Because of errors and changes thru interpretation and translations, it is obvious that the French document should not have been published or presented as Bro. Johnson’s own words in the Winter 2009 PT. It introduces many problems for the Executive Trustee and it doesn’t even prove his “present view” on the Youthful Worthies. Yet, in the end, the real issue is not this lapse in judgment or the use of the faulty article. The real issue is the Executive Trustee’s misread of the 3 sentences in E4, pages 375-376:
- “…and brought back with them a faithful class of unbegotten consecrated ones from 1878 on.”
- “…coming back into present Truth, and bringing unbegotten consecrated ones with them from 1878 to 1881.”
- “…for the Ruth class consecrating and coming into the Truth between 1878 and 1881.”
The instant you accept his view that they show unbegotten consecrated ones existing in 1878, 79, 80 or the first part of 81, then you also have to accept that Bro. Johnson was confused and contradicted himself WITHIN HIS OWN BOOK. Were all the consecrated from Pentecost to 1881 Spirit-begotten as he says on p.469? Could the deep things be seen only by New Creatures until 1881 on pages 440 & 462? Doesn’t the title of the book apply to both of its subjects? These are just a few examples of the problems introduced. We don’t know why the brethren would believe this of Bro. Johnson when the sentences are easily harmonized.
For historical events, we often use the current (perfected) condition of someone in the event before it is achieved because that condition is known and common to us. If asked about when you met your spouse, your response is always the first day you were introduced, not the day of your wedding. If a history professor tells his students that a distant trading company brought back with it new colonists from 1478 to 1481, it does not mean they were actual colonists when they left in 1478.
Bro. Johnson, like a good professor, is telling us this journey from the point of completion. The destination condition is our common understanding of both Naomi and Ruth. For the first sentence, he says Naomi BROUGHT BACK Ruth starting the journey in 1878. For the second, he says that Naomi was COMING BACK into the Truth and then shows the entire journey length for bringing back Ruth. The third sentence is very easy--it shows the 3 ½ year journey of consecrating and COMING INTO the Truth. In the end, either these 3 sentences work with the rest of the book, or you have to conclude that Bro. Johnson could not write a book. You choose.
For the last time, we make available a PDF of the original 31-page French work. Please click here to download.
2 comments:
The following is a paragraph from E-vol 4 pg 291 bottom of page to 292 next page para 47.Written by Paul S. L. Johnson. See if it strikes a chord with anyone? I see striking similarities to what is going on now within the LXXM . This paragraph states that people in the Movement (or sect) that support these power grasping leaders, knowing that they are in error, are just as guilty as they are. I realize that the paragraph pertains to Great Company uncleanness, and not to our day that we are living now. But the same principles apply.
(47) Hence the Baal-kissers among God's real people are the partisan, sectarian, supporters of power-grasping leaders. These are, therefore, afflicted with Great Company uncleanness, since none of the 7, 000 bow the knee to Baal nor kiss him. Acts 20: 30 is another passage that is in line with the thought we are expounding—"to draw disciples after them.” These Scriptures are sufficient to prove that partisan supporters of power-grasping leaders—sectarians—are crown-losers. Hence we understand the house of v. 34 to represent the Great Company as a sect or a combination of sects. And the leprosy in such a house we understand to be partisan support by the sect of its leaders—sectarianism. Sectarianism is a great sin; for it does not act from devotion to the Truth, the Truth arrangements and the Spirit of the Truth, but from devotion to partisanship. The Truth, its arrangements and its Spirit are by it neglected or antagonized whenever this is in the interests of the sect. Their actual, though not verbal motto is: "My party—I stand for it, right or wrong.” Therefore they support (The Epiphany’s Elect. 292)
their sect and leaders regardless of how wrong they are. Among Truth people the partisan support that the Societyites have given "the channel" and "the present management" in their gross wrongs and errors ever since 1917 is a classic example of the partisanship, sectarianism , that is a part of Great Company uncleanness. This partisanship is at least as extreme as that which the most bigoted of Romanists give the papacy and their church. In what sense can God be spoken of as putting the plague of antitypical leprosy into such a sect? Somewhat after the manner of His sending strong delusions upon reprobates (2 Thes. 2: 9-11). He withdraws hindrance from Satan's efforts to make them partisans, sectarians.
Thornbush
Fred Said...
Deception
or
Sincerity?
Sincerity: The history of the origin of this word will illustrate this. It is derived from two Latin words sine (without) and cera (cement) compounded into one by contraction, i.e., by omitting the e in sine and making them one word, sincera. How, one may ask, could the words meaning without cement come to have the meaning sincere? It occurred as follows: The richer the Roman merchants in Rome's days of prosperity became, the larger and finer palaces they built, each succeeding one trying to build better than his predecessor. Hence they ever sought better architects and sculptors to adorn their palaces. Sometimes the sculptors in working on a statue would discover an imperfection in the stone that they were working, or would chisel too deep into the stone. In such cases, to hide the defect they would use a certain kind of cement mixed with a certain kind of wax, whereby they would make the defect invisible, until hot weather would melt the wax and thus reveal the flaw and prove the work not to be genuine. After this was found out a number of times, the merchants had inserted into the contracts a clause requiring that the work be sine cera, without cement, whereby the work would be guaranteed to be bonafide, honest, sincere. Thus the words sine cera came to mean sincere and were compounded by contraction into the word sincera, from which our word sincere is derived. PT 1946, page 68.
Winter PT 2009 is surly deceptive it is filled with wax and cement.
Post a Comment