Installment II

by Larry and June Acheson, with commentary by George Gabler (continued)

It would be overly time-consuming for us to go over each and every point of contention as it relates to Mr. Soto and Mr. George’s article. We may well gloss over some aspects that certain individuals will consider too critical to ignore, for which we apologize, as this is

definitely not our intention. On the other hand, some may feel that we devote an inordinate amount of space to other aspects that they consider to be minor. Again, this is not our intention. Thus, with the understanding that we intend to at least address the more glaring points of contention without dwelling too long on any one of them, we will proceed to critique the article "The Truth Regarding Inspired Titles" by Dale George and Silvio Soto.

Let us first address some additional problems with regard to their lack of documentation:

A general rule of thumb when presenting and addressing a controversial topic is the need to document general statements that are presented as fact. People do not necessarily "take my word for it" when I inform them of something that I believe is true, but when I show them piece after piece of documentation and other forms of evidence, at length they are normally silenced. This doesn’t by any means indicate they will change their minds, but it is certainly difficult to argue with fact. In our estimation, Mr. George and Mr. Soto did not properly document many otherwise important assertions presented in their work. Let us begin by analyzing just a few of the instances in which the need for documentation was violated.

From page six of "The Truth Regarding Inspired Titles":

"A crusade exclusively emphasizing the original names of Yahweh and Yahshua was launched. An urgent call for the immediate restoration of the Sacred Name was demanded. All titles or words of adoration, however meaningful and well intended were declared to be unimportant, so that the Sacred Name became the only focus of attention. Choice passages of Scripture where the Name was exclusively used were alluded to as ‘proof text’ (Prov. 18:10, Ps. 105:1-3, Is. 42:8, Prov. 30:4)."

We comment: Certainly, a crusade emphasizing restoration of the original names of our Creator and His Son was launched. No one will question this. However, exactly who was it (or what group/assembly) that declared "all titles or words of adoration" to be unimportant? Perhaps the authors could have cited a few quotations from Yahwist literature of the time period in question in order to validate their claim. In our years spent within the Yahwist Movement, we do not recall ever reading any such declaration. Who declared it? When was it declared? Was it declared by an isolated group within the Yahwist Movement or was it unanimously declared by the entire Yahwist Movement?

Without documentation, the reader is left to wonder.

Regarding their remark that "choice passages of Scripture where the Name was exclusively used were alluded to as ‘proof text,’" we personally have a difficult time following their reasoning for inserting such commentary. The authors not only enclosed the words "proof text" with quotation marks, but they also italicized them. Why? Normally, setting off those words in this way would be construed as meaning, "Those early Yahwist pioneers, in their ignorance, actually used verses such as Prov. 18:10, Ps. 105:1-3, etc., as ‘PROOF TEXTS.’" Perhaps we are not able to properly discern the authors’ intent here, but we personally consider the above-cited proof texts as being VERY SUFFICIENT to demonstrate the importance of knowing and using the Creator’s name.

Setting off the words "proof texts" as they did serves to leave the casual reader with the impression that verses such as Proverbs 18:10, Isaiah 42:8, Proverbs 30:4 and Psalms 105:1-3 really aren’t proof texts after all, but were malignly construed as such by the early Yahwist pioneers. Setting off those words in essence serves to minimize the belief that the verses cited can be properly considered proof texts.

This brings to mind a quote from their article mentioned earlier in our introduction. Mr. George and Mr. Soto attempted to establish early on in their work that "This treatise should not be considered an attack against the Sacred Name Movement, of which the authors are proud to be an integral part and continue to personally promote and defend."

Not everyone will agree with Mr. George and Mr. Soto’s insistence that their article is "not an attack" when they scrutinize what must have been the logic of minimizing the proof texts cited by early Yahwist pioneers In fact, as one leafs through their article, he will not find any positive portrayals of the Yahwist Movement! Instead, we find something like this:

"Sadly the very misconceptions (the two Sacred-Name ‘principles’) that so helped us to grow and develop into a recognized movement, are reflected in the reasons why so many Assemblies today have become fragmented, to the point where shameful and senseless rivalry has caused even Elders and leaders to permanently disassociate and disfellowship one another! Yet, this sad state of affairs should NOT surprise us in the least, since the same is the product of decades of accumulated faulty reasoning." (from page 28 of their article)

With verbiage such as this, one has to wonder how serious Dale George and Silvio Soto were in their claim that the work they authored "should not be considered an attack against the Sacred Name Movement." Portrayed in such a negative light as this, at the very least it must be considered an insult to the early Yahwist pioneers. George Gabler, himself a member of the Yahwist Movement for many years, is adamant that, indeed, Dale George and Silvio Soto’s treatise should be considered an attack. Note Mr. Gabler’s commentary in response to the authors’ insistence that their article should not be considered an attack against the Sacred Name Movement:

"This is most certainly an attack! Implying that religious zeal is bad and that the doctrine (unstated) is built on absolute falsehood is introduced up front to sway the thinking of the reader. This is not an attempt to lead others to YAHWEH, but to forsake their basic apprehension of using the name God! The nature of promoting a different doctrine than what others hold IS divisive! It is not the Sacred Name zealots that are divisive, it is the authors of this article!"

What does Mr. Gabler mean in stating that the article "The Truth Regarding Inspired Titles" implies that religious zeal is bad? From where did he extrapolate such an intent on the part of authors Dale George and Silvio Soto? Well, it came from the very first statement in their treatise: "The following treatise is being written with the deepest concern over religious zeal - which once cemented - is almost impossible to change or to correct, even when it is manifestly obvious that the same is built on absolute falsehood."

Does the preceding statement imply that religious zeal is bad? Well, yes, it does! We therefore stand behind Mr. Gabler’s remark. Nevertheless, one hopes that the

authors intended to imply that religious zeal, when it is MISGUIDED, is almost impossible to change or to correct. The main point we are attempting to target here, though, is that the article "The Truth Regarding Inspired Titles" can indeed be properly construed as an attack against the Yahwist Movement, whether such was the actual intent of the authors or not. Their intentions may have been noble, but the results have been devastating. We have personally witnessed many who, apparently more desirous of bringing more sheep into the fold than outright honoring Yahweh, have read and accepted the authors’ premise as valid. These people are our friends and brethren, who upon reading this, may very well feel we are very presumptuous in suggesting that their reason for wanting to refer to Yahweh as "our God" is to bring more people in. If we are mistaken, we apologize, yet we are most curious to know and understand exactly why they feel it is proper to refer to our Heavenly Father with a title that is pronounced exactly the same as the name of a lifeless heathen deity whose worship He condemns. The "ball is in their court" to enlighten us.

As previously mentioned, one of our charges against Dale George and Silvio Soto is their failure to document statements presented as fact. We will shortly present more examples of this, but before doing so, it is only fair to give the authors credit for documenting a remark made on page seven of their article. They mention the fact that with the Yahwist Movement, different groups have been known to pick and choose from "the vast pool of corrupted words the ones they will reject and the ones they will learn to live with." They then refer the reader to endnote 1, which turns out to be a list of words deemed unacceptable by The Institute For Scripture Research of South Africa.

Unfortunately, although they identified and documented a problem within the Yahwist Movement, I do not feel they left the reader with any hope of a solution to that problem. It is true that at present there isn’t a pure language in the world, at least that were aware of. With this in mind, we propose that each individual, upon recognizing the probable heathen origin of certain words, determine to at least not use such words in reference to our Heavenly Father and His Son. If we truly desire our worship to be pure, then shouldn’t the way we worship the Father and His Son also be as pure as possible? Let us seek out pure words when referring to Yahweh and His Son. How do we properly honor Them when we refer to Them (or pray to Them) using words and titles stained from the origin of heathen worship? We don’t! So maybe we cannot completely rid ourselves of corrupted words in our everyday lives, but certainly we can work on not applying such words to the Father and His Son.

From page seven: "Sacred-Name linguistic arguments are usually developed and designed to appeal to the individual’s conscience and reasoning ability. Admittedly, at first glance they are quite impressive and challenging. What is not immediately noted is that most of these consist primarily of half-truths and are often based on unsubstantiated concepts."

Our comment: The authors need to provide their reading audience with examples of these Sacred-Name linguistic arguments, and especially the "half-truths" of which the Yahwist folk are accused of using. They provided no such examples, only rhetoric designed to sway the casual reader.

Also on page seven: "Although the manner by which these various linguistic claims were developed was indeed clever, we shall soon demonstrate that the same are in error."

We comment: Again, the reading audience needs examples of the linguistic claims before classifying them as "clever, but in error." Without examples and proofs of the undesignated errors, we are left to simply take the authors’ word for it, which they apparently hope we will do! It is inexcusable and irresponsible.

From page eight: "However, when we apply an ACID TEST to the unquestionable and supposedly factual evidence cited on behalf of these principles, we quickly find out that what the Sacred-Name Movement has been stating for several decades regarding certain words—which to date has gone basically unchallenged—is actually false!"

We reply: Once more, no documentation accompanies the authors’ remarks here. Exactly "what" has the Sacred Name Movement been stating for decades? The reader needs at least a few quotations to remove any doubts he may have as to whether or not, such statements actually exist. Certainly, individual groups within the Yahwist Movement, led by the whims of various leaders, overseers, etc., came up with lists of forbidden words.

Does this indicate a concerted effort on the part of the entire Yahwist Movement? No, it does not. Just because individual groups within the Yahwist Movement adopted some unorthodox practices, this does not and should not be construed as meaning that EVERYONE involved in the Yahwist Movement perpetrates false teachings regarding certain words.

Also on page eight: (The truth about BAAL): "The classical Sacred-Name argument against the word ‘baal’ is based on the assumed premise that ‘baal’ has NEVER been used by Inspiration in a direct reference to Yahweh. This concept is intended to be a linguistic fact (that is, no matter how much we search the Bible, we would never find a passage of scripture where the word ‘baal’ is attributed by Inspiration to Yahweh)."

And from page nine: "While most Sacred Name advocates would like to believe that ‘baal’ was applied in the Bible only to men and to a false Canaanite deity, the Hebrew Scriptures actually disprove this notion."

The authors follow the above remarks with a plethora of Scripture texts plainly demonstrating that, indeed, Yahweh is referred to as a baal, both by prophets and by Yahweh Himself.

Our response: In most of our 14 years with the Yahwist Movement, my wife and I have associated with groups that recognize baal as having been a title originally reserved for Yahweh. Yahweh was indeed properly referred to as being a "baal" long before a deity with that same name came on the scene. Thus, to lump us in with the groups that did not arrive at this truthful conclusion is unfair. Furthermore, they once again failed to document their statements! We would like to read a quotation from "The classical Sacred-Name argument against the word baal." Present us with sources documenting that most Sacred Name advocates believe the term baal was only applied to men and a false Canaanite deity. None is provided.