Water Witching (Dowsing) and Other "Paranormal" Powers

Water Witching (Dowsing) and Other "Paranormal" Powers

(Also see the Astrology, the Shroud, and Theomatics study papers)

Of course it's easy and proper for many folks to quickly and positively dismiss water witchers (dowsers, diviners, etc.) who claim supernatural help in performing their `miraculous' work.  If you wish to follow the Bible, then you cannot do such things.   They would be a form of divination which is strongly condemned in the Bible.

But what about those who use such things and who are convinced that they have merely learned to use natural God-made forces?   (Also see the ASTROLOGY study paper.)

They might tell you that this natural force is merely one that science has yet to discover, but that they have somehow managed to learn to use.  It is, they might say, no different from an early European explorer amazing the natives by using a magnet to find buried iron or find his way with a mysterious north-pointing needle or using a miraculous glass lens to magnify objects and even start fires!

Well, the difference is that the explorer could have given the magnet or the compass or the lens to anyone and, with very little instruction, it would have worked perfectly every time for him.   The forces of nature (including magnetism and light rays, of course) do not work in some mysterious selective fashion anymore than gravity or any other natural force.

If a `force' can be made to work only sporadically (and even then only for a few special individuals), then it is bogus.   It must be capable of being proven.

Any test devised to prove the existence of a real force in nature must (1), be capable of being duplicated by anyone who follows the appropriate steps.  And (2), it must be devised in such a way that the tester can not possibly manipulate the results (whether intentionally or otherwise).[1]

In the case of the so-called paranormal, the subject will most often claim that since it is some extra-ordinary gift that has been bestowed on him (and not on most other people) that detects and uses the mysterious force in question, we must forgo rule #1 above.   This is a very strong indicator for quackery.  Nevertheless, we should be able to plan and execute rule #2 carefully and precisely enough to prevent the results being tainted by self-deception or outright quackery.

The method James Randi used in his test of "water witching"[2] sets a high standard for this sort of thing.  If there is any truth to the claims of water witchers that they can find buried objects, water, or anything else, this should prove (or disprove) it!

First, he offered a legitimate prize of $10,000 to anyone who might pass his test in any of a number of categories, including water-witching.  Then he outlined exactly what each test would entail and what results were required as proof.  Not only would those who passed his test receive the $10,000, but they would receive the endorsement of Randi and his organization (which would mean much more than the $10,000 in promotion for the person's business!).

The dowsing (water-witching) test was written out as follows:

1.  In a 10-by-10-meter area, pipes 3 centimeters in diameter have been buried at a depth of 50 centimeters.

2.  There are three different paths of three different lengths available, one to be chosen at random for each test.

3.  Three tests will be performed with each person, and the same path may be used more than once, since the choice is random.

4.  The chosen path may enter at any point on any side of the square and exit at any point on any side of the square.

5.  First, the dowser must scan the area for any natural water or other distractions (metal or other objects) and mark these `natural' places.

6. Any secondary distractions will be outlined on the ground visibly.

7.  Second, the dowser must demonstrate, on an exposed water pipe, while the water is running, that the dowsing reaction is present.

8.  The dowser will determine the path of the flowing water in the pipe being used, and this path will be marked on the ground.

9.  The dowser will place from ten to one hundred pegs in the ground along the path he traces.

10. To be counted, a peg must be placed within 10 centimeters [nearly 4 inches] of the center of the pipe being traced.

11.  Two thirds of the pegs put in the ground in each of the three tests for each dowser must be placed within the limits specified by condition 10 for the test to be considered a success.

12.  Placement of each peg will be transferred to a scale chart by the surveyor to the satisfaction of the dowser, who will sign this chart along with Mr. Randi, the lawyer, and other witnesses.

13.  No results will be announced until all tests are finished and the location of the pipes is revealed.

14.  After a dowser has performed, he will be isolated from those yet to be tested.

15.  Two out of three of the tests must be successful (as in condition 11) for the dowser to have passed the testing condition.

16. If a dowser passes the test (conditions 11 and 15), the check for $10,000, which has been deposited with the lawyer, will be awarded to him. If no dowser is successful, the check will be returned to Mr. Randi.

17.  If the test is failed, no further claim may be made against Mr. Randi.

Of course, efforts were made to ensure that the very few individuals who knew the layout of the pipe system were unable to communicate this knowledge to anyone else until the tests were completed.  It would also have been proper technique to keep them away from the site during each test so that they couldn't possibly give any clue, even inadvertently.

Only four established dowsers were brave enough to make the attempt in a 1979 test in Italy.  I expect they honestly believed they had the ability that others swore they had.  They seemed supremely confident.

I have heard of some dowsers who claim 100-percent success in their attempts to find water and of others who claim only 90 percent.  The sad fact is that dowsers are no better at finding water than anyone else. Drill a well almost anywhere in an area where water is geologically possible, and you will find it.  Dowsers have the strange notion that water travels in underground rivers, and they will happily trace these hidden torrents for you. But geologists know otherwise. - p. 315.

All four failed completely and spectacularly!

As Mr. Randi concluded:

All the dowsers who were tested had failed.  The two who "found" natural water disagreed spectacularly [about its location], and those who found no water disagreed too.  All had positive dowsing reactions and were certain they were correct, but actually they had detected nothing at all.  All had considerable reputations as successful dowsers, yet all asserted that this was the first time they had undergone a test that was controlled and could be checked thoroughly for correctness!  Only a method similar to the one I designed could settle the matter once and for all.    Their first and only proper tests had proved the subjects did not have the ability to dowse.  Yet I am quite sure that these people still claim they are dowsers.  Incredible?  Yes, but typical. - p. 324.

Mr. Randi has kept his $10,000 offer, first offered in 1964, open to all who will submit to a fair, objective test.  Over 650 persons had applied in various `paranormal' categories at the time his book was first published (1982).  Not one ever passed a proper, objective test.  [I believe that the offer is now $1,000,000 - Jan 2007 - RDB]

Jehovah's Witnesses have written about this subject also:

From the AWAKE! magazine:

Dowsing - Scientific or Occult?

"AMAZING!" exclaimed a dairy farmer in the Midwestern United States.  A slender peach limb was jerking and twisting violently in his hands.  He dug his fingernails into the bark to hold the branch steady, but the downward force was strong. " It even left pieces of bark in my hands," he gasped, awestruck.  He was still more amazed later when he found water by digging in the exact spot that the limb had pointed out.  What was going on here?

The farmer was practicing what is often called dowsing, water witching, or water divining.  Often, the dowser holds a forked branch in his hands and paces about, concentrating on his search for water.  Suddenly, his dowsing rod may behave erratically.  Some rods jerk toward the ground, others snap upward, even striking the dowser's face or chest, while still others just barely move.  In any such case, the dowser feels that there is water below.  Dowsing is practiced around the world.  According to one estimate, some 25,000 dowsers ply their trade in the United States alone.

Is It Scientific?

Is there some scientific principle that makes dowsing work?  The question has long been controversial.  Over 70 years ago, the Watchtower magazine reasoned this way:  "We would not wish to be in an attitude of disregarding any of nature's laws, but it seems passing strange that a small trickle of water fifteen or twenty feet [5 or 6 m] below the surface of the earth would have magnetic power enough to bend a willow withe when a whole creek full of water will in no wise affect the same stick.... There must therefore be something other than the operation of natural laws."

Still, many dowsers insist that dowsing is a science.  In fact, The American Society of Dowsers calls itself "a non-profit, educational and scientific Society."  Over the years, more than a few scientists have emerged to call upon some new branch of science to explain dowsing.   In the 1700's it was "emanations" from atomic particles that made dowsing work.  In the 1800's it was electricity.  In our century it has been everything from radioactivity to electromagnetism to human psychology.

More recently, in 1979, the reputable New Scientist magazine published seemingly plausible theories on dowsing.  An energy consultant and a geologist speculated that the human body itself might be supersensitive to subtle changes in electric, magnetic, or electromagnetic fields caused by underground water or ore.

But such theories have failed to win wide acceptance among scientists.  In fact, in The Encyclopedia Americana, Harvard University scientists E. Z. Vogt and L. K. Barrett dismiss dowsing this way: "Controlled field and laboratory tests have failed to establish the validity of dowsing, and judged by scientific standards the practice has little basis in fact. " In November 1990, dowsers submitted to 720 experiments in Kassel, Germany.  Although they were pleased with the conditions of the tests and were confident of success, the dowsers failed; they had only fluky successes in detecting underground water and metals.

The monthly magazine Naturwissenschaftliche Rundschau concluded that when judged scientifically, dowsing is "as reliable as flipping a coin."  Other such experiments have ended similarly.

Dowsers explain such failures in strange terms.  Some complain, for instance, that the tests make them doubt their abilities or lead them to dowse for motives that are not right or serious enough.  Such factors, they claim, make them lose their powers temporarily.  In fact, a number of dowsers have found that after a lifetime of successful dowsing, it is the one time when they really need to prove themselves that their powers suddenly vanish - or mislead them.  Some therefore conclude that the force behind dowsing has a perverse sense of humor.

Does this sound like science to you?  After all, natural forces (those measurable by methods known to science) do not have a sense of humor, perverse or otherwise; nor are they whimsical.  They are constant.  They do not fluctuate according to the mood, mind-set, or motives of those who test or measure them.  Thus, to most scientists dowsing is a superstition - nothing more.  In fact, even prominent dowsers have agreed that no force known to science can account for dowsing.

Is It Fake?

But does this absence of a scientific explanation mean that all reported cases of successful dowsing are either remarkable coincidences or outright fakes?  What about the farmer's experience mentioned at the outset - was it just a fluke, an isolated case?

Actually, the field of dowsing has produced innumerable well-attested stories.  For instance, a woman in Vermont called a dowser when the water supply to her house was cut off.  Apparently a long pipe running from a distant spring to the house had developed a leak.  The woman did not even know where the pipe was - it had been buried 30 years previously - let alone where the cracked section might be.  But the dowser mentally asked his rod, and it bobbed over a certain spot.  Six inches [15 cm] from there, the leaking piece of pipe was found.

Probably the most famous story concerns the noted American dowser Henry Gross.  Geologists were convinced that fresh water could not be found underground in Bermuda.  The Saturday Evening Post reported: "Gross spread out a map of Bermuda in [novelist Kenneth] Roberts's home in Kennebunkport, Maine, and passing his divining rod over it, marked three places where fresh water was to be found . . . To check his findings, Gross and Roberts flew to Bermuda, persuaded the government to provide drilling equipment, and went to work.  A few months later, in April 1950, all three wells had come in as Gross had said they would."

Dowsers claim to have found water for wells by the thousands.  Reporters have accompanied dowsers, have seen the rods jerk so violently that the dowser's hands blistered, and have heard dowsers predict even the depth of the water below.  They have seen the wells drilled and the predictions verified.  While science may not supply viable reasons why this phenomenon works, it clearly does work - at least for some people, sometimes.  Why?

A Revealing History

The history of dowsing is quite revealing in this regard.  The practice may well have been around for thousands of years.  But it was in 1556, when physician Georgius Agricola wrote his landmark work on mining, De Re Metallica, that the first detailed description of dowsing was recorded.  German miners were using the practice to find veins of metal ore.  But even then there was controversy over whether dowsing was a natural or an occult phenomenon.  Agricola noted that some objected to the practice, since "the twigs [dowsing rods] will not move for everybody, but only for those who employ incantations and craft."  As dowsing spread across Europe, the controversy spread with it.  Martin Luther condemned it, and other church leaders later followed suit.  To appease such clergymen, some dowsers had their rods baptized, and they invoked their Trinitarian God when dowsing.

For many dowsers, looking for water and mineral deposits was not enough.  They found more and more uses for the rod.  In 17th-century France, Jacques Aymar began dowsing to find criminals!  Reportedly, he was dowsing for water one day when his rod jerked violently at the grave of a murdered woman.  The rod then lurched toward the woman's husband, who promptly fled. Aymar - and many imitators - used the dowsing rod to flush out criminals all over Europe.  Catholic zealots even enlisted Aymar and his dowsing rod to help them hunt down Protestants to slaughter.

The Occult Connection

Not surprisingly, even in Aymar's day there were "experts" who thought they could explain such feats scientifically.  They theorized that Aymar's dowsing rod was picking up mysterious "emanations" unique to murderers, which they dubbed "murderous matter."  Clearly, though, Aymar's feats had little to do with science.  The force behind what Aymar did was intelligent.  It could pick out criminals, differentiate between Protestant and Catholic, and find water and minerals as well.

Similarly, how could anything but an intelligent force be behind map dowsing, where the rod points out water sources on a mere map of a distant location?  Some dowsers have found lost wallets, passports, jewelry, and even people by dowsing with a pendulum over a map.  Some watch for the dowsing instrument's response to yes or no questions.  In the 1960's some U.S. Marines used dowsing rods to locate tunnels, land mines, and booby traps in Vietnam.  Today, the dowsing rod is increasingly popular as a tool of the paranormal.  It is used to predict the future, to look for `ghosts,' and to investigate `past lives.'

Author Ben G. Hester was originally convinced that dowsing was simply a "not-yet-understood physical phenomenon."  But after eight years of investigating the subject, he wrote the book Dowsing-an Exposé of Hidden Occult Forces.  In it he equates the dowsing rod with such devices as Ouija boards.  He found that some dowsers claim the ability to heal people - or make them sick - with a dowsing rod!  Similarly, dowser Robert H. Leftwich wrote in his book Dowsing-The Ancient Art of Rhabdomancy: "The energies being tapped probably belong to powers that . . . are closely allied to those practised in witchcraft.  Careless experimentation can therefore be dangerous."

To true Christians, the foregoing has an unpleasant ring to it.  Whether real or fake, dowsing in such cases as noted above is clearly not science; it seems to be the occult.  As scientists Evon Z. Vogt and Ray Hyman summed up in Water Witching U.S.A.: "We therefore conclude that water witching is a clear-cut case of magical divination."

Should a Christian Dabble in Dowsing?

Of course, if dowsing is really an act of divination, a true Christian would want nothing to do with it.  God's people were commanded, as we read in the Bible at Deuteronomy 18:10: "There should not be found in you . . . anyone who employs divination, a practicer of magic or anyone who looks for omens or a sorcerer."  The prophet Hosea bemoaned the Israelites' failure to heed this command, writing: "My people consult their block of wood, a rod answers their questions." - Hosea 4:12, The Jerusalem Bible.

Some might object, though, that they only indulge in the simplest form of dowsing: locating water.  But is water dowsing clean of all association with the occult?  It is interesting to note that dowsing instructors commonly teach students to tell the rod directly what they are looking for, as if it were an intelligent entity.  One dowsing instructor even tells his students to name the rod and address it by name!  Dowsers often ask their dowsing rods how far down the water source lies.  The rod begins to bob, and the dowser counts the number of times it does so.  The final tally equals the depth, in feet [meters], of the water source!  Does this not suggest that a hidden intelligence is at work?

Furthermore, water dowsing is associated with another practice that Jehovah's Witnesses have long been careful to avoid - ESP (extrasensory perception).  The Watchtower noted that connection back in 1962. [3] Shortly thereafter, the American Society of Dowsers responded with a letter: "We agree with the theory that dowsing is a form of ESP and that engaging in any form of ESP can lead to `possession' or the involvement with `wicked spirit forces' unless proper precautions are taken.   We must take exception, however, to your dogmatic advice of total abstinence."

What do you think?  If even the most ardent proponents of water dowsing admit that it carries a risk of involvement with wicked spirit forces or even of possession, should not a Christian want to abstain from such a practice?

`But doesn't dowsing do a lot of good?' some might ask. `Is that not proof that the force behind dowsing is benevolent?'  Sadly, no.  Remember, "Satan himself keeps transforming himself into an angel of light." (2 Corinthians 11:14)  Even in Bible times demons occasionally tried to gain favor and influence by uttering truths. - Acts 16:16-18.

Granted, we cannot assert dogmatically that each and every case of dowsing (and ESP as well) is scientifically unexplainable and must be caused by demons.  Without a doubt, there is much about the human mind and the forces of nature that still eludes the grasp of science.  And no doubt there are a great many dowsing and ESP feats that can be explained away as plain, old-fashioned fakery.  But since the history and current practice of dowsing is so inextricably intertwined with the occult, ESP, and spiritism, it is clearly too dangerous to be dismissed as a harmless trick.

No, when it comes to dowsing, "quit touching the unclean thing" still seems appropriate counsel. - 2 Corinthians 6:17. - pp. 12-16, Awake!, 22 April 1992.

.........................................................................

NOTES

1. There are many more people who are deluded (sometimes self-deluded) into belief in the non-existent than there are intentional hucksters. James Randi, noted hoax-buster, writes:

"Possession of a `high IQ' often has little to do with one's ability to function as a rational human being. It merely means that some admittedly imperfect tests indicate one has a better-than-average potential for good thinking. Like a scalpel that is never put to use by a skilled hand in a good cause, brainpower is often not put to work. .... So, if you have in the past fallen for the hucksters of [the paranormal], and if you are embarrassed by it all, take hope.  The smartest folks in the world are no smarter than you are when it comes to belief in the ridiculous." - pp. 210-211, Flim-Flam!

It should be added that critical thinking can be learned by anyone of average intelligence.  And critical thinking (how to reason and sift out all the distractions and irrelevancies to a proper investigation of the truth) is much more important than "intelligence"!  We have all fallen into the trap.  Sometimes we get out.  Sometimes we stay in it until we die.  If something is truly important to us, we must learn to investigate it properly!

2. Flim-Flam!, Prometheus Books, 1987 printing.

3. One such theory was reported on in the June 22, 1979, issue of Awake! In 1989 an extensive report on dowsing in The New Yorker magazine noted that today even the more conservative of American dowsers agree (tacitly) that ESP is the force behind dowsing.

For more, see:

Dowsing - Links to Information (Defend Jehovah's Witnesses)

Faith - Once Saved, Always Saved?

Faith, Believe, "Exercising Faith"

w90 12/1 p. 30 Questions From Readers:

• Why does the New World Translation at times render the Greek word pi·steu'o as "believe" (like most translations) and at other times as "exercise [or put] faith in"?

This is done to reflect different shades of meaning that are expressed by the Greek word pi·steu'o.

For example, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, by James Moulton, notes that early Christians clearly recognized "the importance of the difference between mere belief . . . and personal trust." Both these thoughts can be expressed using the Greek word pi·steu'o.

Often, the different shades of meaning of pi·steu'o must be discerned from the context. At times, though, different grammatical constructions help us to see what the writer had in mind. For example, if pi·steu'o is followed merely by a noun in the dative case, the New World Translation usually renders it simply as "believe" - unless the context indicates something different. (Matthew 21:25, 32; but see Romans 4:3.) If pi·steu'o is followed by the word e·pi', "on," it is generally rendered "believe on." (Matthew 27:42; Acts 16:31) If it is followed by eis, "to" [or "into" - RDB], it is usually translated "exercise faith in." - John 12:36; 14:1.

This latter rendering (which reminds us that pi·steu'o is related to the Greek word pi'stis, "faith") is in harmony with a comment in An Introductory Grammar of New Testament Greek, by Paul Kaufman. This work says: "Another construction which is common in the New Testament (especially in John's Gospel) is pisteuw [pi·steu'o] with eij [eis] and the accusative case [as found at John 3:16] . . . The whole construction of eij plus the accusative must be translated rather than attempting to translate the preposition eij as an isolated word. Faith is thought of as an activity, as something men do, i.e. putting faith into someone."

* * * * *


The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology
("Indispensable for advanced theological students and scholars as well as for ordinary Bible Students." - Christianity Today):

"pistij (pistis), faith; pisteuo (pisteuo), believe .... CL 1. (a) In classical Gk literature .... With reference to people, pisteuo means to obey." ....
"(b) Originally the word-group denoted conduct that honoured an agreement or bond. .... [p. 594]

"[NT] 2. Paul and the Pauline Tradition. .... `Faith' means receiving the message of salvation and conduct based on the gospel. .... [p. 601]

"4. The Understanding of Faith in the Rest of the NT. .... [James] demands renunciation of all conduct that conflicts with living faith and confession (1:6ff.). For him, faith and obedient conduct are indissolubly linked. Faith understood merely as trust and confession is not able to save. Only through obedience ... and conduct which fulfills the commandments of God does faith come to completion (James 2:22). .... For the thesis which Jas. wishes to argue is that `faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead' (2:17)." [pp. 603-605] - Vol. 1, Zondervan Publ., 1986.

* * * * *

The New Bible Dictionary (which Christianity Today describes as "true to the Bible as God's word" and "destined to become a standard that will be turned to often by students and ministers alike") says about pisteuo:

"The man who really believes God will, of course, act on that belief. In other words, a genuine belief that what God has revealed as true will issue in a true faith. .... [p. 367]

"Faith implies complete reliance on God and full obedience to God." [p. 368] - Tyndale House Publ., 1984.

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament tells us about pisteuo:

* * * * *

"C. Faith in Judaism. 1. The OT Legacy .... The OT [Septuagint] term, however, carries a stronger element [than in even the classical Greek] of acknowledgment and obedience. [pp. 852, 853]
"D. The pistis Group in the NT. .... 1. Continuation of the OT and Jewish Tradition..... b. pisteuo as `to obey.' Heb. 11 stresses that to believe is to obey, as in the OT. Paul in Rom. 1:8; 1 Th. 1:8 (cf. Rom. 15:18; 16:19) shows, too, that believing means obeying. He speaks about the obedience of faith in Rom. 1:5, and cf. 10:3; 2 Cor. 9:13." [pp. 853, 854] - Kittel & Friedrich, Eerdmans Publ., 1992 reprint.

* * * * *
The Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament ("a standard in the field") also tells us:

"4100.... a conviction, full of joyful trust, that Jesus is the Messish ... conjoined with obedience to Christ." - p. 511, Joseph H. Thayer, Baker Book House, 1977.

* * * * *
Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics
says concerning pisteuo specifically as found at John 3:16: 

"John 3:16 paj o[ pisteuwn [eij]
everyone who believes [into]
The idea seems to be both gnomic and continual: `everyone who continually believes.' 

This is not due to the present tense only, but to the use of the present participle 
[pisteuwn] of pisteuw." - p. 620, Daniel B. Wallace, Zondervan Publ., 1996.

* * * * *

Dr. William Barclay discusses pisteuo as used at John 3:15 (also in present participle form, pisteuwn, as defined above by Wallace):

"So then belief [pisteuw] in Jesus has these three elements - [1] belief that God is our loving Father, [2] belief that Jesus is the son of God and therefore tells us the truth about God and life, and [3] unswerving and unquestioning obedience to Jesus." - p. 136, Vol. 2, The Gospel of John, Rev. ed., The Daily Study Bible Series, The Westminster Press, 1975.

* * * * *

Even Martin Luther tells us, 

"It is impossible, indeed, to separate works from faith, just as it is impossible to separate heat and light from fire." And, "In chapter 12 [of Romans], Paul speaks of the true way of serving God. He shows that all Christians are priests,.... He then describes the outward conduct of Christians under the discipline of the spirit; how they must teach, preach ... and act towards friend, foe, and fellow-man. These are the works which a Christian does, for, as I have said, faith is not an inert thing." - from the Preface of the Epistle to the Romans as quoted in Martin Luther, selections from his writings, Doubleday Publishing, 1961, pp. 24 & 33.

* * * * *

So, much more is involved in real Faith than just passively believing something.
Notice this contrasting parallel in John 3:36:

"He who believes [pisteuwn] in [eij] the Son has eternal life; But he who does not obey the Son shall not see life" - NASB.

We find pisteuwn used in a parallel sense to `obey' here. There has to be, at least, a strong element of obedience understood to be in the word pisteuwn, or the contrasting parallel used by John would be senseless.

* * * * *
Luther also said, 

"Furthermore, every man is responsible for his own faith, and he must see to it for himself that he believes rightly." - Martin Luther, p. 385.

From "Christian Discussions" an on-line discussion group:
"Faith" – A Word of Action

One of the most absurd statements that we ever read was from a denominationalist who declared: "Faith is the only thing that one can do without doing anything." The affirmation is a textbook case of contradiction. 

The following examples will clearly reveal that genuine faith is not a mere attitude; rather, it is a word of action.

1. Jesus was teaching in the city of Capernaum. The crowds so pressed around Him that some who sought His presence could not gain access to the Lord. Four enterprising men brought a lame friend, climbed to the rooftop of the house wherein Christ was teaching, and lowered their impotent companion through the ceiling. Significantly, the inspired writer comments: "And Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, your sins are forgiven" (Mark 2:5). 

What did Christ see? He literally saw the action of these men (including the sick man who obviously endorsed the activity). But the action is called faith. In a similar vein, James challenged: "Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith" (Jas. 2:18).

2. John 3:16 is perhaps the best-known verse in the Bible, but it is one of the most misunderstood. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life." 

Does the "belief" of this passage include obedience, or exclude it? A comparison of this verse with Hebrews 5:9 reveals that the former is the case. In John 3:16 believing results in eternal life. In Hebrews 5:9, eternal salvation is said to issue from obedience to Christ. It thus should be quite clear that the belief that saves is one that manifests itself in obeying the Son of God. True faith is not just a mental process. 

3. Note this declaration from the Lord: "He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life; but he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him" (John 3:36 ASV). 

We have cited the ASV here because it is more accurate in its rendition of the original language than is the KJV. The term in the latter portion of the verse is apeitheo, which, according to Balz & Schneider, literally means "to disobey" (118). In this passage "believing" is set in vivid contrast to disobedience.

Is not Christ suggesting that the one who obeys the Son is promised life, but the person who disobeys will not receive such? 

Observe a similar usage in Acts 14:1, 2 ". . . a great multitude both of Jews and of Greeks believed. But the Jews that were disobedient stirred up the souls of the Gentiles, and made them evil affected against the brethren." 

In the book of Hebrews we are informed that God was displeased with many rebellious Israelites who died in the wilderness. They were condemned because they were "disobedient" – yes, they were not allowed to enter the promised land due to their "unbelief" (Heb. 3:18, 19). Continuing that analogy, it will be those who have "believed" who will enter the final rest (4:3), but those who are "disobedient" will not (4:6). 

The Bible knows nothing of true "faith" that is divorced from obedience. 

4. When a jailor in the city of Philippi feared for his life during an earthquake that rocked the prison, he pled with Paul and Silas: "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" God's messengers proclaimed to him the gospel. Evincing repentance (for having beaten his prisoners), the jailor washed their stripes. Subsequently, he and his family were immersed (Acts 16:31-33). 

Significantly, this entire process is summed up in this fashion: "And he . . . rejoiced greatly, with all his house, having believed in God" (34). It is clear that the participle, "having believed," includes the jailor's repentance and his baptism. 

5. The book of Romans demonstrates that faith is an action term. For example, Paul commends the "faith" of these saints, which, says he, is "proclaimed throughout the whole world" (1:8). As he concludes the epistle he again congratulates them: "For your obedience is come abroad unto all men" (16:19). Faith and obedience are parallel in these verses. In fact, at the beginning and end of the book, the expression "obedience of faith" stands like guardian sentinels, defining the character of biblical faith (1:5; 16:26). In Romans 10:16, those who refused to "obey the gospel" fulfilled Isaiah's prediction that some would not "believe" the divine report. 

6. That the "faith" system of the New Testament is not merely a mental phenomenon is evidenced by Galatians 3:26, 27. There Paul declares: "For ye are all sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus. For [a conjunction of explanation] as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ." 
Immersion was an integral part of the faith process. Later, to the same people, the apostle affirmed that the faith that avails is that which is "working through love" (Gal. 5:6). The fact of the matter is, believing itself is a work (cf. John 6:27-29; cf. 1 Thes. 1:3). 

7. James shows the connection between faith and obedience when he writes: "Was not Abraham our father justified by works [obedience], in that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar? You see that faith operated with his works [obedience], and by works [his obedience] was [his] faith made complete; and the scripture was fulfilled which says, And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness; and he was called the friend of God" (Jas. 2:21-23). 

If faith plus obedience constitutes one as a "friend of God," how would one be characterized who has faith minus obedience? 

8. Those who possessed genuine intellectual-emotional faith were granted the "right to become" children of God (John 1:12), but they were not, by that faith, automatically constituted sons of God. 

9. That "faith alone" is invalid as a means of redemption is revealed by a number of biblical examples. 
There were many Jews who "believed on" Christ (John 8:30,31), but their faith was not operative, hence, the Lord appropriately described them as children of the devil (8:44). 

(a) There were those among the Hebrew rulers who "believed on him [Christ]," but because of Pharisaic pressure they would not confess their faith; they loved the glory of men more than that of God (John 12:42). 

(b) Will anyone contend that these proud egotists were saved simply because they "believed" (cf. Matt. 12:32)? What was the flaw in their theology? 

Luke records that when Christ was preached, "a great number that believed turned to the Lord" (Acts 11:21). The construction of the original language indicates that the "believing" was prior to the "turning," hence, turning to the Lord involved something in addition to their faith. 

(c) The Language Authorities

It is this type of biblical evidence that has compelled leading New Testament language authorities to acknowledge that "faith" is more than a mere philosophy of belief. Genuine faith cannot be separated from submission to the Lord. 
Liddell & Scott show that the verb pisteuo (believe) can mean "to comply" (1273). 

H. Cremmer stated that the noun pistis (faith), both in the Old and New Testaments "is a bearing towards God and His revelation which recognizes and confides in Him and in it, which not only acknowledges and holds to His word as true, but practically applies and appropriates it." (482). 
W.E. Vine noted that pistis involves "a personal surrender" to Christ (71). 

Lexicographer J.H. Thayer commented that pisteuo includes "a conviction, full of joyful trust, that Jesus is the Messiah" – the divinely appointed author of eternal salvation in the kingdom of God, conjoined with obedience to Christ." (511). 

O. Michael has stated: "Faith understood merely as trust and confession is not able to save. Only through obedience . . . and conduct which fulfills the commandments of God does faith come to completion (Jas. 2:22)" (604). 

Bultmann contended that "`to believe' is `to obey'" (205). He stressed that this is particularly emphasized in Hebrews 11:7. He further made this interesting comment: "According to Paul, the event of salvation history is actualized for the individual, not in pious experience, but in his baptism (Gl. 3:27-29). Faith makes it his. Hence faith is not at the end of the way to God, as in Philo. It is at the beginning" (217). 

Alan Richardson declared that faith "is confident reliance on God. It is the act by which he lays hold on God's proffered resources, becomes obedient to what God prescribes, and, abandoning all self-interest and self-reliance, trusts God completely. . . . Obedience, conformity to what God prescribes, is the inevitable concomitant of believing" (75, 76). 

Conclusion

The doctrine of salvation by "faith alone" does not have the support of Scripture. It has resulted from a sincere – but misguided – reaction to Roman Catholicism. Those who have embraced this philosophy should carefully restudy the question of salvation.

……………………………………………………

"Once Saved, Always Saved" (?)

1 Tim. 4:16 – After listing some of the things that Timothy must [NRSV] insist on and teach (4:11-4:15), Paul writes to him: "Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; continue in these things, for in doing this you will save both yourself and your hearers." – NRSV. [Emphasis added]. Although Paul believed Timothy was in a saved state at the moment, he did not consider it as something assured!

The Awake! Magazine covered this in a brief article:

Awake
4/8/1978: 
The Bible's View
"Once Saved, Always Saved"—How Certain?

`THE "Son of Sam" killer terrorized New York city residents for more than a year, killing six random victims and wounding several others. Yet the person accused of the crime reportedly had been "saved" at a church meeting about four years before his reign of terror began.

`A former army friend of the suspect who had invited him to the church meeting relates that the new convert "came up to me grinning and laughing and saying, `Man, I'm saved.' Then we came back that same day for the evening service and he went forward again at the invitation [to accept Christ]. He told me afterward that he just wanted to make sure it [being "saved"] took."

Upon hearing the charges against this former member of her church, another member told the Associated Press: "I'm just thankful he was saved." Why? She declared: "The Bible says, once saved, always saved."—New York Post, August 25, 1977, p. 2.

`Does the Bible actually say, "Once saved, always saved"? No, it does not use those words in any specific text, but many sincere people believe that this is what the Bible teaches. And it is true that a number of Bible texts indicate that the basis for salvation is not one's works, but, rather, faith in Jesus Christ, together with God's "grace" and mercy. (Eph. 2:8, 9; 2 Tim. 1:9; Titus 3:4, 5) Additionally, Jesus himself said that "he that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life."—John 3:36, Authorized Version (AV); 1 John 5:13.

`From such references it is often reasoned that if one `has everlasting life,' he actually possesses it permanently; it cannot be lost, or, as many would have it: "Once saved, always saved." However, does this understanding fully express the Scriptural view of gaining everlasting life?

`Well, Christians concerned about their salvation may also wish to consider Jesus' declaration that "he that endureth to the end shall be saved." (Matt. 10:22; 24:12, 13; Mark 13:13, AV) And the apostle Paul comments similarly: "For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end."—Heb. 3:14, AV.

`How are we to reconcile these seeming disparities? Surely these servants of God were not contradicting themselves. Rather, were they not merely expressing the same understanding from different viewpoints? The apostle Paul provides the key to harmonizing these viewpoints.

`Time and again Paul likens the Christian's course to a "race" that must be run to the finish. "Let us run with patience the race that is set before us," he urged the Hebrews. (12:1, AV) To enter the race, sinners must take the steps necessary for salvation: hearing and accepting the Word of God, believing in Jesus Christ and his ransom sacrifice, repenting of their sins and being baptized. In this way, they get saved "from this crooked generation," as Peter exhorted those gathered at Pentecost. Unbelievers are outside the race, having failed to enter by getting "saved."—Acts 2:37-40, Revised Standard Version (RSV); 16:31-33; Rom. 10:13, 14.

`Once entered in the race by being "saved," a Christian takes "hold of the life which is life indeed." But is it possible to lose that grip on life? Paul answers with this question: "Do you not know that in a race all the runners compete, but only one receives the prize?" In the Christian race, Paul indicates the "one" who receives the prize is anyone who finishes the race. Therefore, Paul urges, "So run that you may obtain it." Then, using himself as an example to make the point of his illustration, he continues: "I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified."—1 Tim. 6:19; 1 Cor. 9:24-27, RSV.

`Evidently the apostle, who surely was a "saved" Christian, believed that even he could be "disqualified" from the race. Yet as long as he continued to `run that he might obtain' the prize, thus remaining in the race, salvation was assured. This is why Christians who remain in the race can be said to `have everlasting life.' But if they should ever quit the race, they are "disqualified," losing their hold on everlasting life.

`Hence, Paul follows up his remarks on the Christian's race by cautioning about the danger of overconfidence. Using the example of the Israelites who were saved through the Red Sea, yet fell to wrongdoing in the wilderness, he warned: "We ["saved" Christians] must not put the Lord to the test." Then, driving his point home, he declared: "Let any one who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall." Yes, it could happen, even to "saved" ones!—1 Cor. 10:1-12, RSV.

`This is why, throughout his writings, Paul consistently emphasized his own need to stay in the race. For example, of his hoped-for reward of the resurrection, he said: "I do not consider that I have made it my own; but one thing I do, forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus." It was only after Paul neared the end of his life that he wrote: "I have finished the race, I have kept the faith." At this point in his life, he could finally say with confidence: "Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award me on that Day."—Phil. 3:11-14; 2 Tim. 4:6-8, RSV.

`Paul's view of his own salvation, then, is consistent with Jesus' comments mentioned earlier about `enduring to the end' to be saved.—See also Revelation 2:10; 3:11, 12, AV.

`The foregoing helps us to see why Paul repeatedly entreated "saved" Christians to be on guard. Their everlasting salvation was still at stake. Addressing the obviously "saved" Hebrew Christians who had been "illuminated" and who had "endured a great fight of afflictions," he warns: "If we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins." The sacrificial benefits that "saved" such persons, then, can be lost. Why? Because such a person "hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto [outraged, RSV] the Spirit of grace."—Heb. 10:26-32, AV.

`Yes, Christians who truly appreciate the salvation provided through Christ and God's grace will not be overconfident. They will strive to remain in the race like Paul and the other early Christians, whom he encouraged to "work out [their] own salvation with fear and trembling."'—Phil. 2:12, AV. 
Quoted from Awake! - pp. 27-28.

…………………………………………….…………

Paul's "race for life" brings to mind Jesus' "narrow road." He said that only a few will even find the gate that leads onto the narrow, difficult path which leads to eternal life. He gave no guarantee even that once the path was found, the finder would actually stay on that difficult path that eventually leads to eternal life. – Matt. 7:13-14.

In fact, he indicated that many who evidently believed they were saved, were not even in consideration for everlasting life – Matt. 7:21-23.

Outline of Scriptures Showing That Jehovah The Father is God Alone

OUTLINE:

1. God is Jehovah (YHWH in Hebrew text) Alone.

2. Jehovah is the Father Alone.

3. The Father (Jehovah) is the God of the Messiah.

4. The Father (Jehovah) is God Alone.
....................................................

1. God Alone = Jehovah (YHWH in Hebrew text) - Ps. 83:18; 86:10; Is. 37:16, 20 (and numerous Israelite personal names like 'Elijah' which mean 'God is Jehovah).

Psalms 83:18 "That they may know that thou alone, whose name is Jehovah (YHWH), Art the Most High over all the earth." - ASV.

Ps. 86:10 "For thou art great, and doest wondrous things: Thou art God alone. 11 Teach me thy way, O Jehovah (YHWH); I will walk in thy truth: Unite my heart to fear thy name." - ASV.

Is. 37:16 "O Jehovah of hosts, the God of Israel, that sittest [above] the cherubim, thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth; thou hast made heaven and earth." - ASV.
.......................................................

2. Only Jehovah = the Father in heaven -Ps. 2:7 (Acts 13:33); Is. 64:8 (and numerous Israelite personal names like 'Abijah' which mean 'The Father is Jehovah')

Psalms 2:7 "I will tell of the decree: Jehovah said unto me, Thou art my son; This day have I begotten thee. -ASV.

Acts 13:33 "That God hath fulfilled the same unto our children, in that he raised up Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. -ASV.

Isaiah 64:8 "But now, O Jehovah, thou art our Father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand."

But there are no personal names in Scripture which mean "Jehovah is the Son" or "Jehovah is the Messiah," or anything else to indicate that the firstborn son of God is Jehovah or is God.
.....................................................

3. The Father (Jehovah) is the God of the Messiah

Micah 5:2-4  "2 And thou, Beth-Lehem Ephratah, Little to be among the chiefs of Judah! From thee to Me he cometh forth--to be ruler in Israel, And his comings forth [are] of old, From the days of antiquity. 3 Therefore he doth give them out till the time She who bringeth forth hath brought forth, And the remnant of his brethren return to the sons of Israel. 4 And he hath stood and delighted in the strength of Jehovah, In the excellency of the name of Jehovah his God - Young's.

Rom. 15:6 "so that with one accord you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." - NASB.

Revelation 1:6 "and He [Jesus Christ in heaven] has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father--to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen." - NASB.

2 Corinthians 11:31 "The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, He who is blessed forever, knows that I am not lying." - NASB.
................................................

4. The Father (Jehovah - see above) = only true God


John 17:1, 3 "Father, .... 3 "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. - NASB.

The Father (Jehovah) = only God for Christians - 1 Cor. 8:6

1 Corinthians 8:6 "yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist." - RSV.

1 Corinthians 8:6 "yet there is for us only one God, the Father, who is the Creator of all things and for whom we live; and there is only one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things were created and through whom we live." - TEV.

Ephesians 4:6 "one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all." - NASB.

Organization and Obedience

Organization and Obedience

No one must ever compromise any of the essential, life-saving truths from God, but to truly be part of the "one body" required of Christians, everyone must compromise some personal beliefs, preferences, interpretations, etc.

The Jewish Christians at Rome were to become dead to the Mosaic Law (which they and their ancestors had lived under from birth) and become joined to another (Jesus). - Romans 7:4-6.

This went against their natural desire to continue under the Law and to continue the practice of circumcision, etc. To follow Paul's instruction, in fact, meant great hardship for them within their families and within the Jewish community they lived in. - Ro. 8:35-37.


"Paul knew that the chief opposition to Christianity at that time was coming from the Jews."

"It is obvious that his purpose was to settle the difference in viewpoint between Jewish and Gentile Christians and to bring them toward complete unity as one man in Christ Jesus."

"Paul very straightforwardly and directly outlined the position of the Jews, and showed that Jews and Gentiles are on the same level before God, which required him to say some things that might have been considered an occasion for offense by Jews." - ROMANS, LETTER TO THE; Insight -2 pp. 819-821
It is obvious that this required great pain and hardship for the Jewish Christians (Ro. 9:1-5) just as the complete separation from their former lives obviously caused great hardship and persecution for the Greek/Roman Christians.

Paul, writing to the Asia Minor Christians (also composed of both Jewish and ex-pagan Christians), stressed the unity required of ALL Christians regardless of culture, circumstances, hardships, etc.:

"There is one body and one Spirit ... one Lord, one faith, one baptism, ..." - Eph. 4:4-6. And, the body of Christ is to be "built up until we all reach unity in the faith ... attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ." (:12,13). "You must no longer live as the gentiles do ..." - Eph. 4:17 NIV.

In spite of Paul's clear instruction there were some Jewish Christians who were still unwilling to let go of certain parts of the Jewish teachings and traditions and were causing disunity at Antioch because of it.

Unfair as it may seem to many today, the matter was to be decided by the "governing body" in Jerusalem made up of all Jewish Christians! Surprisingly, perhaps, these Jewish Christians reaffirmed Paul's teaching: the Mosaic Law and circumcision must not be a requirement for Christians. - Acts 15.

Should the Jewish Christians at Antioch have been upset because a few Christians in far off Jerusalem were forcing them to teach and follow a doctrine they personally strongly disagreed with? Weren't they also members of the "anointed" class? Wasn't Holy Spirit also guiding them? And yet they were in strong disagreement with the "governing body"! Should they have left the organization? (Some undoubtedly did. Some probably even wrote very convincingly about the "dishonest, unfair, Spirit-resisting" organization they had just left.) Should they have attempted to continue teaching their beliefs within that organization in spite of the "governing body's" clear decision to the contrary? Should they have been disfellowshiped if they continued to disagree publicly?

And should the gentile Antioch Christians have absolutely refused to allow those Jewish Christians in far off Jerusalem decide how they were to live "Gentile" Christian lives?

If the all-Jewish Christians of the "governing body" in far off Jerusalem were truly guided by holy spirit as the Bible claims, Christians of any culture/circumstances would have to follow their decisions! And no matter what decision they made, there would always be some who personally felt that particular decision was unfair or unreasonable in some respects!

IF the Watchtower Society today is guided by holy spirit and is truly God's organization on earth as it claims, then the governing body of that organization, even though composed of imperfect men* and based in far off New York, USA, has the right and the duty to make final decisions for all Christians worldwide. And all those Christians have the duty to obey that governing body unless it clearly goes against God's word in one of the essential areas that mean eternal life! At that point a person must leave such an organization just as the Israelites should have rejected Aaron's Golden Calf (or Jeroboam's Golden Calves) and separated themselves from those whose hearts had returned to the false gods of the Egyptian culture they had known so well.

Moses, imperfect human as he was, was God's appointed leader of that vast congregation. What Moses taught them and what Moses did gave the Israelites (and accompanying Egyptians) ample evidence that God had appointed him. So, in spite of the apparent reasonableness of Miriam and Aaron's complaint about the absolute authority of Moses, they were punished by God for opposing that God-given authority. - Ex. 12.

The same goes for the apparent reasonableness of Korah and his followers (Numbers 16:3-11), but look at the consequences of that continued resistance (Num. 16:31-35). Even after those terrible consequences some of the Israelites blamed Moses' leadership for the permanent "disfellowshiping" (death) of those "people of Jehovah" (16:41) who they sincerely believed had been merely striving for justifiable, reasonable, loving changes in the leadership of the congregation. And look at what the result of that dissension was (16:42-49)!

By contrast, Moses came to see that he could judge his people differently than he had been doing, and it would be better for him and them (Ex. 18:13-27). That did not mean that if certain Israelites had opposed him or severely criticized him for his earlier method of judging them they would have been accounted right. Their opposition would still have been seen in the same light as Korah's: disobedience. But as soon as Moses changed the judging system, then those who preferred the old system had better accept the new method without opposition, or they, too, would become like Korah.

Moses probably could have chosen many different methods of judging and leading (some undoubtedly more popular and considered more "just" or "loving" than others), but that is not the real issue. The manner in which Moses judged was not the essential truth. But obedience to his judicial decisions was an essential truth.

Obedience to proper authority has always been the issue. It was the first issue raised in the Bible, and it is still the main issue today. Satan has, from the beginning and for obvious reasons, concentrated on this particular issue more than any other.

Let's look at the very first example of rightfully-required obedience, its "reasonableness" or "fairness" to men, and its consequences.
Genesis 2:16,17 states, "Jehovah God commanded the man [Adam] saying,




`Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.'" - ASV.

Now Adam apparently did not understand why he was not to eat of that tree, nor did he have to understand why. It should have been enough that he had learned by now that Jehovah was the Proper Authority, and if He said, "Don't even touch that thing," it should be obeyed!

But man's (and woman's) reasonings, if not properly controlled by experience, faith, and obedience toward the proven proper authority, and if doggedly pursued, can (and often do) lead to disobedience and its awful consequences.

Notice how a man might "reasonably" consider Adam's situation:




"Sure, Jehovah is my `head' and has given me a lot of essential true knowledge and guidance. But this is going too far. He must not have been serious about my not eating that fruit or he would have given me reasons, sat down and lovingly explained things to me. Any information leading to decisions concerning me must certainly be open to my inspection. How unfair otherwise! If God really didn't want me to have this fruit, it was terribly unfair and even cruel of him to put it in the garden at all (let alone smack in the middle of the place)! Not only that, but, if it will help me to have a knowledge of what's good and what's evil, it will help keep me from accidentally falling into evil ways, and, therefore, it is something that can actually save my life. It is something I really need, and God is actually withholding this good, necessary thing from me!"

Any normal human being would agree (at least in his heart) with most such human reasonings. And if they kept dwelling on the issue, the odds are that the majority would, in time, let such reasoning and its consequent buildup of resentment and indignation lead to "righteous" disobedience. Isn't the obvious proper course (once the rightful authority has finally been identified) to let faith and obedience rule over human reasonings and emotion?

The consequences of insisting on being "right" (or insisting on one's "rights") were extremely grievous not only to Adam and Eve but to their entire family (including you and me). Certainly its placement as the very first "lesson" in the scriptures for us and the extreme severity of its consequences make this example of disobedience one of supreme importance to everyone!

We should also consider human reasoning on the only two real authorities offered in this example (and, really, in all things). Ultimately (then and now) everything boils down to whose authority are we willing to follow - no matter what - Jehovah's or Satan's? Anything that isn't Jehovah's can only be Satan's, no matter how "fair," "reasonable," "loving," etc. that it may seem to our imperfect minds.

So if we reason on that original situation, we may actually "reason" ourselves into sympathy (and even agreement) with the disobedient ones and their acceptance of an improper authority. Notice who appears to have the more loving concern for his "subjects": Jehovah lays down an "unreasonable" demand without giving any background or reason and, instead, threatens them with death if they don't blindly do what he demands.

Satan, on the other hand, takes the time to actually explain why God has made this "unreasonable" demand (Gen. 3:5). We can see by his "concern" for man's welfare that Satan would never punish man with death for such a "reasonable" natural act. We see him advising them for their own good to take the fruit which will benefit them for the rest of their lives. He strongly encourages reasoning and "truth". - - - So, after such truly human "reasoning" which of the two authorities appears the more fair and loving?
And, as a final test of proper authority, we see Satan disagreeing with a clear-cut statement made by Jehovah: "in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." - Gen. 2:17. And Satan said, "Ye shall not surely die [in the day that ye eat therof]." - Gen. 3:4. Well, Satan had spoken truly when he told Eve that eating the fruit would open their eyes and they would know good and evil. But what about the direct contradiction between Jehovah's and Satan's statements above? Well, Adam and Eve did not die in the day that they ate of the fruit as God had stated but lived many hundreds of years thereafter, thus "proving" Satan's statement literally correct and God's false!

Truly, man is incapable of ruling himself well even when he has all the information required (which he never does). To prevent "reasoning" himself into catastrophe (as we see all around us in a "free" society: schools; juvenile gangs/rebellion; legal system breakdown; universal crime; polluting and destroying the actual planet we live on; dissent, resentment, and rebellion against any and all authority whether school teacher, boss, parent, bus driver, government official, et. al.; and much more) he must have proper authorities which everyone must support and obey. It doesn't matter that human "reasoning" can make Satan appear more just and loving than Jehovah. It doesn't matter that such "reasoning" can even make Satan appear more truthful than Jehovah.

And it certainly does no good to bitterly complain (as those did after Korah's death) about the "excessive cruelty" of the punishment for Adam and Eve's "reasonable" mistake of merely eating a piece of fruit that God had placed in their own garden - when the only true cure is to return to obedience to proper authority. Bitterly complaining about that proper authority does not alleviate the situation but, instead, only leads others to more disobedience!

The Bible has clearly given headship to the husband and father, for example. His will is to be respected by his wife and obeyed by his children. This is to be the rule for ALL Christians regardless of country, culture, or circumstances. Reasonably, we can think of all kinds of exceptions. We probably know of plenty of instances where a man's wife is clearly more intelligent, knowledgeable, reliable, etc. than her husband. Reasonably, (and lovingly, for her and her children, perhaps) one would think the wife should be allowed headship in such cases. But scripturally it is not to be! To do so would constitute disobedience to the headship of God!

In some cultures the wife is the head, and it may be extremely difficult for the members of a Christian family in such a culture to adjust. Should such people be allowed to continue their matriarchy when they become Christians? The Bible says no, in spite of the great difficulties it may cause Christians in this one culture!

Polygamy is a terrible problem for the married person who becomes a Christian in a few cultures. But scripture demands it not be overlooked, despite any localized hardships. Look at how "reasonable" and "loving" many of the organizations of Christendom are in this regard. Is this really the sign of a Christian? Christendom's churches may be easing some truly severe hardships of their members by allowing polygamous marriages to continue, but they are doing so at the expense of obedience to God's Word and the unity of the "one body, one faith"! And yet it wouldn't take behavioral scientists or university studies to conclude that severe emotional and economic strains would be suffered by many wives and their children when Christian principles are properly enforced. Suffering is greatly increased in such cases and a study of such individuals would undoubtedly show a greater number of emotionally disturbed individuals and, maybe, even a higher suicide rate among the newly-dissolved relationships. Everything that can be scripturally done to help these families should be done, but God's most important command must not be violated in behalf of the next greatest command (Mark 12:28-31; 1 John 5:2,3).

Those first Christians who were in the military had to leave that profession in spite of the hardships it may have caused them and their families. They couldn't be obedient to God's word otherwise. It probably seemed very unfair to some that the soldier (or idol-maker) had to give up his livelihood, and the wine merchant, for example, could continue his lucrative profession. The first Christians, however, didn't make "hardship dispensations" in such cases. It took several hundred years before the "more loving" Christendom began making such dispensations. And today such dispensations aren't even needed in most of Christendom's organizations: they bless and encourage their many members serving in the armed forces.

A Christian slave had to obey his human master uncomplainingly whether he was a good or a bad master. He was to serve that master with sincerity of heart. If that master was doing wrong, he will pay for it. - Col. 3:22-25. This was required as a matter of obedience to proper authority as well as for the witness it made of the conduct of Christians. Titus 2:9, 10 explains how this proper authority is to be obeyed by the Christian slave:




"be subject to their own masters in everything, to be well-pleasing, not argumentative ... but showing good faith" - NASB.

And why should Christian slaves behave this way even toward cruel, unjust masters?




"So that they are a credit to the teaching of God our savior." - Titus 2:10, JB. Also compare 1 Tim. 6:1.

Proper authority in government (whether truly just, good or bad) is to be obeyed by Christians in all things that do not clearly violate God's commandments. That means that true Christians do not become involved in movements to change (or even criticize or protest) that government. Even if we live in a dictatorship that does not allow us all the freedom or "unalienable rights" we sincerely believe we should have, we must not rebel against that government as the rest of the world does. If this behavior is required for Christians in their relationship with worldly leaders, then how much more must we obey the decisions of men appointed by God to be our spiritual leaders on earth! Even when we disagree with some of them (as long as they do not clearly ask us to break God's essential commands) we are to be humble and obedient so that the word of God may not be spoken of abusively (as it so clearly is because of the lack of obedience to proper authority by Christendom).

It's so much better to be accused of slavish conformity by the members of Christendom than to be so plainly divided into bickering, disobedient parties and sects as are even individual churches in Christendom. Even the strongest of them exists divided, certainly not "one body"! Clearly disrespectful and disobedient to the authority of their own church leadership in various areas. Such open display of disobedience, lack of humility, and divisiveness proclaims to the world what they think of the idea of obedience to "God's earthly representatives" (think of the average Catholic's "obedience" to the Pope's authority, for example), and therefore, obedience to God himself.
The unity of Christians cannot be overemphasized. And this unity can be achieved in no other way than through obedience. One of Christendom's more respected reference works, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, tells us




"there is one abiding will of God ..., and in conformity with the will of this one God there is one church composed of Jews and Gentiles." [And, on the same page, Jesus' unity with God is explained this way:] "Adam, the disobedient one, brought death; Jesus, the obedient One, brought life .... He is one with God the Father (Jn. 10:30; 17:11,21 ff.)." - p. 721, volume 2, Zondervan, 1986.

Jesus is "one" with the Father only through absolute obedience to that proper authority (1 Cor. 11:3). The Father does not conform His will to Jesus' to obtain this oneness. Jesus does not rebel, argue, complain, or murmur. He immediately adopts his Father's will as his own and is thus one with the Father.

Notice how another of Christendom's respected references, The NIV Study Bible, explains the above scriptures. John 17:11 in that reference work shows Jesus praying to his Father in heaven about his earthly followers: "so that they may be one as we are one." A footnote for this verse states:




"The latter part of the prayer strongly emphasizes unity .... The unity is to be like that between the Father and the Son. It is much more than unity of organization, but the church's present divisions are the result of the failures of Christians."

And the footnote for John 17:21 states




"The unity of believers should have an effect on outsiders, to convince them of the mission of Christ. Jesus' prayer is a rebuke of the groundless and often bitter divisions among believers."

And a footnote for 17:22 says:




"Again the Lord emphasized the importance of unity among his followers, and again the standard is the unity of the Father and the Son." - Zondervan, 1985.

Another highly respected New Testament scholar, Dr. William Barclay ("world-renowned Scottish New Testament interpreter [and] profound scholar and a writer of extraordinary gifts"), in his popular The Daily Study Bible Series, also comments on this oneness of God, Jesus, and true Christians. Commenting on the above scriptures in John 17, Barclay writes:




"Jesus prayed for the unity of his disciples. Where there are divisions, where there is exclusiveness, where there is competition between the Churches, the cause of Christianity is
harmed and the prayer of Jesus frustrated. The gospel cannot truly be preached
in any congregation which is not one united band of brothers. The world cannot be evangelized by competing churches. Jesus prayed that his disciples might be fully one as he and the Father are one; and there is no prayer of his which has been so hindered from being answered by individual Christians and by the Churches than this." - pp. 215, 216.

"Further, as Jesus saw it and prayed for it, it was to be precisely that unity which convinced the world of the truth of Christianity and of the place of Christ. It is more natural for men to be divided than to be united. It is more human for men to fly apart than to come together. Real unity between all Christians would be a `supernatural fact which would require a supernatural explanation.' It is the tragic fact that it is just that united front that the Church has never shown to men." - p. 218, The Gospel of John, volume 2, revised edition, 1975, The Westminster Press.

When the Watchtower Society changed the elder arrangements, for example, they were changing a method (like Moses did) not an essential truth. And those many Christians who were stumbled by it (perhaps they were even correct that the old method was better in some respects) exchanged the much more essential life-saving requirement of humility and obedience to proper authority for the right to dissent in a "reasonable" and "just" cause. (Be sure to carefully read the "Obedience" article in the Aid or Insight book.)If the governing body today is not giving proper consideration to the advice and recommendations from the local committees of brothers in the various countries/cultures before they make decisions or if they are exercising poor judgment in behalf of their brothers in certain areas, they are responsible to God for their actions.




"Remember your leaders who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith." "Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden ...." - Heb. 13:7, 17 New International Version.

If certain men within God's organization are being consistently false to Jehovah's spirit (as happened throughout Bible history even), they will be corrected eventually, or they will pay the awful consequences. God's faithful "slave" must not be abandoned or bitterly criticized because of the actions of certain individuals within it. - compare Col. 3:22-25.

It's doubtful if any decision made by God's leaders on earth hasn't been considered unfair or unloving by some. Imagine how some must have felt about 1 Tim. 5:9-16, for example, or about the woman and her children who, because of God's scriptural command, had to endure in silence the God-given authority of what sometimes seemed to be an unjust husband and father. And wasn't it terribly cruel to not allow those persecuted Gentile Christians (whose captors allowed them only food with blood in it) to eat such food in order to preserve their lives? And what would it have hurt to allow persecuted Christians to escape great hardship, and even torture and death, by merely burning a pinch of incense in front of the emperor's image? Wouldn't God have known that they did it unwillingly? And yet the "leaders" didn't allow it.

Do we really have the right to criticize those spirit-anointed Christian leaders because their decisions seem "unloving" or "unreasonable" to some of us? All of us can find places in the Bible that seem "cruel" or "unreasonable" to us. Should we grumble against the authority of the Bible? If we do, we have lost everything! If we do, we have become no different than Babylon the Great which has failed so completely to show the absolutely necessary oneness required by Jesus' prayer in John 17.

Jesus, of course, being the direct representative of God himself, and being the mediator between God and man, had the right and the duty to criticize the "governing body" of God's organization on earth. Those who are supposed to be led by that "governing body," however, do not have such a right. Notice how Jesus, as recorded in Matthew 23, really "ripped up" the "teachers of the law and the Pharisees" for their conduct even though they were the leaders and the "proper authority" at that time!

But although he was condemning the actions of these leaders, Jesus also told his followers this:




"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you."! - Matt. 23:1-3 NIV.

Yes, in spite of their "fruits" these men were, at that time, the rightful "proper authority" of God's organization on earth. Men were to obey them. God, through Jesus, was to correct them in his own good time.

However, if there is no single organization on earth today being directed by God's spirit (which would certainly be strange since there was always one single such organization from Moses through New Testament times, at least, and these critical last days certainly demand it, also), then it would not be out of line to question and criticize the leadership of any religious organization. But it would also be a waste of time. Why try to change an organization if it isn't directed by God anyway? Why be any part of such an organization?

On the other hand, if there is a single organization being guided by Jehovah's spirit (as would be expected if the Good News is truly to be spread completely and properly - see Barclay quote above), we would certainly not want to put ourselves in Korah's place when he questioned the authority and methods of Moses with the "reasonable" statement that the entire congregation was being guided by Jehovah, and, therefore, the entire congregation (or at least all the chief representatives of the assembly) should have equal authority with Moses and Aaron. - Num. 16:3-11.

Certainly this must appeal to the hearts of men of Western culture who are familiar with "Democracy" and representative forms of government. But is it really God's way? When it came to the hearts of the majority, we often saw God's people drifting away to pagan ways which they frequently defended as being forms of worship of Jehovah. For example, almost immediately after assenting at Mt. Sinai to be God's people forever, the majority decided they would "honor Jehovah" with a golden calf.

Notice other examples of "reasonable" mutterings against Moses' leadership at Numbers 14 and 21:4-6. These are specifically referred to at 1 Cor. 10:9-11 as " warnings for us" today to "not grumble" (NIV). We have, instead, the proper example of David to follow. He refused (even under extreme pressure) to go against Jehovah's properly appointed representative, King Saul, even though Saul was obviously acting improperly!

A study of scripture (and the history of the very first Christians) shows that Christians would not compromise. However, compromise began to be tolerated (not long after the death of the last Apostle) in the early Roman church. Different teachings/customs were more and more allowed to be incorporated into different local congregations in consideration of their own distinct cultural backgrounds. And, finally, the most popular of such compromises found their way into the official Roman Church doctrines and beliefs and were enforced on all "Christians."

Scriptural restrictions on blood, political/military service, pagan ceremonies, etc., for which early Christians would rather die than break, were now overlooked because they caused "hardships" for some.

The "worship" of Mary was tolerated in certain communities long before it became official Church policy. It just grew in popularity until the Roman church adopted it.

Many different popular concepts of God were tolerated in different communities until the Roman church officially compromised and worked many of them into its official "orthodox" trinity doctrine which now must be accepted, 99% of Christendom believes, or they will be "accursed"! What if the "governing body" of the "Church" had never tolerated divergent views of God in the first place? Then the blasphemous trinity doctrine could never have taken hold. In fact the early "Church" could have preserved original Christianity instead of destroying it if it had "cruelly" insisted on conformance to Bible teachings from the very beginning and ignored what the majority wanted.

The pronunciation of God's name came to be a strong issue in Jewish culture sometime before the 4th century A.D. It came to be extremely offensive to Jews to hear God's name spoken aloud. For Christians in or near Jewish communities, then, it would have been extremely difficult to continue to use the Divine Name (as scripture demands). And so we see God's name actually removed from the Christian Greek scriptures by the 4th century (as it was from the Septuagint, also) probably to accommodate this cultural "hardship".

Even today localized compromises with cultural demands are permitted by nearly all of Christendom. Polygamy, for example, is allowed (either openly or covertly) by many such organizations in certain cultures and not in others. Even compromises with such God-condemned things as Voodoo, ancestor worship, etc. are tolerated in certain cultures by the Roman Catholic Church (and others). And such things as abortion, fortune-telling, astrology, etc. which are taught to be sinful by the Catholic Church are almost universally overlooked by it! Christendom has obviously abdicated its authority and is a false leader. Anyone obeying such an authority is in company with Korah's followers or "the blind who follow blind guides" - Matt. 15:14.

The big decision has to be: which is the one organization that has come out of Babylon the Great and is preaching like Noah when the final days are winding down to the end? (There must be only one body, one faith, which alone of all the many religious "bodies" on earth is being guided by God's spirit.)

Even Christendom admits the necessity of God's organization on earth:




"God has commanded his people to organize themselves into distinct visible ecclesiastical communities with constitutions, laws and officers ... and discipline, for the great purpose ... of making known the gospel of that kingdom, and of gathering in all its elect subjects" - p. 134, Today's Dictionary of the Bible, Bethany House Publ., 1982.

The obviously essential teachings of the Watchtower organization should convince any interested person which organization is the one organization:

--- Exactly who is God? (Jn 17:3; 2 Thess. 1:7, 8, among others, show how essential such knowledge really is).

--- Who, alone, is proclaiming God's Name as He says must be done in the last days? (Ezek. 39:6, 7; Jer. 17:19-21).

--- Who, alone, is actively preaching the kingdom in the entire world as Jesus said must be done in the very last days? (Matt. 24:14; 28:19). Not all the nearly 1 billion members of Christendom combined are as active in "all the nations" as is the Watchtower Society, and no other organization even begins to approach the Watchtower organization in publications which further that "Great Commission." And certainly none of Christendom's organizations is actively preaching the kingdom message at all!

--- Who, alone, has come all the way out of Babylon the Great? You know, Babylon was a large city with very wide roads and huge gates. When Jehovah insists that all his people "get out of her, my people" (Rev. 18:4), he obviously does not mean for some to take a few steps toward the gate (or even only a hundred steps if they still haven't reached the gate and continued on out) and then stop! You must take all the steps required to retrace your entire route back along that broad, spacious road and on out through that huge gate, and then you must find the narrow gate and stay on the cramped road that leads to eternal life - Matt. 7:13, 14.

But what other organization has not stopped short of exiting that broad Babylonian gate? What other organization does not still retain at least some of those blatantly Babylonian doctrines/ ceremonies/ holy days, etc. whether they have taken a certain number of steps back toward that gate as "Protestant" organizations or not? Why, 99% of them can't (or won't) even rid themselves of the 3-in-one God concept which is so obviously part of "Babylon"! Or make any effort to uncover God's name which so many of them have knowingly helped bury!

-- Who alone has actually made a reality of the "one body ... one spirit ... one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all"? - Eph. 4:4-6. Who has really embodied a great crowd who sincerely strive for "complete lowliness of mind and mildness, with long-suffering ... earnestly endeavoring to observe the oneness of the spirit in the uniting bond of peace"? - Eph. 4:2,3.

This very solid unity or "oneness" which is so often criticized is, in itself, a necessity according to scripture (and reason). It is also unique among all the organizations claiming to be Christian today.

Of course you know that there are other important scriptural teachings which this organization lives by that other organizations either completely ignore or give only lip-service to. But when considering only these few essentials even, it becomes obvious that there is either only one organization today being guided by Jehovah's spirit or there is none!

As Peter said when even Jesus taught some things that stumbled his followers who didn't completely understand,




"Who shall we go to? You have the MESSAGE OF ETERNAL LIFE" - John 6:68 The Jerusalem Bible.

Many who became Jehovah's Witnesses came to this same conclusion in spite of some doubts about the certainty of various other teachings and scriptural interpretations by the Watchtower Society. Some of these teachings can seem quite important, but, even if wrong, these are not really the "messages of eternal life"!

Shouldn't these Witnesses hope to follow the God-appointed leadership on earth which has "the message of eternal life" even if it tells them a few things they personally find difficult to accept? Even if they believe they can prove it is probably wrong in certain of these secondary areas? After all, "Who else is there to go to?" Who else has the message of eternal life?
It's not worth being "right" (as Korah probably truly believed he was, or those stumbled by Watchtower organizational method changes believed they were) and losing everlasting life for it. There must be priorities in all things. Being right in one area does not compensate for being wrong in a greater area. Who would choose an operation to remove a small non-harmful blemish which may be causing some slight irritation when there is a distinct possibility that the operation itself will lead to death?

Look at this "truth" given by the NIV Bible translation committee, for example:




"Here is why we did not [use `Jehovah' in the NIV]: .... We are the victims of 350 years of the King James tradition. It is far better to get two million to read it - that is how many have bought it to date - and to follow the King James, than have two thousand buy it and have the correct translation of [God's name]." - WT, July 15, 1979, p.27.

It is probably true that using "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" would have drastically reduced the number of people who would have read it. And it is true that we should do our best to get as many people as possible to read the Bible. But profaning God's name in order to get more people to read the Bible is not a truth that will lead any one to eternal life. In spite of the fact that a majority of these "Christian" translators voted to translate in the King James tradition (yes, a number of them actually felt strongly that the Name should be honestly translated) it is plain that they have seriously sinned. Their sense of essential priorities is fatally flawed: they have exchanged an essential truth that means eternal life for a "reasoned truth" of much less value.

No one must ever compromise any of the essential life-saving truths, but to be truly part of the "one body" everyone must compromise some personal beliefs, preferences, interpretations, etc. because obedience to proper authority is one of those essential life-saving requirements. We can never be "one" with God and Jesus (John 17:21-23) without such obedience. And for those of us who have had the most difficulty in coming to fully accept such a requirement, we can expect the most severe testing to come in that area.

......................................................................
NOTE

*(MANY people would have STRONG objections to this "prejudiced" exclusion of women from the governing body, and from a human viewpoint within THIS particular western culture it does SEEM unfair. I'll bet there are plenty of scholarly studies showing the "cruel injustice" and "psychological harm" caused by such "chauvinistic" treatment of women. But, in spite of such APPARENT harm done to our sisters through such "unloving discrimination" we MUST follow clear scriptural principles. And we MUST remain "one body". We cannot allow cultural/circumstantial differences to either violate God's Word in some parts of the world or to fragment the unity of the organization.)

For more, see:
Organization

Can't find what you're looking for in the search box? Try using the alphabetical list of topics below (for example, see "A" for "Angels"):
# A B C D E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L M  N O  PQ R S T UV  WXYZ