In 2 Timothy 3:1, Paul warns of perilous times to come, after which he describes what ungodly men will be like. One of the last descriptions says that they “creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” (2 Tim. 3:6-7). Are there individuals who really are that gullible and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth? Yes!
While conducting our door-knocking campaign, one of the workers came across a Jehovah’s Witness named Diego. He was very pleasant at the first meeting, so much so that the worker even commented that he was “the kindest Jehovah’s Witness I have ever met.” However, when he and I made a return visit, the situation had changed—not that he was nasty, but he suddenly seemed to have no desire to continue the discussion. We asked him some questions anyway, but he kept repeating that he was learning and was not allowed to talk to anyone.
Imagine that! The Jehovah’s Witnesses did not want him talking to anyone until they had finished indoctrinating him. Where in the New Testament was anyone forbidden to talk to someone about the Scriptures? We suggested that he might ask his teacher to study with us. No, he was not willing to do that, either. I asked if he was familiar with the book that Jehovah’s Witnesses had used for decades when studying with people which is titled, The Truth That Leads to Eternal Life. He said, “Yes.” I asked if he knew that it contradicted the Scriptures. No, he did not and seemed quite surprised to learn that. I told him to look up what it taught about baptism and gave him a page number (from memory, which turned out to be wrong). We parted on good terms.
Two weeks went by, and we had not heard from Diego; so we called on him again. He did not look happy to see us. He kept repeating that he was not allowed to talk to us. He advised us to talk to the higher-ups in the organization, which we were willing to do. We asked him for a contact, but he told us, “I’m not going to provide that information.” We asked how he expected us to contact them. He did not know but said that we could find out on our own. We asked if he would pass some information on to them, and he refused. He made it clear that he would not read anything that we left, nor would he give it to anyone else. What is so ironic is that he is learning to be part of a group that goes door to door to talk to people! Yet he refused to talk to us and would not put us in touch with anyone from his organization, which was not only unreasonable but also hypocritical. Realizing that we would not be talking to Diego again, we tried to call his attention to some important facts.
I asked him to permit me to read something from The Truth That Leads to Eternal Life, published by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society in 1968:
We need to examine, not only what we personally believe, but also what is taught by any religious organization with which we may be associated. Are its teachings in full harmony with God’s Word, or are they based on the traditions of men? If we are lovers of truth, there is nothing to fear from such an examination. It should be the sincere desire of every one of us to learn what God’s will is for us, and then to do it.-John 8:32 (13).
“These words,” I told Diego, “we believe 100%. Truth has nothing to fear.” But he refused to budge. He was not allowed to talk to us, nor would he provide someone to study with us—even though their own book encourages that very course of action! He said the Jehovah’s Witnesses no longer use that book. He also affirmed that Jehovah’s Witnesses do not debate. I asked, “Why not, if truth has nothing to fear.” The person who was with me said, “But you have debated,” and showed him the published debate. He waved it off and said they might have done so in the past, but they no longer did so.
I told him that I had previously given him the wrong page number regarding baptism and went to page 183 in their same book. On a piece of paper I had written down what Saul of Tarsus was told by Ananias: “And now, why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). Then I showed him what their book said: “What then does Christian baptism signify? It is not a washing away of one’s sins, because cleansing from sin comes only through faith in Jesus Christ” (183). In other words, baptism
“washes away your sins” (Bible)
“is not a washing away of one’s sins” (their book).
Diego was not interested that what Watch Tower published directly contradicted the Scriptures. We asked if he was familiar with the history of Jehovah’s Witnesses—with the founder, Charles Taze Russell and his successor, Judge Rutherford. He was. We asked if he was familiar with the book written by Rutherford, Millions Now Living Will Never Die. He was not. We pointed out that it was written in 1920 and was supposed to be fulfilled in 1925. Now, 96 years after the book was written, there are not millions still living. We asked him if he knew what Moses wrote concerning someone who prophesied that something would come to pass but it did not. According to Deuteronomy 18:22, if what a prophet predicts in the name of the Lord does not come to pass, the Lord did not speak through him; he spoke presumptuously.
Diego (as well as other Jehovah’s Witnesses) do not want to “own” their history. They seek to separate themselves from Russell and Rutherford. But here is the real shocker. They do not even want to consider any of their past materials, period. Concerning The Truth That Leads to Eternal Life, a book that Jehovah’s Witnesses both published (several hundred thousand copies) and taught people for decades, they refuse now to defend or to look at anything in it. Diego says, “We have learned more since then.” Really? We asked if that meant that all those who studied that book are lost. He would not answer the question except to repeat what he had already said. He also became hostile and told us not to come back.
What is essentially being argued is that people must disregard what they said yesterday because today they have learned more. How convenient! Nevertheless, the Mormons operate by this principle. When Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, marriage was clearly to be a monogamous institution. However, he soon desired more wives—so he had another revelation, and by the time he wrote Doctrines and Covenants, polygamy had become acceptable. Mormons practiced polygamy for several decades, but they were told emphatically that they would not be admitted to the union as long as that practice stood. So some Mormon “prophet” had a new revelation that made polygamy wrong again—even though the first two leaders of the Mormon Church both had multiple wives (Smith had more than 50, and Brigham Young had at least 27). (Utah became a state in 1896.) Now that homosexual “marriage” has been approved, who will forbid “throuple” relationships or polygamy. If that happens, how long will it be before another Mormon “prophet” has a new “revelation” okaying the practice once again?
In other words, what these groups believe only goes back to their most recent revelation or publication. One cannot see what they wrote 100 years ago because that is out of date. Fifty years ago does not matter, either. It will do no good to study what they wrote as recently as ten years ago because anything can be rescinded at any time, and then they will say, “Oh, you can’t look at materials from our past because we’ve learned more, and all of that is out of date.”
That sounds a little bit like Mac Deaver, who told brethren, “Unless you have my latest book, you don’t really understand what I believe.” But then he has written another one since he made that statement and is undoubtedly working on yet another sequel. God did not see fit to produce the Bible this way. Yes, He made one covenant with Israel through Moses, but He foretold that another prophet was coming with another covenant (Deut. 18:15-19; Jer. 31:31-34). When that second covenant was established through Jesus, it was not designed to be constantly changing. Rather, it was once for all revealed to the saints (Jude 3). God has given us all things that pertain to life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3).
Had God not said, “This is the truth,” we would be wondering from day to day where we stood. And that is where Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons and Catholics are because they are subject to be told any particular thing at any time. Catholic teaching has changed since the day in which they sold relics and indulgences. If the pope said tomorrow that abortion was all right, what would they do? Does anyone know their current doctrine towards homosexuality? Is the practice right or wrong, according to their latest teaching?
What will most Mormons do if the head of their church says that polygamous marriages are accepted once again? Will they protest the change or practice it? And what about Jehovah’s Witnesses? They seem willing to give up the teachings of Russell, their founder, along with Judge Rutherford. According to Diego, they will not endorse their own published book that they used in studying with people for years. Was it wrong? Can they point out why they no longer use it? And what has happened to those who were taught that doctrine all those years? Are they lost? If they are, how do we know people will not be condemned by studying what they are currently using—because in five years it may become obsolete, condemned, and tossed on the rubbish heap? In other words, why should anyone trust them enough to study with them, period?
We would not settle for this chicanery in any other field. What would we think if a teacher said, “Last year addition and subtraction worked, but we have learned more since then,” and then proposed something entirely different? What if a science teacher said, “The conversion formulas from Farenheit to Celsius and vice versa don’t work this year”? What if traffic laws changed and now blue meant stop and pink go. We have enough trouble getting people to cooperate in stopping on red now, let alone trying to break in new colors.
Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Heb. 13:8). His Word remains valid, and it shall never pass away (Matt. 24:35). The fundamentals of salvation have not changed since revealed in the first century. Sure, we may obtain a deeper understanding of the Scriptures as we read, study, and grow. But we do not find contradictions in the Word. We have never had to tell anyone, “Oh, we no longer believe what we did last week concerning salvation.”
It is sad that anyone would be part of a religious group that is always standing on the verge of change—who admit that all of the doctrine that they believe in today may suddenly change and be different tomorrow. Yes, they are unstable, always learning but never coming to a knowledge of the truth. Especially must that be the case if truth changes with the pages of the calendar. How could anyone fall for this kind of nonsense? No wonder Paul describes those who are willing to trust their souls to such charlatans as gullible!