From the April 1926 Present Truth:

BITING AND DEVOURING ONE ANOTHER
THE APOSTLE Paul in Gal. 5: 15 uses some very forceful language in warning against the evil course of some of the Lord's professed people: "If ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another," Of course he does not by these words refer to literal biting, devouring and consuming; for he is not addressing cannibalistically inclined people, but new creatures. The biting, devouring and consuming are, therefore, symbolic, yet none the less real. The figure contains an allusion to wild beasts who quarrel with one another and as a result bite, devour and consume one another. There is a symbolic biting that tears away parts of the new creature and devours them and, if continued, ends in consuming the new creature entirely. Often unbrotherly words and acts have bitten away and broken into pieces parts of a new creature's faith, hope, love, obedience, etc. And not seldom under such treatment has the entire new creature been consumed. Have we never heard of some of the Lord's people being so mistreated in word and deed by their brethren as to have been bereft of some of their growth in various graces? Yea, have we not heard of some of them being so greatly injured in their new creaturely qualities as to have been destroyed entirely as new creatures? Sad to say this has happened. It happens almost always when we put stumbling blocks in the way of our weak brethren, and they perseveringly bite back in the same spirit, or being discouraged, they give up.

In various ways such biting, devouring and consuming are done. Some among the Lord's people are so contentious that they, like briars in the pathway, tear such as pass their way and respond in the same spirit. These bite peacefulness and devour it in their brethren. Some by rude, rough and even ruffianly words bite their brethren and arouse in them anger and resentment, thus devouring their longsuffering. Some by evil surmises expressed, in language fill their brethren with sorrow and thus bite and devour their joy. Some by vindictiveness bite their fellows and arouse resentment in their brethren, and thus devour some of their love. Some by proud looks, haughty words and arrogant acts bite pieces out of their brethren's friendliness and thus consume it. Some by their stubbornness bite and consume their brethren's meekness. Some by their headiness bite and devour their brethren's love for fellowship in meetings. Some by their ambition to be somebodies bite and devour their brethren's desire for unity with one another, and by dividing the flock make a sectarian spirit grow where the unity of the spirit once was. Some by vanity chill the warmth of their brethren's esteem, thus biting and devouring their apprecia-tion. Some by coldness and indifference bite and devour the brotherly amiability of fellow new creatures. Some by teaching and spreading error bite and devour the brethren in their faith. Some by habitual fault-finding bite and devour- their brethren in their courage and proper self-confidence. Some by clumsily bringing up dead past acts stir up strife and thus bite and devour their brethren's gentleness. Some by tactless criticism bite and devour their breth-ren in their zeal. Some by selfishness bite and devour their brethren's love. Some by pessimism bite and devour their brethren's hopefulness. Some by suggesting anxiety and unbelief devour their brethren's peace. Thus in a great variety of ways some bite and devour one another, the one who is devoured weakly responding to the wrong treatment.

This biting and devouring spirit does not come from the Lord; for its nature and effects are the reverse of what the Lord seeks. It must come from the flesh, the world and the adversary. If we look at the qualities above mentioned; contentiousness, wrong speech, evil surmisings expressed, vindictiveness, pride, haughtiness, arrogance, stubbornness, headiness, selfish ambition, sectarianism, vanity, coldness, indifference, teaching error, fault-finding, digging up dead acts, tactlessness, selfishness, pessimism, evil suggestions, etc.—we will at once recognize such biting and devouring as not coming in any sense from the Lord's spirit. Rather they come from the spirit of the flesh, of the world and of the adversary.

The source of such biting and devouring is thus evil. Its purpose, therefore, cannot be other than evil, and certainly these considerations should arm us against the biting and devouring habit. It certainly betrays by its very nature, its origin and its purpose, and gives the well developed new creature all the ear-marks of evil necessary to put him on his guard against it. Our hatred for the spirit of the flesh, the world and the adversary, should arouse us against such biting and devouring. Our love for the Lord, the Truth and the brethren, should arm us against it; and our desire to develop Christlikeness should fortify us against it. There is no real justification of the biting and devouring habit. There is every reason of wisdom, justice, love and power against it. The fact that we have done it in the past, and that it is more or less a quality of our dispositions cannot justify our indulging it. Rather this fact calls upon us to take counter-active measures against it. Nothing worth while is in its favor, but everything worth while calls upon us to set this habit aside.

From the pen of the much maligned Paul S. L. Johnson

Bro. Harold

This article is talking about spirit begotten ones. The Pastor was also pretty clear that non spirit begotten might have what appear to be fruits of the Spirit, but are just more kindly disposed. As the teachings of the door closed Bible Students is that one can no longer be anointed by God's spirit, where would anybody be able to have God's spirit? Has the pouring out began before the Ancient Worthies are resurrected?

Bro. Jim: Yes, this article was directed by Bro. Johnson to those who were spirit begotten but who still remained in the flesh. Although it was so, the same priciples apply to our conduct today and I believe are worthy of our attention. Thanks for your thoughts!

Bro. Harold

big difference here... Bro Russell would be speaking in his day of non consecrated individuals... He never spoke that any of the brethren did not have the Lord's Holy Spirit while he wholly admitted quite early on that he didn't believe the majority were spirit begotten, but reminded us also that consecration was always in order. The Bible Students (in their majority) hold to the idea that there cannot be such a thing as an unbegotten consecrated one, much against the teachings of their proposed Messenger...

comment?

thanks

I believe the fruits are of the Spirit which can only be had by anointed ones? I don't believe the Spirit has been poured out yet upon the world. So, it would be the natural man attempting to better himself with no help from the Spirit...

Jim

If I am not mistaken, the article mentioned is meant to be a "slap in the face" for those of us who disagree with the current leadership of the LHMM. It is meant to be a form of chastisment, reminding us that we must all "walk in step"

I was thinking the same thing. It seems to be a message to those of us who don't want to go along with a doctrinal change that they technically can't defend. And, I have seen this biting and devouring going on by those who have followed this "present view" - read error. If you can't technically defend your position, it comes down to name calling and character assassination, which as you can see by the quoted article, is wrong. I think this a case of practice what you should practice what you preach.

oddly enough it sounds very watchtowerish

I have never witnessed bro. Harold engaging in "name calling and character assassination."

I think your post is accusing him of that. I think that's too bad. I'll bet you can't post the link to a single post in which he has done any such thing.

Bro. Regan,

I guess I meant in general.

When Bro. Jim stated: "If I am not mistaken, the article mentioned is meant to be a "slap in the face" for those of us who disagree with the current leadership of the LHMM. It is meant to be a form of chastisment, reminding us that we must all "walk in step"" to the article quoted by Bro. Harold, I had the same knee-jerk reaction.

And, you are right - I have not heard him personally do any of these things, but I have heard name calling and character assassination practiced from the podium at recent LHMM conventions. I have listened to every single convention of the LHMM over the past year, and inappropriate things about brethren no longer attending has been said, along with inuendo. Don't brethren still associated with the LHMM who hear these things have some responsibility if they sit in their seats in silence or encourage it? I believe Bro. Harold attends these conventions.

So, I meant it in a general way. I felt too as Bro. Jim did, that there was a message behind the article quoted. But, maybe I misread why it was quoted.

As I said before, I still feel these brethren are my brethren, but it definitely seems they are not saying the same of us - for holding to the truth as we have always known it. Ironically, I feel like I got off "that" topic and was moving onto other things, even agreeing with something Bro. Harold said, and that I saw what seemed like this chastisement.

If that was not what was intended by him, then mea culpa. But, it sure seems like that's what it was. Otherwise, what was the point of quoting the article? Instead of quoting that article, it would have been nice if the references I and others had put out there in relation to the YW call, had been addressed and not ignored, especially after he pushed me with an "answer yes or no" style, which I did not appreciate.

I understand why you called me on it what I said though, especially if it seemed I was directly accusing him of name calling and character assassination. That was not what I was doing, but I do feel brethren have the responsibility to question things they hear about others and not just follow the leader.

I don't think I said anything to the idea of a "slap in the face." I simply pointed out that the article references those who are anointed with the Holy Spirit and thus have more control than those who do not have the Spirit.

I know you know bro. Harold better than I do, so you know he's not apt to engage in any such antics. Thanks for your answer.

I would direct you and all interested ones to my post at the Epiphany Forum, http://www.network54.com/Forum/127498/message/1223181492/Re-+1878%2C+the+end+of+the+General+Call%2C+Youthful+Worthies

I hope we can discuss it there and allow this forum to be more or less a place where we witness to the great Hope we have in the Kingdom, so others won't be put off by too much "inside baseball."

You are right. That is the best place to post. Unfortunately is seems those of us who would like to debate this Epiphany truth question that has affected to many will be having a one-sided question. Nonetheless if I have something to say on that matter, I will consider posting there.

Hi Sr. Kelly,

I just want to say for the record that I would not at all think to establish any set rules prohibiting that or most any Bible topic from being discussed here at this forum. I merely hope to persuade others into sharing my view that this board should have the general public in mind, and the E. Forum can discuss the intricacies of various advanced doctrines and types.

Thanks for understanding!

Regan

: - )