Truth Magazine

By Frank Jamerson

Introduction:

(Mormons believe that the Bible was corrupted and that their writings are superior to the Bible. It is useless to talk with them about the contradictions between the Bible and the Mormon writings because they have already had their confidence in the Bible undermined. The following outline was prepared to present to two Mormons. They listened, but had no response – not even a quibble.)

A. The Bible claims to be God’s word (2 Tim. 3:16,17; 2 Pet. 1:3,20,21; Jn. 16:13; 2 Jn. 9).

B. The truth was “once delivered” (Jude 3; cf. Heb. 9:27). C. The books were authoritative, and considered to be so, when they were written (1 Cor. 14:37; 1 Jn. 4:6).

1. “One thing must be emphatically stated. The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognizing their innate worth and generally apostolic authority, direct or indirect. The first ecclesiastical councils to classify the canonical books were both held in North Africa at Hippo Regius in 393 and at Carthage in 397 but what these councils did was not to impose something new upon the Christian communities but to codify what was already the general practice of these communities” (The New Testament Documents – Are They Reliable? by F.F. Bruce, p. 27).

2. “The books of the Bible possess their own authority and indeed had this authority long before there were any councils of the church” (How We Got The Bible, by Neil Lightfoot, p. 82).

3 “If it is no later than the middle of the second century when the apostles’ letters became widely read in public meetings, it is no later than the last half of that century when substantial lists of the New Testament books appear” (Lightfoot, p. 84).

4. “It is necessary to emphasize that no church through its councils made the canon of Scripture. No church – in particular the Roman Catholic Church – by its decrees gave to or pronounced upon the books of the Bible their infallibility. The Bible owes its authority to no individual or group. The church does not control the canon, but the canon controls the church” (Lightfoot, p. 87).

Discussion:

A. How the Bible came to us:

1. Manuscripts (copies in the same language):

a. Vatican (or Codex B) – a fourth century manuscript, housed in the Vatican Library since 1481. (It contains 759 pages of the finest vellum on which most of the Old and New Testaments are written.)

b. Sinaitic – discovered at Mt. Sinai. It dates to the fourth century and contains most of the Old and all twenty-seven books of the New Testament. It was discovered by a German, named Tischendorf, in 1844-1859, and then put in the Imperial Library, St. Petersburg, Russia; but in 1933 was sold to the British Museum for half a million dollars. (Note: We could as reasonable say “the Russians gave us the Bible,” as we could “the Roman Catholics gave us the Bible.”)

c. Alexandrian – dates to the fifth century. It was taken from Alexandria, Egypt to the British Museum in 1627. Ten leaves are missing from the Old Testament, 25 from the beginning of the New, and two from John and three from 2 Corinthians.

d. The Dead Sea Scrolls – discovered in 1947 and dated to the second century B.C., scrolls were found of every O.T. book except Esther. A complete manuscript of Isaiah was found. These manuscripts simply confirmed the accuracy of what we already had.

e. There are over 4,500 manuscripts, or partial ones, of the New Testament. The large number of manuscripts leads to a large number of “variations” (such as mis-spelled words, letter reversals, or a dropped line), but the large number of manuscripts help scholars determine the genuine text, and no doctrine is affected by these “variations.”

2. Ancient Versions (Translations):

a. The gospel preached on Pentecost in different languages (Acts 2:4,6) needed to be translated into different languages after it was written by Spirit-guided men. (Note: Translating a manuscript cannot corrupt the manuscript. If the Greek New Testament exists, and it does, it could be translated by anyone and it would not “corrupt the text” from which the translation was made!)

b. The Old Syriac – a language spoken in regions of Syria and Mesopotamia, was found in 1892. It contains manuscripts of the Gospels and is dated back to the second century.

c. The Old Latin Version – about twenty copies exist and it dates back to about 150 A.D.

d. Latin Vulgate – a revision of the Old Latin version, made in 384 (the Gospels) and finished later. “Perhaps 10,000 copies of the New Testament in the Latin Vulgate exist” (Lightfoot, p. 43).

C. Apocryphal Books:

1. Catholics accept the 27 books that we accept in the New Testament plus twelve of fifteen “apocryphal books” in the Old Testament. The Catholic Church has not removed anything from the Bible. In fact, they added twelve books to the Old Testament that should not be there!

2. Simon Greenleaf, lawyer, in Testimony of the Evangelists gave several principles for determining the genuiness of a document.

a. “Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise.”

b. “In matters of public and general interest, all persons must be presumed to be coversant, on the

principle that individuals are presumed to be conversant with their own affairs.” (Those who multiplied the copies of the New Testament are presumed to know what they were copying.)

c. “A proposition of fact is proved, when its truth is established by competent and satisfactory evidence.”

d . “The credit due to the testimony of witnesses depends upon, firstly, their honesty; secondly, their ability; thirdly, their number and the consistency of their testimony; fourthly, the conformity of their testimony with collateral circumstances.”

3. Why we reject the apocryphal books:

a. They were never included in the Hebrew canon of the Old Testament (Jesus and the apostles, as

well as other Jews to whom the law was given, did not accept them).

b. They were not accepted by such Jewish writers as Philo and Josephus (first century), the Jewish

c. They do not show evidence of the qualities of inspiration. Great portions are fictitious and contain historical and geographical errors (see Lightfoot, p. 92).

d. Various books were read in religious meetings, then, as now; but that does not prove that they were inspired.

D. Mormon Testimony:

1. The Book of Mormon says: “For behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts

which are plain and most precous; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away. . . . Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God . . . because of these things which are taken away out of the gospel of the Lamb, and exceeding great many do stumble, yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them” (1 Nephi 13:26,27,30).

2. The “great and abominable church” never had possession of the manuscripts of the Bible, therefore could not have “removed” things. This assertion is plainly contradicted by the facts.

3. The Articles of Faith of the Mormon church contradict the claim:

a. “It is evident, then, that from a time nearly three hundred years before Christ, the Old Testament has been current in both Hebrew and Greek; and this duplication has been an effective means of protection against alterations” (p. 242).

b. “Since the latter part of the fourth century of our current era, there has arisen scarcely a question of importance regarding the authenticity of the books of the New Testament as at present constituted. During these centuries the New Testament has been accepted as a canon of scripture by professed Christians” (p. 245).

c. On page 248 it says: “perhaps, many precious parts have been suppressed or lost, while some corruptions of the texts may have crept in, and errors have been inadvertently introduced through the incapacity of translators, the volume as a whole must be admitted as authentic and credible. . “

E. God’s Testimony:

1. Christ promised the apostles that the Holy Spirit would “guide them into all truth” (Jn. 16:13). If He did, then all truth was revealed through the apostles. If He did not, then Jesus did not tell the truth.

2. Paul said that any doctrine other than that delivered through the apostles would bring the curse of God upon its teachers (Gal. 1:8,9).

3. Jesus said the word of God would not pass away (Mk. 13:31).

4. Peter made the same promise, through inspiration of the Spirit (1 Pet. 1:25).

Conclusion:

A. The Roman Catholic did not, and could not have, removed things from the Bible.

B. Some Mormons give a list of books mentioned in the Bible and claim they are “lost.” If the Book of Mormon was to “restore” them – where are they? (Not one of their list is found in the Book of Mormon!)

C. Others claim that some doctrines were removed from the Bible – not whole books. What is the doctrine, and where is it “restored” in the Book of Mormon?

D. Any doctrine in the Book of Mormon that is not in the Bible is wrong (Gal. 1:8,9). Any doctrine in the Book of Mormon that is right is already found in the Bible.

E. Not everything Jesus did was written, but the things written are sufficient to give us life (Jn. 20:30,31).

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 7, pp. 200-201
April 2, 1987

By F.G. Allen

Elements of Weakness

While it is important to know our strength, it is equally important to understand our weakness. That we have elements of weakness is a painful fact. These we should study to understand, and labor to correct. Our judgment is, that prominent among the things now constituting our weakness is –

1. The extent to which we are losing sight of our distinctive plea.

Unless we have a distinctive plea we have no right to exist. The day we become like the denominations around us, the day ends our right to exist as a distinct religious people. If we have a distinctive plea, in that consists our strength. I believe that our distinctive principles are made less prominent in our pulpits now than formerly. I do not mean that our preachers should be always on what is called “first principles.” Very far from it. But I do mean that all our members should be deeply indoctrinated in the things that distinguish us from other religious peoples. The people should understand why they occupy the position they do. The better this is understood the more it will be appreciated, and the more firm and consistent will be the Christian life. When people are led to believe that sectarianism is about as good as New Testament Christianity, their influence for the cause we plead is positively hurtful. Whenever we begin to curry favor with the sects and fawn upon them for recognition, we are certain to say but little about a plea that lays the axe at the root of the whole denominational tree. Whenever we begin to curry favor with the world, we are certain to fall in with the world’s notions, and adjust ourselves to the world’s ways. Hence much of that in which churches now indulge in the way of worldly amusements, carnal methods of raising money, the spirit of mere entertainment in the worship, etc., is due to the fact that they copy the sects, rather than the New Testament churches; and are filled with the spirit of the world, instead of the spirit of Christ.

The religion of Christ is a religion of spirituality. When you take the spirituality out of a church, you take the life out of it. You may have members and wealth and culture left, but the power of divine truth and love is gone. There is too much of this spirit pervading our churches. Worldly conformity in spirit, in worship, in life, is the great weakness from which our cause is suffering; and this is largely due, in my judgment, to the want of strict adherence to the fundamental plea that gave us our power in the past. If the restoration of New Testament Christianity, in spirit and in life, as well as in form, had full possession of our hearts, this would never be (from The Old-Path Pulpit, pp. 172-173).

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 7, p. 206
April 2, 1987

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Question: When individuals are helping those who do not qualify for help out of the treasury of the local church, is it permissible to pass the collection plate after the regular contribution in order to help such people?

Reply: The New Testament clearly specifies who is to be helped out of the local church treasury. They are needy saints for whom the church is responsible. Each church provided for its own needy in the matter of benevolence (Acts 2:44,45; 6:1-7; Eph. 4:12; 1 Tim. 5:16). When the local church was unable to provide for its own (as in the event of a famine), other churches assisted it in supplying this need (Rom. 15:26; 2 Cor. 8:14; 9:1). From these Scriptures we learn that the benevolent work of the church was limited to “brethren,” d4saints,” “poor saints” and “widows indeed.” But, as noted in our second sentence in this reply, “needy saints for whom the church is responsible.” This is to say that not all needy saints are to be helped out of the treasury of the local church. Family members who are able to supply their needs are to do so, that the church be not burdened. Widows are a case in point (1 Tim. 5:16). The Bible clearly teaches that children are to help their parents; it is their obligation (see Mk. 7:8-13). The point, then, is clear. The church is authorized by the Scriptures to assist from its treasury only needy saints for whom it is responsible. To go beyond this is to be beyond what is written (1 Cor. 4:6).

As to assisting those who do not qualify for aid from the church treasury, individuals are to do it. It is proper that they do it after the service has been dismissed. To pass a collection plate during the service to help non-members, and after the regular contribution, is about the same as “tweedle dee and tweedle dum,” the only difference being the purpose of the two collections. Both collections are made during the assembly. The money in both instances is contributed by the church. It is difficult to see what would make the first a church contribution but not the second.

The church is not authorized by the Scriptures to take up a contribution for any work which it is not authorized to do. This applies to contributions for colleges, benevolent institutions or non-members in need. If persons are in need and worthy of help, individual brethren should make up money among themselves and not involve the church. Just as schools are to be supported by individuals and not the church, so those not qualifying as needy saints are to be supported by individuals and not the church.

The failure by many to make the distinction between what the church is to do and what individuals are to do is responsible for many of our problems in the church today. We must be careful to always stay within the bounds of scriptural limitation.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 7, p. 197
April 2, 1987

By Johnny Stringer

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus presented truths pertaining to the kingdom He was soon to establish (Matt. 4:17,23). In Matthew 5:20 He said that the righteousness required in His kingdom would be greater than the righteousness taught and practiced by the scribes and Pharisees. He then proceeded to discuss the higher righteousness required in His kingdom.

He began by discussing the superior righteousness which is required regarding our attitudes toward others. The scribes and Pharisees condemned murder (v. 21), but their teaching fell short of what is required in the kingdom of Christ. Demanding a higher righteousness, Jesus condemns all feelings and expressions of contempt and ill-will.

Three Examples of Wrong Attitude

To depict the hateful attitude, Jesus gave three examples of that attitude.

First, He spoke of one being angry with his brother. The term anger is used here in the context of evil attitudes toward a person – contempt, ill-will, the desire to harm. It refers, therefore, to the anger which involves these attitudes, not to the proper anger toward evil which is controlled so that there is no ill-will toward the one whose actions anger us (Mk. 3:5; Eph. 4:6).

The anger which Jesus condemns is all too prevalent, even among brethren in Christ. Sometimes simple disagreements lead to bitter feelings. When one reaches the point that he cannot have kind feelings toward one with whom he disagrees, he has a real problem. Even when spiritual truth is involved and we properly become angry over false doctrine, our anger must not be the evil anger that involves ill feelings toward the individual; rather, we must desire his welfare, praying and hoping that he will come to a knowledge of the truth.

The second example Jesus gave of the wrong attitude was calling a brother “Raca.” Raca was an Aramaic word which meant “empty headed.” It was used to express contempt and scorn.

The third example which He gave was calling one a fool. The reference in this context is to calling one a fool out of contempt, calling him an insulting name simply to express scorn. There is a difference between such name-calling and simply describing a foolish person as what he is, with no bitterness or ill-will involved. Jesus Himself did that (Matt. 23:17, 19; 7:26). Hence, if one says that those who disobey God are foolish, he is simply teaching what Jesus taught; he is not violating the principle under discussion here.

Three Ways Of Expressing Judgment

As Jesus depicted the evil attitude in three ways, He also used three different ways to express the fact that men will be held accountable for this attitude (v. 22). (1) The one is angry with his brother will be in danger of the judgment. (2) The one who says “Raca” will be in danger of the council. (3) The one who says “Thou fool” will be in danger of hell fire.

Some believe that Jesus meant that each of the evils would result in a different fate. This is not the point. There is no significant difference between saying “Raca” and saying “Thou fool.” If the one who says “Thou fool” will go to hell, so will the one who says “Raca.” Rather than setting forth different fates for the different evils, Jesus is simply using three different ways of expressing the fact of divine judgment.

Some like to point out that the word translated “council” (KJV) is the word which was used to denote the Sanhedrin (the highest court of the Jews). But Jesus clearly was not referring to the literal Sanhedrin. No one was ever brought before the Sanhedrin for saying “Raca.” Jesus was not threatening folks with what the Sanhedrin might do to them. The one who said “Raca” had nothing to fear from the Sanhedrin. The word rendered “council” also had a more general meaning. It did not always refer to the Sanhedrin, but sometimes to other tribunals (Matt. 10:17). Jesus was simply saying that the guilty person would be brought to court – God’s court.

Even if Jesus was using the word to denote the Sanhedrin, He was speaking figuratively, using the earthly tribunal with which they were familiar to stand for the heavenly tribunal – much as one in the United States might figuratively describe God’s judgment seat as the Supreme Court. Jesus’ purpose was simply to convey the concept of judgment; and the tribunal to be feared by the person who said “Raca” was not an earthly one, but the heavenly one.

Jesus said that those who are guilty are in danger of hell fire. The word translated “hell” is gehenna. This was the name of a valley near Jerusalem which had a hideous history, having been the site of the burning of human sacrifices in heathen rituals. In Jesus’ day it was the place where garbage and trash were dumped. The name of this place had come to be used to denote the place of eternal punishment – and appropriately so. No word in the Jewish language was more fitting as a name for the place, of eternal punishment than the name of this loathsome valley.

Christians should contemplate well the fact that bitterness and ill-will toward others will result in eternal punishment. There have been causes in which brethren in Christ have had such animosity toward one another that they would not speak to one another or would not sit on the same side of the meeting house. There have even been cases of physical violence among brethren. Those who harbor such feelings will be held accountable.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 7, p. 203
April 2, 1987