The March issue of the Messenger went to many new
readers, whose subscriptions were paid by a friend. One lady who
had not seen it before threw it aside, believing it to be Russellism or
Rutherfordism. After a sister showed her that it is not, she said
she would read it, and all the future issues she receives.
If I agree with Russell or Rutherford on any point of
doctrine, I am not aware of it. I know that "Jehovah's
Witnesses" are usually very bitter against the teaching. And,
while many former "Russellites" are now believers of the truth
I teach, they have left their former teaching.
The main objection in the minds of many, against the
teaching of Russell and Rutherford is "the second
chance." I do not believe in the first chance, to say nothing
of the second. In other words. I do not believe God gives
anyone a chance of salvation. Instead, He locks all up in
stubbornness, Rom. 11:32. But He does this, not to eternally
condemn all, or any. He does it that He may be merciful to
all. See same verse.
To put it in different words, God does not give any
person a chance to be saved. But He makes salvation absolutely
SURE to everyone.
There are few saints who do not believe and love the
teaching of the salvation of all mankind, when it is fairly presented to
them. But there are many saints who are loath to have this
teaching interfere with their denominational programs. They ponder
it in their hearts, and cherish it. But it is a secret with them,
and is apparent only to the very careful observer.
Proof of this was seen by me a few days ago. I
was requested to take part in a funeral service with two preachers who
do not teach the salvation of all. Imagine my astonishment when
the two selected me to deliver the sermon, while they took minor
parts. And they loved the teaching, and told me so,
privately. They really wanted to hear it, and the circumstances
made it possible for them to do so, without any stigma attaching to
either of them. Had it been a regular church meeting, they would
have been far from giving me the liberty they did. They can go
ahead with their denominational programs, and their congregations need
not know they love the truth I advanced that day.
When in 1930, I began to teach that all mankind will
be saved, I was pastor of four strong churches. At least
seventy-five percent of the members gladly accepted the teaching, and
were jubilant over it. But they soon ran into trouble.
Denominational leaders showed them it was contrary to the creed, and
would disrupt the program of the denomination. This caused many of
them to "about face." They still love the truth, but
carry it secretly in their hearts. They will go far to hear me
preach a funeral, for they know they will hear what they love, and yet
no one will censor them for hearing it - for is it not a funeral
I have in mind an aged lady who would not, under any
circumstances, hear me preach. She said she hated the doctrine
that all will be saved. What she really hated, was the fact that
this truth would make unnecessary, many of the activities of her
denomination. One of her sons was killed. There was no
reason to think he was a believer. No one would have believed he
was, and I certainly do not did not believe it. I went to see the
mother. I found that she was comforted in the belief that God will
take care of her boy, who had been slain under shameful circumstances,
and that He will bring him safely into salvation in the end. I
didn't have to talk to her; she talked to me. She believed the
very thing she had professed to hate. But I was not so tactless as
to remind her of it. I left her in her satisfaction.
I was coming out of Augusta, Georgia, one morning,
when I saw a distinguished man standing by the road desiring a
ride. My heart bade me take him up. Upon learning that I am
a preacher, he said, "Thank God! I was praying that God would
let me be taken by someone who could soothe my sorrow." He
said he was in deep trouble, because he could not believe the
scriptures. I found that what he did not believe was the doctrine
of eternal torment. I showed him this is not in the scriptures,
but that, instead, God teaches that He will save all mankind. He
was overjoyed, and thanked God audibly, many times, during the time we
Russellism and Rutherfordism have no such comfort for
anyone. The best that can be gotten from those theories is that
all who do not have a chance of salvation in this life will have a later
chance, and that those who finally fail to make the grade will be
eternally annihilated in the second death. The phrase, "the
second death from which there is no resurrection," is not in the
sacred scriptures. It is found abundantly in the writings of Judge
Rutherford. The opposite teaching is in the scriptures:
"Christ Jesus, Who, indeed, abolished death," II Tim.
1:10. Instead of death being eternal, it is to be abolished.
Then, the only state is life.
It is erroneously believed that the Concordant
Version of the Sacred Scriptures is a production of Rutherford, or that
it is produced to teach his views. The very opposite is
true. Judge Rutherford's organization ordered a large number of
copies of the Version a few years ago, and then refused to accept
them. He will have nothing to do with the work. He is as
bitter against it as are leaders of other denominations.
I call attention to some other abuses of the word
"eon," and its adjective form, in the King James
Version. A correct rendering of Rom. 16:25-27 is here given:
"Now to Him Who is able to establish you, in accord with my
evangel, and the proclamation of Christ Jesus in accord with the
revelation of a secret hushed in times EONIAN, yet manifested now,
through prophetic scriptures as well, according to the injunction of the
EONIAN God being made known to all nations for the obedience of faith - to
the only, and wise God, through Christ Jesus, be glory for the EONS of
EON, and its adjective form, EONIAN, occur four times
in this passage. According to the King James Version it is
"world" the first time; "eternal," the second time;
and "ever, " in the third instance, with the fourth occurrence
ignored. If world is correct in the first occurrence, then it
should be used in the other three. Then we would have "the
world God," receiving glory for the worlds of the
If eternal is the right word, then we have a secret
hushed in eternal times, and the eternal God receiving glory for the
eternities of the eternities.
If ever is correct, then, to be consistent, we would
have to so translate it, that the secret is hushed in times ever, and we
would have the ever God receiving glory for the evers of the evers.
Consistency being a jewel, the Concordant Version is
a jewel. You may look at every occurrence of "aion" and
"aionion," and you will find them consistently rendered
"eon," and "eonian." Not once will you find
the word "world," except where the original has "kosmos."
The correct rendering of this word eliminates eternal
torment, everlasting punishment, and endless death. In other
words, these can be taught only by mistranslation.
Hell in not in the scriptures. Three words are
rendered hell in the King James Version - gehenna, tartarus and the
unseen. The first will operate during the kingdom; the second is
the prison of sinning messengers; the third is where the soul of Christ
went when He died. These will be discussed in a latter
The lake of fire and brimstone is the second
death. It is for unbelievers. But God is the Savior of all
mankind, I Tim. 4:10. Therefore He will abolish death and save
unbelievers, II Tim. 1:10.
No; this teaching is not in accord with what was
taught by the late Pastor Russell. Nor is it in accord with the
teaching of Judge Rutherford.
When one believes the scriptures he can look upon
every person as an object of God's love. And he can know that
judgment, chastening and death can never defeat God's purpose to save
all. He does not have to shudder at the thought of an eternity of
death for any, as taught by Rutherford and other non-orthodox
denominations; nor of an eternity of torment as taught by the
I praise God for His truth!