IN DEFENSE OF THE FAITH
REPLY TO P. S. L. JOHNSON
("The Present Truth and Herald of Christ's Epiphany,")
(1327 Snyder avenue, Philadelphia, Pa., U.S.A.)by Adolph E. Knoch
THE whole Word of God is our creed. We believe it all, without reservations. When, however, others present a summary of our teaching which misrepresents, distorts and falsifies it, we may be compelled to issue a short statement on separate subjects, setting forth our convictions and their scriptural basis. We deplore the errors with which we have been charged. And would it not have been better if our detractor had made actual quotations from our writings instead of attempting to summarize matters with which he was evidently unfamiliar?
AS TO THE SCRIPTURES
We believe God that all scripture is inspired by Him, and is profitable, and any portion of it must be understood strictly in harmony with its context and all the rest.
We are accused of "pantheism." The dictionary "defines" this term as being a form of atheism or an exaggerated deism. This is, therefore, a nebulous philosophical term and its only effect is to becloud the minds of those who might wish to investigate. Why not state the matter in the language we use? It has cost the compiler of the following statement great labor to determine the most precise English expressions, so that all may be in closest harmony with God's Word.
AS TO GOD
We believe God that "all is out of Him and through Him and for Him" (Rom.11:36) and that He "is operating the universe in accord with the counsel of His will" (Eph.1:11); that "God locks all up together in stubbornness that He may be merciful to all" (Rom.11:32); that He is able "to subject the universe to Himself" (Phil.3:21); that "even as, in Adam, all are dying, thus in Christ also, all shall be made alive" (1 Cor.15:22); that through His Son He will "reconcile the universe to Him (making peace through the blood of His cross), through Him, whether on the earth or in the heavens" (Col.1:20).
We do not teach that Christ was "Jehovah's Agent." This is not the form of sound words and is used to obscure a great truth. The Scriptures present Him as Jehovah, though not, of course, as His own Father. His name, Jesus, means Jehovah-Saviour. Isaiah saw the glory of Jehovah (Isaiah 6:1), and he spoke of Christ (John 12:41).
AS TO HIS SON
We believe God that "there is one God, the Father, out of whom all is... and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all is" (1 Cor.8:6), Who is the Word of God (John 1:1) and the "Image of the Invisible God" (Col.1:15), "the Emblem of His assumption" (Heb.1:3), who reveals God in all the characters He assumes, as Elohim, Adonai, El, etc., even as Father (John 14:9,10), and should be honored as God (Rom.9:5; Heb.1:8).
The most serious charge against us we will quote word for word. To show how hasty, careless and inconsiderate the accusation is, we will give two mutually contradictory statements in the same article, both of which we are said to believe! They follow: "The Logos was one absolutely predestinated to have good inclinations only, and to remain free from sin." Later, "As to our Lord's carnation and his person and life from Bethlehem on, they teach: He was begotten by the Holy Spirit, but derived original sin -- inclination, propensity to sin--from Mary." It would be beside the point to express our indignation at this misstatement of fact and our utter abhorrence of the doctrine we are supposed to hold.
Do not these two statements, occurring in the same criticism, separated by only two paragraphs, nullify each other?
The offensiveness of our brother's action is multiplied by the fact that, in the first case, his statement is obscure, buried in the midst of a paragraph, but, in the second, it is blazoned on the page by a black heading in capital letters, "BLASPHEMY AGAINST JESUS' SINLESSNESS." This does not appeal to us as being the way of love.
In a succeeding paragraph this tempting subject is approached again: "To teach that Jesus in becoming human took upon Himself by natural heredity our inclination to sin--even though they teach that His will never consented to these inclinations to sin in motive, word, or act--is blasphemy against our Lord's perfect and sinless nature as a human being." In the Greek the word blasphemy is used concerning men as well as God.
AS TO CHRIST'S RELATION TO SIN
We believe God that our Lord was holy (Luke 1:35), was not tried by sin (Heb.4:15), did no sin (1 Peter 2:22), knew no sin (2 Cor.5:21), could not sin (1 John 3:9), but "died for our sins" (1 Cor.15:3), for "God makes Him [to be] sin for our sakes that we may be becoming God's righteousness in Him" (2 Cor.5:21).
We are represented as teaching that "Adam and Eve were created with inclinations to sin..." And men, "by the condition of their natures...have to sin." Only recently we have had to endure persecution because we do not believe that sin is inherent in human nature, but in the heart. This was published in the magazine. As to the idea that sin is inherent in the blood, this is the first we have ever heard of it. Yet we are said to teach that "The blood is inseparable from sinful inclinations..."
AS TO HUMANITY AND SIN
We believe God that human nature (or instinct) and conscience are not "inclined" to sin (Rom.2:14), that mankind needed to be tempted from without before sin came in (Gen.3:1-6). There is no inclination to sin inherent in the blood.
We know nothing of the unsound phrases "sub- and super- elect." They are merely a devious device to detract and confuse. That the super-elect "will be in the background during the millennium, though not wholly inactive," and that "they will make a success of the work that the sub-elect will fail to do" is so grotesque and utterly foreign to our teaching that refutation seems useless.
We believe God that Christ is God's Chosen One, in Whom the universe will be headed up, that in the heavens as well as that on the earth (Eph.1:10), that He will reign over the earth with the elect of Israel for the thousand years (Rev.20:6) and for the eons of the eons (Rev.22:5), but that we are blessed with every spiritual blessing among the heavenly hosts (Eph.1:3), and are the means of revealing the multifarious wisdom of God to the sovereignties and authorities among the celestials (Eph.3:10) and share with Him His place "up above every sovereignty and authority and power and dominion and every name that is named, not only in this eon, but also in that which is future" (Eph.1:21).
Our whole teaching is summed up thus: "Absolute predestination, therefore, is the hub about which the whole wheel of their system revolves." Ordinarily, we would not object to this statement, if made in a friendly way. But why choose our words for us? Is it not significant that, in the CONCORDANT VERSION, the word "predestination" does not appear? It is a theological term, so encrusted with human philosophy, that we have discarded it.
AS TO GOD'S MERCY
We believe God that He is merciful to whomever He is merciful and that "it is not of him who is willing, nor yet of him who is racing, but of God, the Merciful" (Rom.9:16).
As we have already explained, the mysteries can be received only by those who are mature and refuse to follow human leaders (1 Cor.2:6; 3:1-7). As our critic boldly proclaims that he does follow one now deceased, and presents himself as the only one for the present, we can readily understand that he cannot be initiated into the secret of the present administration of God's grace. Indeed, we must not expect him even to know that there was such a secret, for he has no difficulty in finding it revealed throughout the "Old Testament," which God has expressly denied.
We believe God that Saul and Barnabas were severed from the rest for a special work (Acts 13:2), that this ministry was fulfilled (Acts 19:21; 2 Cor.5:16), that Israel was blinded (Acts 28:27) and the salvation of God is dispatched to the nations at the close of Acts, and, after this, Paul reveals "the untraceable riches of Christ" and writes "to enlighten all as to the secret administration which has been concealed from the eons in God..." (Eph.3:8,9).
One of the most popular methods of prejudicing the minds of those who wish to investigate the truth, is to say that we "deny the ransom." As we are especially strong in insisting on the great truth of the ransom, we have come to the conclusion that those who use this whip do themselves overlook some of the essential facts connected with it (1 Tim.2:5,6). They do not believe that Christ Jesus is a Man, though the text so states, that He is giving now, that He is giving Himself, or that it is for all.
We believe God that "there is one God and one Mediator of God and mankind, a Man, Christ Jesus, Who is giving Himself a correspondent Ransom for all..." (1 Tim.2:6, CV).
We believe that the sum given for redemption is more than an equivalent (Lev.5:16), but that a ransom was far less (Lev. 27:1-8) and these liberate. We also believe that we have been bought with an equivalent price, and this enslaves (1 Cor.6:20; 7:23). A ransom does not purchase.
We believe God that the Son of Mankind gave His soul [psuche] a ransom for many (Matt.20:28; Mark 10:46). He lays down His soul psuche that He may get it again (John 10:17).
The Scriptures say that He is giving Himself for all. He gave His soul, and He distinctly states that He took it again. There is no ground for making His flesh a ransom "price." The passage from whence this is taken speaks of eating His flesh. Was His dead body eaten by His disciples as a ransom price? If we keep to the Scriptures, we shall maintain the form of sound words.
We believe God that our Lord's body did not decay in death (Acts 2:27), but had flesh and bones in the resurrection (Luke 24:39), that He was a life-giving Spirit in the same sense as Adam became a living soul (1 Cor.15:45) for Adam had both body and spirit even if he was a "soul." We are warned that deceivers come out into the world, who are not avowing Jesus Christ coming in flesh. [The coming refers to the future as in all the other occurrences of this form of this word. See Matt.16:28; 24:30; 26:64; Mark 13:26; 14:62; Luke 21:27]. This is the deceiver and the antichrist (2 John 1:7).
We wish to press this passage on the hearts of our truth-loving friends, for surely none of them would wish to philosophize about the ransom to the extent of obscuring the fact. It is a serious thing to deny His coming in flesh. Look up every reference and see that this concerns His future coming. Then carefully consider what the Scriptures teach about the ransom.
Personalities are out of place in matters of truth. Paul, the aged, had no less truth than Saul, the persecutor. Timothy's youth did not disqualify him. When one servant of Christ denounces the conduct of a fellow slave because of difference in doctrine, he only appeals to the flesh. When it becomes necessary to distort gracious forbearance and consideration for our fellows into hypocrisy in order to create an argument against another's views, we only expose the weakness of our own position. The one whom this brother seeks to vilify loyally stood with his brethren, and suffered imprisonment with them, though he did differ from them.
CONTINUED REPLY TO PRESENT TRUTH
THE April (1928) number of (Present truth) is almost entirely devoted to "Robisono-Universalism." Psalm 22:27-29 is supposed to teach that all the non-elect will be raised during the millennium! But the parallelism plainly proves that they are living then, and the following line, "and none can keep alive his own soul" proves that they die then. There is not even a hint of resurrection. We are warned against this inference by John: "The rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years are finished." Isaiah 25:6-9 is also interpreted of the millennium and connected with 1 Corinthians 15:55. But the death state is {not} abolished until later, and God wipes away all tears {thereafter} (Rev.21:4). John 5:25-29 is next interpreted as the millennium! Every scripture regarding resurrection is dragged into the thousand years, when the only passages which mention this period distinctly exclude all resurrection. The saints are raised {before} and the others are {not} raised till after.
Then there is a long argument based on the mistake that the Greek indefinite (aorist) is a past tense, which is supposed to prove that the consummation of 1 Corinthians 15:24 is the end of the millennium. As a result "before the millennium ends -- all rule and all authority and power will be destroyed!" As the saints {reign} after this, it cannot be true. We are told, then, that "{all human beings did not die in Adam}," therefore, 1 Corinthians 15:22 should read "as all in Adam die so all in Christ shall be made alive!" Revelation 20:5 is thus explained: It is spurious! If it is not spurious, the word "death" does not mean those in the death state, but those in the imperfection of the Adamic death process! Or, if these are unsatisfactory, there are two ends to the millennium, 2874 and 2878. After the first end, during the four years, the rest of the dead are raised!
Next "Mr. K." is accused of altering "mankind" to "Edom" in Acts 15:17. Actually, I say the opposite, viz: "The prophet... refers to those among the nations...like Cornelius."
To sum up: Everything in the future is forced into the millennium, especially that which the Scriptures definitely state is not in the thousand years.
The May issue is practically devoted to "Robisono-Universalism" also. Its object is to prove "that now the Lord is gathering out the Elect to use them in the millennium to bless the non-elect, dead and living, with opportunity of restitution." This is done by forcing every passage to conform to the "ransom." We are wrongly accused of teaching that the mystery consists in our being our Lord's equals. As this is nothing in comparison with his treatment of God's words, we freely forgive him. Romans 8:17-33 is limited to the {human} creation, and the giving the non-elect a chance in the millennium. Romans 11:25-33 is likewise distorted to teach that God will not have mercy on all but will give all a chance in the millennium. Ephesians 1:3-12 is likewise limited to the millennium. The new heavens and new earth are entirely ignored. Next, we are told there are only two "saving dispensations"--the "gospel age" and the millennium! This is rather hard on David and the other saints of the past! We are told that Romans 5:15-19 does {not} mean "for life's justifying," but for a chance in the millennium! Every other passage which speaks of {all}, merely means that all will have a chance in the millennium! Reconciliation is the same. Colossians 1:29 means that God becomes pleased with all men and fallen angels so as to give them a chance to save themselves in the millennium! All this is unfounded inference, contrary to the contexts, and in defiance of the warning, "The rest of the dead lived {not} again until the thousand years were finished" (Rev.20:5). The thousand years are brought before us in only one short passage (Rev.20:2-7). A resurrection precedes it. Another follows it. We are especially told that there is none in it. Yet the whole of these arguments collapse unless we insist that God, the only time He speaks of this period of time, was sadly mistaken as to its character. {There is no resurrection in the thousand years}.
The June number asserts the eternal annihilation of incorrigibles. Then the word {second} is arbitrarily added before {sheol}, and made equivalent to {gehenna}! A second hell! Then {ngd} is mistranslated {eternity}. If this were so then the reign of Christ is for {eternity} and He does {not} abolish all rule and authority. Then {destruction} is said to be {annihilation}. Christ came, consequently, to seek and to save those who were {annihilated} (lost)! Then {gehenna} is confused with the {lake of fire}, the second death, which, he says, is not death at all but annihilation. Then the "eternal" torment of Satan is explained as his mental testing by perfect beings! We are assured that the papacy was in existence before Paul went to Rome, because the spirit of antichrist was in the world and the papacy is antichrist! The false prophet and the image of the beast are identical! Hurling hades into the lake of fire completely restores the obedient of the race to Adamic perfection! Then the word {good} is confused with {ideal}. Peter is then charged with a misquotation, because he was not inspired before Pentecost! All of the disciples at that time were "well-intentioned busybodies!" Then it is asserted that each Greek and Hebrew word has many meanings [to suit any interpretation he wishes]. {Eon} means both {age} and {eternity}! The Hebrew {ngd} can also be twisted to mean what he desires! Then we are misrepresented as teaching that {eonian} means lasting for only one age. Mr. V. Gelesnoff did {not} write on the eons in "All in All." (Is it not suggestive that our critic has no hesitancy in insisting on matters of which he has absolutely no knowledge? I wrote this, and ought to know. -- A.E.K.). We do {not} teach that {world} and {age} are synonymous. They are {synchronous}. To get his ages, he says they are sometimes called {ages}, sometimes {days}, sometimes {hours}! Consequently, an hour equals eternity! {Kataballoo}, we are told, doubtless means {cast down} on two occasions. But elsewhere it means the opposite! Why? {Because all of the Scriptures mean what he wishes--not what is written}.
CONTINUED REPLY TO PRESENT TRUTH
WE are "in a strait betwixt two" things, and like the apostle, we are going to choose a third. Every letter which refers to our replies to Paul S. L. Johnson, begs us not to waste our space by answering him, as he could never be convinced of anything not emanating from himself. But it seems to me that common courtesy demands that I should recognize his arduous efforts, and he, of course, infers that we do not reply because we are not able! The real difficulty is that he never takes the Scriptures as they stand, but adds inference to inference until he seems to arrive at his goal. To follow all these false turns and expose them would be too tedious and distasteful. We would be continually referring to his devious methods, and we do not wish to speak of him in the language he uses of us. For instance, we do not care to say that he is in the "Jambrean, Egyptian darkness" to which he has so kindly consigned us.
So we will take only one point and let this suffice for all. First consider the statement: "Of course, the body is not the soul, nor the soul the body." In the same paragraph we read "That the body is a part of the soul, the person, while he is alive, is evident from the fact that when the soul is dead and one touches the corpse, the Bible speaks of his touching a dead soul" (Num.6 :6). This latter sentence is supposed to be logical. Let us test it. A corpse has no spirit. If it is a soul then the body is not {part} of the soul, but the whole of it. If a corpse can be taken as evidence of what is true in life (which it cannot), then the spirit has nothing to do with the soul. If a corpse is a whole soul, that does not prove that a living body is a fraction of a soul.
It is the subtle insertion of such little switches as "a part of" which derails reason. Moreover, a fact concerning a corpse is not necessarily true in life. First he takes this for granted, and then even denies the necessary inference. It is instructive to see that, in almost every such argument, a figure is taken literally, then an inference is drawn, then the full force of the inference is denied. The only way to answer such methods is to go back to facts and start all over again. This ought to be sufficient cause to excuse us from following his twistings and turnings. We cannot ask anyone to go with us on such devious departures.
It is a great mistake to seek the meaning of a word in its occasional figurative usage. {Nephesh, psuchee, soul}, occurs hundreds of times in a literal sense, and means a sentient being which has sensation and an experience. It is not the person, for it is possessed by the person. Yet, when alluding to their experience, men may be called {souls} (Gen.12:5). They may be called {bodies} (Ex.21:3; Rom.12:1; 1 Cor.6:15; James 3:6). In the latter passage, the tongue does not defile the literal body. If we call the literal typical and the figurative literal we can only lead others with us into the ditch.
When the Hebrew speaks of coming at no dead soul (Num.6:6), the expression is full of meaning. The literal, "dead body," as our versions render it, is tame beside it. The test of life is in the manifestation of the soul. If we find a body which is unconscious, which has no sensation, which cannot see, or hear, or
taste, or smell, or touch, without motion, it is dead. And what can be more expressive than to call it a "dead soul?" If anyone should object that he no longer has a soul, we will agree, but language adapts itself, in such cases. Similarly, we might insist that there is no such thing as a dead poet, or a dead man.
We will add only one more example, which the reader can puzzle out for himself. "The soul has as its parts, body and life principle. It is not body and life principle." We might as well say that an electric light globe has, as its {parts}, a bulb and a filament, yet the globe is not bulb and filament! How simple it all becomes when we change the illustration so that we avoid the idea of {parts}. We will say that the filament and the electricity produce {light}. Then we can add that light is not composed of these two, but the {result of their union. Such is the soul. The body is not a {part} of it, but the medium of its manifestation.
Perhaps I ought to answer the following challenge: "The second sentence is a misrepresentation of our Lord; for nowhere after His resurrection did He tell His disciples that He was not a spirit. Let Mr. K. quote the words where Jesus after His resurrection says that He was not a spirit, if he can." Our Lord said; "Perceive My hands and My feet, that it is {I Myself}. Handle Me and perceive, seeing that a spirit has not flesh and bones according as you behold Me having" (Luke 24:39). I am asked to believe that the emphatic {I Myself} refers to a {representation} of Him! I shudder at the very thought of our Lord doing His best to deceive His poor disciples. I refuse to believe that He is a liar.
Since the above was written two more numbers of {Present Truth} have appeared. It is now the month of May, but the August and September issues are already before us! Briefly, we are wrong because Paul wrote Hebrews! Paul was one of the twelve! Matthias was chosen by "the Spirit-lacking, uninspired, unauthorized eleven apostles and the 109 other brethren" which was "entirely null and void!" The following is remarkable and significant. Speaking of translations, Brother Johnson says: "What makes the work especially difficult is the fact that God designedly made the Bible the most ambiguous book in the world. It is a hundred-fold, yea, a thousandfold more complicated than a hundred Chinese puzzles combined into one. This statement might to some appear irreverent, since most people have been taught to believe that the Bible is clear that the wayfaring man, though a fool need not err therein....The Lord...mixed up the Biblical presentation of His plan and its details so that none but the faithful elect priesthood could understand it, and that only piecemeal as due.... Accordingly, it follows that none but God's faithful Priesthood can understood the hidden things of the Bible, and these can understand the separate hidden items only when due. One of the ways that God used to hide His thoughts in the Bible was by employing as its original organs of expression two languages that give the same words many different senses. Hence, if one does not understand the general plan of the Bible, he will very often not know which sense of these words to apply in various places; hence such a translator will frequently darken the Biblical thoughts by his translation. It, therefore, follows that the Bible could in its entirety only then be rightly translated when every item of it was understood and that by a priest only...But, one may ask...how can the Priests be sure of their having a proper understanding of the Scriptures, since usually they do not understand the original tongues? We reply, our Lord Jesus knows not only the right translation, but the right thought of each Biblical passage, and He is the teacher of the Priesthood. It is He who gives the proper understanding of the Scriptures to His underpriesthood, and does it by giving it to them through such mouthpieces among them as, He chooses for this purpose....Applying these principles to the case before us, we see at once that Mr. K. and his associates in translation, {not having been reaped during the Harvest, are not Priests}."
This may be condensed thus: Scripture never means what it says! Its true meaning can come to us only through some inspired man who is able to translate it according to his interpretation! I could hardly expect a more damaging admission
from Brother Johnson, or a clearer confirmation that those who know him are right when they say that he thinks he is the only one to whom God reveals His truth. This is far worse than anything ever put forth by Papal Rome. The Scriptures, according to this, are no revelation at all. We must look to some inspired antichrist to find out what it means!
Then I am falsely accused of paying no attention to other manuscripts than the ones used in the version. On the contrary, the whole was collated, not on one of these manuscripts, but on Weymouth's Resultant Text, which gives the reading of the principal editors, who consulted most of the manuscripts extant. The arguments for the aorist are evaded and, to prove that the aorist is a past tense, the glorification of Romans eight is put in the past! By inserting ten square brackets into 2 Timothy 1:10, we are assured that death has already been abolished!
Brother Johnson seems to be inspired also in his knowledge of my private affairs. I am an old man! I spent years making copper type! [I spend {weeks} making {matrices} for {lead-tin-antimony} type.] I am charged with covetousness, because of the price of the version. I have never received a cent for my labors on it, except as a printer, and I never will accept any financial return. Much money, which has been sent to me personally, I have put into the version fund. The returns from sales have never been enough to pay for the prosecution of the work. The deficits have been met by gifts from my friends. As I could not hire anyone to do some of the composition I did it myself, charging fifty cents an hour. Customers of the printing office where I last worked were charged three dollars an hour for my time. When I found that it would cost between twenty and thirty thousand dollars for the first edition, I turned printer and publisher myself and saved most of it by training and hiring my own help, buying my own paper in ton lots in Sweden. I have made no charge for superintendence or rent. I have worn myself out in this work, living on the collections of my class and the contributions of my friends. How can taking {nothing} for my work on the version be a proof of covetousness? What shall we say of the motive of him who accuses me of it? Does not this reveal the malice which pervades all that he says concerning us?
© Concordant Publishing
Concern,
15570 Knochaven Road, Santa Clarita, CA 91350