Today, Taize is a place to which hundreds of thousands of visitors of all ages and backgrounds go on pilgrimages, to participate in prayer and to reflect on this style of worship.

To do so means to pray in the Taize style, or commit to the ecumenical "Taize Prayer." For those who attend, it means being invited to the "living springs of the Gospel through song, prayer and meditation. This includes lengthy prayers, mostly silent in subdued lighting, with candles and a cross at the center of worship."

Many of their claims sound inviting to all religions. Sadly some Baptist are lured unknowingly into such a trap. They discern that if some of their religious philosophies are good, surely their doctrine can't possibly be totally wrong. They believe singing is one of the most important forms of prayer. So it was to Israel as is evidenced in the Psalms. A few words sung over and over again help them to reinforce their meditation in prayer, they believe. The repetition of their chants seem more appealing than that of hymns. Their chants and repetitive singing last as long as people want to sing. They have convinced many that these gestures, if continued long enough, will become a prayer from the heart which awakens the spirit of God within us.

Is there such an atmosphere of worship in denominational religion today? Yes, there are such overtones in many churches today. Sadly, the Lord's church is becoming more vulnerable to this style of worship which appeals to the flesh, but does nothing toward spiritual edification.

Baptist churches that I have attended in recent years are as varied in worship style as the number of churches attended. Yet for the most part, their singing is basically the singing of the old hymns of churches of the past. However, some in recent years have given way to the popularity of choruses. The repetition of a few words, which may even sound worshipful, may go on for several minutes. One phrase of such a chorus is "Lean On Me." Proverbs 3:5 is not the inspirational scripture that brought this theme to the forefront. It was the ecumenical idea that every person needs someone else to lean on, and every denomination needs the other for progressive work and worship. That in itself may seem the perfect solution, since the Lord's church is to "comfort one another," "exhort the brethren," and to pray for one another. Yet when this chorus is portrayed in worship service, all ages from the very young to the hoary headed can be seen physically leaning on one another. It soon evolves into a ceremony, with gleeful laughter to the point of near defiance of true spirituality.

At one time any Baptist church that entertained any thought of departing from the standard procedure in worship forfeited the right to associate with faithful churches of the Lord. Today it is just the opposite. The church that does not employ popular songs, singing, and worldly tactics to enhance growth and worship is esteemed less than progressive, and unworthy of recognition. Carnival-like worship services are becoming more popular each passing week. Gimmicks from "Tacky Parties" for the elderly to "Teen Retreats" of chanting and swaying for the youth, are conducted in the name of true worship to God. Both `tacky' and `retreat' express the truth of both such activities. Tacky: run down, lacking in style, tasteless and gaudy, are only a few parallel expressions. Retreat: withdrawal, backing down, escaping an attack from the enemy. Such activity is extra-church, though they may have had an innocent beginning. Beware!

Disbursement of funds. Tithes and offerings from members of the local church are the biblical means of supporting the spiritual and physical functioning of the church. Basic requirements are obvious, such as maintenance and accounts attached to modern facilities. Biblical financial responsibilities included are the pastor's monetary and economical needs. The support of missionaries and their scriptural projects in establishing churches under the authority of the local church, are to be financed by the same method.

However, other projects and other means of support are devised by the intuitive nature of man apart from spiritual insight. Everything from bake sales, to ball parks, to bingo games are enterprisingly used for various projects, from building payments to child care facilities. With regularity young people ring doorbells throughout their community selling all sorts of goods for a `project in their church.' The lamentable thing about this is the adults behind this operation are implanting in the next generation that the end justifies the means of accomplishment. When a church has more projects than their tithes and offering can support, one of two things is wrong. Either the members have not been taught how to give, or refuse to listen to the teaching, or their projects are displeasing to the Lord and are void of His blessings.

Most of the reasoning behind unbiblical programs and projects result from observing other denomination's methods of meeting their financial objectives. To incorporate methods is one of the first steps to breaking down other barriers and joining the ecumenical movement. How can the Lord's church possibly improve on God's principle of meeting the needs that arise in service to Him?

Consider with me again the regular worship services of the church.

Difference in singing. Church singing was touched on earlier in this article. I cannot leave this without expanding these thoughts. It is becoming more acceptable to pattern worship service to the Lord by duplicating worldly entertainment. Often little difference can be seen between the spiritual(?) and the profane. Worldly entertainers have crossed boundaries and combined so-called religious songs in their appearances. The likes of Amy Grant leading large gatherings of people in a one line, often repeated chorus, as the crowd sways with arms waving, faces lifted upward in a self-righteous appearance that could deceive the devil himself. I'm sure this will ruffle the spiritual feathers of many, and likely I will be censured by some. However, if you have been taught what music means to worship and have forgotten or forsaken the teaching, or if you have not heard and simply have fallen into this trap, please, listen to the following statements.

Has the Lord's church surrendered to the ecumenical practice of improper music? Some of the remaining thoughts on this subject are gleaned from an article in the Baptist Press, 7/25/01. The author of this article, Jeff Robinson, quotes from statements made by Professor of Music Ken Puls, Dallas Baptist University, spoken at the 2001 Southern Baptist Founders Conference, July 17-20. The professor said, "Music used in corporate church worship should not seek to amuse, entertain or manipulate congregations; rather, every text and tune should be carefully and thoughtfully informed by Scripture." Manipulation for response at earthly meetings is the goal of professional entertainers. Why would leaders of the Lord's church want to move a congregation by music or trickery to respond in a manner not being led by the Holy Spirit? For the same reason worldly entertainers do in their profession: to have a larger crowd at the next meeting.

All too often music "competes with preaching and teaching for supremacy in the contemporary church, when it should serve as an underpinning for the proclamation of God's Word." A church is blessed who has a music director who not only selects hymns that glorify God as opposed to the flesh, but music that adds to the message of the pastor. It was brought out there is "no other ministry in the church that has so great a potential to help or to hinder preaching in the church than music." I have noticed it seems virtually impossible for a pastor to settle down himself and the congregation after a session of swaying and bumping while a chorus was chanted. Those involved would be hard put to deny that such music had more of a physical than spiritual effect on them, if indeed they understand the difference.

It is a true statement that "the music in your church has the potential to become an obstacle to worship [by] amusing, distracting, entertaining the people and, as a result, minimizing and trivializing the preaching of the Word of God, or worse, contradicting the pastor who is trying to be faithful in preaching the Word to the congregation." What is equally disturbing is if the pastor leads in or allows music more entertaining than evangelizing. It is tempting in some cases to think the pastor is more interested in entertaining the congregation than edifying the saints.

The sad truth is that many select a church to attend based on their style of music more than on preaching and teaching. Regardless of their age most people will become offended by criticism of their style of music more than of any other characteristic of their worship. Criticism of the pastor's preaching is more acceptable to some church members than to censure their music. When music is decided as a matter of taste, the high purpose of singing praises to the Lord have fallen by the wayside. As surely as body gyrations generate carnal feelings, it is equally certain that lyrics can destroy any acceptance of Holy Spirit conviction.

What then is the value of proper music? Improper music could change the eternal destiny of souls. It could impede true spiritual progress in a young believer, or in any believer for that matter. To say that music patterned after the world makes poor church music seems flimsy in expressing objection. For a church to indulge in much of the sensual appearance and theatrical sounds of CCM and spiritual chants is poor witness to a lost world. The world can see little if any difference in church life and style than their own. The Lord's church is salt, not sugar. It is to purify lives, not putrefy souls. It is certain that such musical sounds and words bring some sort of a spiritual high to some, but it will soon fade away, leaving a void similar to the soul that was empty, swept, and garnished. (Matt. 12:44) Especially when a dear pastor with biblical convictions concerning proper worship, tries to preach afterwards. The same crowd elevated to a harmful spiritual high will drop to a spiritual low when the preaching begins. Drowsiness nourished by a disrespect for the preached Word of God overcomes the hearer. The last state of that person is worse than the first. (Matt. 12:45)

Remember, whether it is a chorus jingle, contemporary Christian music, or rock, popular music, it all comes under the same title. It is entertainment to the flesh originating in the heart. The primary purpose, whether recognizable or not, is the earnest desire to bring all denominations under the same religious roof. Beware of falling prey to the deceitful strategies of Satan.

The published papers of this heretical sect go out under the name of Millennial Dawnism. It had its beginning with Charles T. Russell in 1881, in Pennsylvania. Its chief factor during the early years in the propagation of its theories was The International Bible Students' Association.

Russell was succeeded by J.F. Rutherford in 1916. Now the followers of this cult call themselves Jehovah's Witnesses. They pose as God-sent apostles; in this they are arch- deceivers. Perhaps no sect on earth could more rightly be classed as the agents of Satan. Their literature goes out under the name of "Watch Tower Tract and Bible Society" and "The Golden Age Publishing Company." Let all beware of the publications. They will sell them if they can; if not, they will give them away.

Mr. Russell, during the early years of his "ministry" was involved in many lawsuits, losing most of them. His wife was granted a limited decree divorce.

"Judge" Rutherford, it is reliably claimed, was never a judge at all; the name is pure sham. His writings are spiritual poison, anti-Scriptural, and designed to deceive the unsophisticated. Perhaps it has rightly been termed "distilled blasphemy."

Russellism, through "Jehovah's Witnesses," denies the following plain teachings of God's Word:

1. The God-head Trinity. Of this They Say:

"The doctrine of the trinity of the Godhead well suited the dark ages which it helped to produce."
"Trinitarian nonsense, taught by gray-haired professors in theological seminaries."

Of this doctrine the Bible declares that the Trinity consists of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit." Every convert is to be baptized in "the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Matt. 28:19). Jesus said: "I and my Father are one." (John 10:30). There is not a single passage in all Scripture that contradicts this fact.

2. Jesus Christ, Man's Redeemer. Of Him Russellites Say:

"The man Jesus is dead forever dead."

"The man Christ Jesus never rose from the dead."

The Bible in the most emphatic words declares Jesus to have been resurrected.

(1) The fact proclaimed by an angel "He is not here: for he is risen" (Matt. 28:6).
(2) The fact demonstrated by His personal presence "... he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred...at once." (1Cor. 15:5-6). He was seen by women in the garden where He was buried, the apostles witnessed an empty grave. His ascension to the Father was witnessed by the apostles "Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven." (Acts 1:11). These passages Russellites flatly deny. It is strange indeed that any intelligent person would be so gullible
as to swallow the heresy of Russellism when so obviously manifest in this connection.
(3)The fact taught as a doctrine "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried and that he arose again the third day according to the scriptures." (1Cor. 15:3-4).

Paul further declares that belief in this doctrine is man's only hope of redemption.

Of Jesus Russellites further say:
"Jesus Christ was not a combination of the human and the divine. When in the flesh He was a perfect human being, nothing more."

In this statement Russellites deny the deity of Jesus.
Jesus said that He was God.
"He that hath seen me hath seen the Father." (John 14:9).
"I and my Father are one." (John 10:30).

Therefore if Jesus was not God, He was the greatest fraud ever perpetrated upon a world...and it would be inconsistent to say that He was the "perfect man."

To deny the deity of Jesus is:

(1) Illogical and nonsensical, provided one is to accept even a fraction of the vast Biblical proofs of His relationship with the Father.
(2) Unscriptural and anti-Biblical. Jesus claimed to have "come forth from the Father." (John 16:28). In His memorable prayer in John 17, Jesus prayed: "O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." Many times did Jesus testify of the union of the Father and the Son ere He came to earth, as a "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Rev. 13:8).
(3) Untruthful and deceptive. There is not one solitary word in the Bible to sustain this theory. It is designed purely to deceive the ignorant.

3. The Virgin Birth.

In denying the deity of Jesus, Russellites of necessity logically deny the fact of the Virgin Birth.
Of this doctrine the Bible says:

First: it was predicted by the prophet "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (Isaiah 7:14).

Second: it was a stated fact"And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shall call his name Jesus." (Luke 1:31). Of the process God says: "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." (Luke 1:35).

Third: it was a doctrine taught "But when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons." (Gal. 4:4-5).

4. Eternal Punishment.

In this connection Russellites make their basic theory to teach that in death there is a cessation of life, and that the "second death" taught in the Bible means eternal cessation of man's existence.
Nothing is further from the truth as taught in God's Word, which teaches in the most unmistakable terms that man can never die, and that he spends eternity in either Heaven or Hell, the latter a place " Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." (Mark 9:44).The punishment of the wicked is called "everlasting punishment" (Matt 25:46), but the righteous go into "life eternal" (Matt 25:46). Whatever the meaning of "eternal," this is the measure of human existence. This Russellism flatly denies a denial of the plain teachings of
God's Word.

Russellism is a mixture of Universalism and Unitarianism, giving hope to some, and making some cease to exist at death; those having hope being those whom God favors because of an acceptable life. It denies the fact of a judgment, a doctrine so plainly taught in God's Word "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment." (Heb. 9:27). This verse teaches two unmistakable facts:

(1) That death does not end all, even for the wicked.
(2) That there is a judgment appointed for all men. In Acts 17:31 God says: "He hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead." Paul declares: "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in the body... whether it be good or bad." (II Cor. 5:10).

That there is to be a resurrection of all men, the Bible plainly asserts: "Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation." (John 5:28-29).

Russellites are adepts in mistranslations. They make "everlasting destruction" mean "cessation of life," when it means "everlasting punishment" in "everlasting fire." It never means anything else. The everlasting suffering of the wicked runs current with the eternal bliss of the righteous. The "everlasting destruction" of the wicked is understood best in the language "from the presence of the Lord" (II Thess. 1:9), meaning punished in a place and to a degree, where all hope is forever gone "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched," separated from God, Heaven, and the redeemed by an impassable chasm (Luke 16:26).

Russellites are prone to refer to Gospel preachers as "hell fire screechers." It is interesting to consider why these "no-hell" propagandists spend their time, money, and effort to transverse sea and land to tell people that there is no Hell, no life for the wicked after death. If there are none, why awake a man at midnight to tell him that his house is not on fire, if it is not on fire?

The devil knows that there is a Hell, and there is a life after death, and because of this, he is, by sheer deception, and the use of Jehovah's Witnesses, and other satanic agencies, seeking to damn the souls of men in Hell, a place from which there is no escape.

The whole consideration of this entire matter hinges on whether or not one is to accept the Bible or the heretical theories of Jehovah's Witnesses. They are wholly and completely, so far as I am able to see, at variance one with the other. If there is no Hell, there is no Heaven.

5. Redemption Through Christ. Of This Russellism Says:

"The ransom given by Jesus Christ does not guarantee everlasting life, or blessing to any man. The atonement was for the first Adam."

If Jesus was anything, He was man's Redeemer. He Himself said: "I came that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly." (John 10:10). This fact Paul declared: "In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins." (Eph 1:7). Peter declared the same doctrine: "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree." (I Peter 2:24). All this was in fulfillment of Isaiah 53. Scores of other scriptures could be quoted teaching the same thing.

All this Russellites deny. May God pity them.

(B. H. Hillard was Pastor of Lockland Baptist Church, Cincinnati, OH 19331951. Many good Independent Baptist preachers surrendered to preach under his ministry, including Norman H. Wells, and Charles Ashcraft.)

The Baptist Challenge, edited by M. L. Moser is now on the World Wide Web. It will not be mailed through the mail, but will be posted at the following Web Site:

This Web Site is sponsored by Central Baptist Church, Little Rock, AR. Many back issues of The Baptist Challenge will be posted. It will resume publication on the Web with the August 2001 issue.

The Baptist Challenge, edited by M. L. Moser, is not to be confused with the Plains Baptist Challenger, edited by E. L. Bynum. They are two entirely different publications. The Web Site for the Plains Baptist Challenger is as follows: