The Executive Trustee made a correction to the Ruth discourse he printed in the Winter issue. What was put forward in the recent Spring PT shows just how bizarre things have become. Instead of admitting that the entire discourse is not Bro. Johnson's words (even after we pointed it out), he calls the correction a misstatement. This is not accurate.
Merriam-Webster defines misstatement as, "to state incorrectly : give a false account of."
In reality, he correctly stated the errors as they exist in the original French document--but in a modern English translation. So, there is no misstatement. Please remember that what you are reading in this Ruth series is actually the following:
A French-speaking sister listens to Bro. Johnson and takes shorthand notes of his spoken discourse in French or English. Later, she types those notes in French into a document. The completed document from the unknown sister sits idle for almost 77 years. In 2009, it is translated back to modern English to be published in these PTs.
The Executive Trustee doesn't provide this information. He doesn't even make reference to the modern translator or thank the person for their translation. His correction should have been an apology to his readers for trying to pawn off this discourse as Bro. Johnson's own words. Where is the editorial integrity?
10 comments:
Can anyone explain why the Editor of the Present Truth is bound and determined to post this French letter that has so many inaccuracies in it, from its very beginning with its misspelling of Brother Johnson name and the wrong dates for the various chapters of the book of Ruth for the antitype? Is it because willfulness has motivated his actions in trying to change the date for the call to the class of Youthful Worthies?
Pastor's Russell's thought was according to Eph. 4: 4 that all that consecrated until the "Door Closed" Should be treated as Little Flock members. Therefore, the call for the class of Youthful Worthies could not begin until Sept. 1914.
The current Present Truth than continues to confuse the brethren with the reproduction of this French letter. Brother Johnson so clearly explains the 3rd chapter of the book of Ruth in E Vol. 4, pages 382-388 where he so beautifully goes through the chapter verse by verse as compared with the current PT that garbles it all together without the distinctions of the verses. This letter has no creditability because of its earlier errors.
These errors were not committed by Bro. Johnson but rather by those writing this letter and presenting it as the works of Brother Johnson.
Bro. Fred
Fred@ Is it not bro. Johnson, who wrote in E Vol. 16 (p 127): "But we do mean that as the fulness of the Gentiles probationarily came in by the Spring of 1878 (Rom. 11: 25), and as some of them fell away from their steadfastness by Oct. 1881, only such a number of subsequent respondents to the invitation to consecrate could be Spirit-begotten as were needed to take the crowns lost by those who fell away from their steadfastness. But hundreds of thousands consecrated, while only a few thousand crowns were available, and thus there were more consecrators than available crowns. For the surplus consecrators the Lord has provided Youthful Worthiship. Therefore ever since 1881 those surplus consecrators have been forming a new class in God's Plan"?
This site looks a little partial for me.
Thank you for your comment Witek from Poland. We appreciate the use of the English language from a non-native speaker.
First: Are you aware that both Bro. Russell and Bro. Johnson use “class” in a general, indefinite sense to refer to the Great Company before 1916? Yet no one is arguing that THE Great Company existed as a separate and distinct class before the Epiphany. This same usage applies to the Youthful Worthies.
Second: In the middle of your quote it says, “only such a number of subsequent respondents to the invitation to consecrate could be Spirit-begotten,” referring to post 1881. Subsequent is defined as: occurring or coming later or after. That means that all invited to consecrate before that date were Spirit-begotten. For a detailed explanation of 1878 to 1881, please see PT Question (1935)—How can we harmonize the fact that the fulness of the Gentiles came in probationarily passover 1878 and the fact that the general call ceased Oct., 1881?
Third: Thank you for the compliment. We are very partial on this blog…partial in the sense that the servants were harmonious with their own work and with each other. Our understanding of your quote is in full harmony with all of their writings, including the following clear references. Your understanding does not.
“Another wonderful happening of these ten years is the many consecrators who are given the privilege of Youthful Worthies. While there were Youthful Worthies from 1881 to 1914, i.e., in the cases of those for whom no crowns were then available, since 1914 all new consecrators are of this class; because by Oct. 1914 all crowns were filled to a completion.”— PT Oct 1926, page 152, Column 2 (See an almost identical statement about the time of E16 in PT Oct 1949, page 156, Column 1.)
“Both the new creatures and the Youthful Worthies receive the Holy Spirit, though the latter are not now begotten to a new nature by it. The Holy Spirit's witness to both is very similar (E Vol. 15, pp. 652-654). Therefore, in the case of those consecrating from 1881 to 1914, it was (and still is) not evident (except in rare cases) whether they were Spirit-begotten, and therefore are new creatures, or not Spirit-begotten, and therefore are prospective Youthful Worthies. Hence there was no Youthful Worthy class as such before 1914. But in the case of those consecrating after the closing of the door of entrance into the High Calling, in the Fall of 1914, it is evident that none of the 144,000 crowns has been available for them and, accordingly, that none of them is Spirit-begotten; hence from then on the Youthful Worthies came into existence as a class.” – PT Nov-Dec 1957 page 89, Column 2 (see also PT September-October, 1969).
Unfortunately, my english is not enought to debate with you on this subject. I wrote "partial" because I see suggestion that bro. Herzig gave us thoughts which are not expressed in the Truth literature. It's not true what you can see in PTs, E Vol 10, 11 (look p 95-96) etc.
Bro. Johnson was very careful when he was in opposite to some pastor Russell thoughts and now it's good to think twice before we attack bro. Herzig even we think we has right.
Brothers, read please Philippians 3:13-16, I stay with Present Truth teaching because I think it's biblical (see: Ruth, Hadassah antitypes) but I remember that: "For the love of Christ constraineth us".
"Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened [bread] of sincerity and truth." (1 Cor. 5:8)
To the Brother in Poland,
Grace and peace in our Savior's name.
Volume 16 page 127 we thank you for calling attention to this page and we agree with you that Brother Johnson is showing the fulness of the Gentile times 1878 and the close to the General Call 1881. However, when Bro. Johnson introduced the Youthful Worthy article in 1919 Judge Rutherford introduced a "New View" and disclaimed the fact of this developing class called Youthful Worthies since 1914. Rutherford referred to them as "Modern Worthies" and claimed that they did not exist.
The 2006 Present Truth is reworking of this old error and calling it a new truth under the heading of "Present View" (which is the same as a "New View"). In this "Present View" the editor denies the call to Youthful Worthies as beginning in 1914 the same as Judge Rutherford. Read it for yourself in the Summer 2006 P.T. page 21 Column 2, 18 lines from the top and also in the same PT page 22 Column 1, 16 lines from the bottom. It claims that the 1914 date is wrong.
Here is what Brother Johnson taught in E13, page 20, "antitypical Hannah, the same periods for The Christ and the Great Company respectively and for the Youthful Worthies as individuals, from Oct., 1881, onward to Sept. 16, 1914, and as a class from Sept. 16, 1914,"
Bro. Johnson never opposed Bro. Russell. As discussed in the writings and in this blog, Bro. Russell was given the storehouse concerning the Parousia Truth. Bro. Johnson gave truth concerning the Epiphany. Bro. Johnson's Epiphany work was built from the Parousia work. It never opposed (as you have incorrectly stated) nor contradicted it. Bro. Johnson did clarify truth as it matured in the spirit of Prov. 4:18
Bro. Herzig was never attacked. Many Epiphany enlighten Brethren approached Bro. Herzig in the spirit of Christian Liberty to ask questions about his "present view" idea, changes to the Truth writings and his sectarian involvement with local classes. He has ignored these attempts to "reason" on an individual basis. The Truth is FIRST PURE… Then peaceable.
We too are staying with the Present Truth. We are defending the truth by harmonizing the scriptures. We are careful to defend the truth, not a movement or a man.
Witek from Poland, Thank you for your comment
Bro. Herzig started these false statements that the servants didn't always agree. The Brethren in turn have carelessly repeated these thought as if it were truth doctrine without taking the time to study the matter fully.
Bro. Russell and Bro. Johnson were like minded. It was people like Rutherford that disagreed and opposed Bro. Russell.
Two Examples:
QB 1953 - Siftings
…And, like the erring brother [Rutherford] who opposed Bro. Russell’s mature teaching on the Church’s glorification, etc., not to be expected by Oct. 1914,…
PT. 1953 Pg. 45
…It would seem that the questioner, who in his sifting activities opposes the teachings of Bro. Russell and Bro. Johnson on tentative justification ever being represented in the Camp (just as J.F. Rutherford from another standpoint opposed Bro. Russell's teachings on tentative justification…
As BBS stated, Bro. Johnson clarified truths that matured in the spirit of Prov. 4:18. You will find Bro. Jolly followed the same example. It is a path Bro. Herzig hasn't followed.
You will find the thought "defended and reaffirmed" in connection to the servants. Bro. Johnson CONSISTENTLY defended and reaffirmed the Parousia Truth and arrangements as given through "that Servant"...
…That Bro. Johnson was the angel or messenger who speaks in Rev. 19: 9 is evident, not only from the fact that he gave the charge to the Great Company and Youthful Worthies to make this proclamation after his demise, but also from the fact that the Lord has been pleased to use him to give the Truth in the Epiphany pertaining to the Epiphany and the Great Company; for there was no Great Company as such in existence before the Epiphany time, even though there were individual crown-losers (E. Vol. 10, p. 112). It is he more than any other who has consistently defended and reaffirmed the Parousia Truth and arrangements as given through “that Servant” and it is he alone who has given the advancing Epiphany Truth, which is based upon and elaborated out of the Parousia Truth…
If Bro. Herzig was defending and reaffirming the Parousia Truth and arrangements as given through "that Servant"; he would have never altered "that Servant's" chart of the ages...
Not to mention that the current Excecutive Trustee has gone against scripture. He is saying that the Youthful Worthy Call started while the door to the High Calling was still open (during the Harvest period even). According to Eph 4:4 (NIV) - "There is one body and one spirit - just as you were called to one hope when you were called - ". See comments for this scripture in Expanded Biblical Comments. Now, the E.T. is not in harmony with the Bible itself. Is that a problem for the Brethren? If it isn't, it should be. Also, how can a non-spirit begotten brother change the Chart of the Ages presented by "That Wise and Faithful Servant"? Brethren need to start looking at these serious issues. And, yes those at this site are partial - partial to the LORD and HIS truth!!!
Dear Bro. Witek,
Christian love and greetings to you dear Brother.
Thank you for your thoughts on the Youthful Worthies.
We should remember that the High Calling ended in the fall of 1914.
There is no scripture or principle in the Bible that supports the idea that two calls were ever issued in the same period of time. The truth writings do not agree with the new or present view coming forth from the present Executive Trustee that the Youthful Worthies became a class in the fall of 1881. For example in E-4 p 89, so states “We are not to understand that during the Gospel Age God has been calling two classes to salvation; for the record is: “Ye are all called in the one hope of your calling” (Eph. 4: 4) ; that is, we are not to understand that God has been offering two sets of people two different salivations during the Gospel Age, as inducements for them to serve Him; for such a thing is nowhere taught in the Bible.” The Youthful Worthies did not become a class until they were called in the beginning of the Epiphany from 1914 onward. E-11 p 493.
I hope that these thoughts are helpful and look forward to discussing the truth with you at a future date.
I personally find that the Blog has been very truthful with truth references to support its statements.
I pray God’s rich favor upon you and your family.
Christian love,
Bro. Ben
Dear Bro. Witek,
Grace and peace.
It appears to me that you are a very sincere individual and are very loyal to the Lord. I feel very bad that many of the brethren are not aware of the many mistaken ideas that the present Executive Trustee has been publishing since 2004, since he has been in office. I think the largest problem is that all of the truth writings have not been translated into their native language. How could any sincere consecrated individual make a comparison to what was previously taught and written and as to what is now being taught? Perhaps you could inform me on this issue especially in your country.
When the present Executive Trustee assumed his office as the Executive Trustee he began to change the truth writings written by previous spirit begotten servants, such as changing The Quasi-Elect article written in 1978, PT 78 p 50. In the summer 2004 PT p 34, changes were made to reflect his present view, changing what was previously taught. Please, compare dear Brother, both articles side by side. Does a non-spirit begotten individual have that right, does he supersede Bro. Jolly?
I must admit that when I read the PT’s, I am looking for mistakes. One that comes to mind is in the spring 2009 PT page 3 Column 1, twelve lines from the bottom we have the following comment: “and at the same time watches his heart attitude, to keep it in full agreement with Lord, and goes continually to the throne of grace for help in time of need, and for forgiveness and cleansing through the precious blood for every mistake,”.
You did not write this article nor did I, nor the Blog. Is the present Executive Trustee implying that the High Calling is still open? This came from the pen of the present Executive Trustee. What is very upsetting is that this article has reached brethren who are unaware of this mistaken idea and think they have access to the Throne of Grace. Has he made any attempt to correct this mistaken idea? According to the truth writings we do not have access to the Throne of Grace access to the Throne of Grace is only in the Holy. This is a privilege for the Priesthood. PT 37 p 15 Column 2.
I can honestly say that I am not being partial in this, nor do I think that anyone else is who are only defending the truth according to the truth writings, like Bro. Fred, Bro. BBS and the Blog. Please consider dear Brother that references come from the truth writings and not something that anyone has written on their own.
With much Christian love to you dear Brother,
Bro. Ben
Post a Comment