Truth Magazine

By Olen Holderby

Some time back, in a psychological setting, the above title was “invented” to use as a title in writing about two things: (1) The wife whose multi-personalities, and the frequent change from one to the other, finally sent her husband to the grave, (2) How that husband, Jim, before his death, tried to cope with the frustrating circumstances. Apart from the psychological use, the title would probably make little sense. But, I’ll tell you what – it makes about as much sense as some of what one hears and reads about marriage, divorce, and remarriage these days.

A conversation which this writer had with a bunch of school teachers a few years back, while working with the public schools is well remembered. While sitting in the teachers lounge early one morning, I listened to their conversation about religion. After a few minutes, my comment was, “You school teachers absolutely amaze me!” Of course they wanted to know the reason for my amazement. My explanation was very simple, “All of you are educated and trained to go into the classroom, and there influence boys and girls to think and reason intelligently; and you are apparently doing a good job in that area. However, in your remarks about religion and your personal convictions you have thrown that intelligence right out the window.” I got up and walked out, leaving them with open mouths and puzzled looks.

Yes, most brethren seem to be able to reason intelligently on such subjects as: how to become a Christian, origin of the church, worship, etc.; and its seems that God’s word is sufficiently plain on these subjects. We continue to hear stressed the plainness and simplicity of God’s Word as we argue our case before the religious world. This is as it should be; for indeed it is so! When it comes, however, to divorce and remarriage, it appears that many just throw that intelligence out. God’s word is no longer plain enough, and we just have to make all kinds of allowances. Of course the same could be said for a few other subjects, i.e.: fellowship, unity, deity of Christ, etc. To put it another way, while we condemn the Pentecostals for substituting feelings for God’s word, verily we do the same in reference to divorce and remarriage. Perhaps we need to well digest Romans 2:1, “Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest another, thou condemnest thyself, for thou that judgest doest the same things.”

The truth of the matter is that almost every subject concerning Christianity, at some point in the past, was considered to be difficult and “unsettled.” Some subjects were thought to be without sufficiently plain revelation. Men begged for allowances; and, every time these allowances were granted men got further away from the truth of God. This writer has seen no reason to think it shall be different today. Lessons of history seem to have little impact on the thinking of man. Having said these things, let us get back to the subject of:

Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage

I know of none who would be so foolish as to say that all subjects are equally easy to be understood. Peter declared of some of the writings of Paul, “. . . in which are some things hard to be understood” (2 Pet. 3:16). Hardness is not impossibility; the fact that some subjects require more time than others, does not put them out of the reach of anyone with “normal” intelligence. It is to be recognized that difficulty is proportional – depending on the one experiencing it. Personally I believe it is true with our own brethren, as it is with most religionists: when preconceived ideas and prejudicial thinking are eliminated, most difficulty is gone.

The following is self-explanatory, easily understood and, I believe, sets forth God’s truth on the subjects.

Who has the right to marry?

1. A virgin – one who has never been married (1 Cor. 7:28).

2. A widow – one whose mate is dead (1 Cor. 7:39).

3. One whose mate has committed adultery (Matt. 19:9a).

Note: When you get married, will you marry one who has a right to get married?

Who has no right to marry?

1. One who is already married (Rom. 7:3a).

2. One whose unbelieving mate has departed (1 Cor. 7:11-15).

3. One who has been put away (Matt. 19:9b; 5:32b).

Note: When you get married, will it be to someone who has no right to be married?

The reason for divorce (not considering legal aspects):

1. The question put to Jesus, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” (Matt. 19:3)

2. The Lord comments, and he leaves no room for any “every cause” idea (vv. 4-6).

3. Jesus is asked a second question, “Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? ” (v. 7)

4. Jesus replies to the second question: in doing so he skips completely over the Mosaic period and Mosaic law to “the beginning,” to God’s original design for marriage (v. 8).

5. Jesus gives his own verdict in the matter (see above points). Some are wont to say that one may be divorced for many reasons, but only one, fornication or adultery, grants the right of remarriage. Jesus here gives only one reason for divorce period! (v. 9)

There are three errors, presently, being pushed in varying degrees, though the proponents do not necessarily agree. The first one is that “the one guilty of adultery, and is put away, may remarry without sinning.” The above points clearly establish that such a person has no right to marry. It makes no difference how much we may argue about the question, Jesus still said, “Whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” (Matt. 19:9). It will continue to read that way regardless of what men may say.

The second error concerns 1 Corinthians 7:15; it is argued that this passage gives the believing mate the right to remarry, when the unbelieving mate departs. Again, the above points show that such an one has no right to marry. Such a person could not marry without having obtained a divorce; and, he could not get a divorce except for “fornication,” according to Jesus’ statement in Matthew 19:9.

The third error is, “The alien sinner is not subject to God’s marriage law.” This error would permit the alien to be married any number of items, and he is to continue with the mate whom he has at the time he obeys the gospel, all his pervious relationships are abolished at his baptism. In such a case, baptism is made the consummating act of that last marriage. The truth of the matter is that God designed marriage for all men in the very beginning, and Jesus refers to this fact in his remarks to the Pharisees in Matthew 19. By declaring that someone is not subject to God’s law may be a convenient way around that law, but it does not change the expressed law of the Lord in the least. Evidence would seem to show that this error was born out of convenience and the desire to avoid making some difficult decisions.

Some have been heard to say that they understand Romans better than Matthew 19:9. I see nothing extremely difficult about God’s law for marriage, divorce, and remarriage; though some particular circumstances (with certain unknowns) may produce some “head-scratching.” It still appears, at least to this writer, that when we can remove the preconceived ideas and prejudicial thinking, most of the difficulty is gone. May God help us all to root out both of these from our thinking!

No, God’s marriage law is not difficult to understand, but it is often extremely difficult to get men to respect that law. As long as we tolerate the multi-theories and teachings of men, more and more the subject will sound like “The Late Husband of Jim’s Six Wives.”

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 22, pp. 685-686
November 19, 1992

By Patrick Donahue

Even Christians Make Charges of Phariseeism That Would Condemn Jesus

In our last article, we pointed out that denominationalists over the years have accused Christians of being Pharisees. The same charges and many additional ones are now being made by those who are supposed to be members of God’s church. I believe that many, if not all, of those making these charges misunderstand what Phariseeism really was. According to their view of Phariseeism, as seen in their explanations for their charges, the “arch-enemy” of the Pharisees in biblical times, Jesus Christ himself, would be charged a Pharisee! Notice that Jesus would have been accused of many of the most common of the charges now being made by Christians, which are listed below.

Jesus was a “legalist.” A simple definition for “legalism” would be, “strict adherence to law.” According to this definition, Jesus was a legalist, because he believed in strictly following God’s law. About a still binding (at that time) old law, he said in Matthew 5:19, “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Remember Nadab and Abihu in Leviticus 10:1-2? They worshiped God by burning incense, but were destroyed by God, because they didn’t do it exactly as God prescribed. It has been my experience that anytime the charge of legalism is made, the accuser is not willing to follow God’s law as completely and as accurately as the accused. Contrary to popular opinion, we should be legalists. We should learn from Jesus, and Nadab and Abihu that we must follow God’s law completely and in every detail. So the next time you are called a legalist, consider it a compliment.

Jesus was “picky.” Some Christians have been accusing their brethren of being too picky with some passages in the Bible. I wonder what they think of Jesus’ “pickiness” when he made an argument based upon just the tense of a verb in Matthew 22:32? Was Paul too “picky” when, in Galatians 3:16, he based a point on an Old Testament word not being plural? What about James? Would they think he was too picky when he said in James 2: 10, “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all”?

Jesus “debated the Bible.” It hasn’t always been this way, but many Christians have decided that debating the Bible is wrong. “The Pharisees spent all their time wrangling over minor doctrinal points they might say.” Don’t we realize that it is not what we think, but what Jesus thought and did that matters? What would you call what Jesus did as recorded in Mark 13:13-37, if it was not debating the Scriptures? Acts 15 even records a debate with Christians on opposite sides of the question in dispute.

Jesus would be accused of having a “judgmental attitude.” It seems that some Christians have confused preaching the truth against sin with having a “judgmental attitude.” The truth is that quoting Mark 16:16 to one who has not been baptized is not having a judgmental attitude, and quoting Matthew 19:9 and Revelations 21:8 to someone in an unscriptural marriage is not having a judgmental attitude either.

Jesus was an “extremist.” Yes, Jesus was an extremist. His teaching was so extreme in John 6:53-58 that “many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him” (v. 66), because they thought it was such an “hard saying” (v. 60). Jesus taught that we should be “extremely” forgiving of someone who sins against us and then repents (Lk. 17:3), when he told us in Matthew 18:22 that we should be willing to forgive “until seventy times seven.”

Jesus believed in “law keeping.” Don’t let it be heard that you believe that we live under law to God today or somebody will accuse you of thinking that there is no difference between the New Testament and the law of Moses, or accuse you of being a New Testament Pharisee. We must not let that kind of persecution keep us from preaching Galatians 6:2, “Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.” It is amazing to me how someone who understands that Christians are to avoid sin, cannot understand from 1 John 3:4 (“sin is the transgression of the law”) that Christians are to keep (not transgress) the law.

Jesus would be accused of having “too narrow a fellowship.” It seems that anybody who still believes in withdrawing from brethren that walk “disorderly” (2 Thess. 3:6) is said to have too narrow a fellowship. Some reason that as long as a church is on the “non-institutional churches of Christ” list, it must be okay. It seems that everyone but the so called “Pharisees” among us are ignoring passages like Romans 16:17, “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them,” and 2 John 10- 11, “If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine (of Christ, v. 9), receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.”

Jesus didn’t know that “it is better to love than to rebuke.” One brother said that “the only ‘strategy for victory’ entails a proper balance between truth and love. Another has said that “love is more powerful than physical force, than sarcasm, than rebuke, than argument.” I suppose than many think that the Pharisees were good on the truth and rebuke side, but not too good at love. As we saw in our last article, they were not good at any one of the three. The Scriptures do not contrast truth, or rebuke, with love. To the contrary, we are to speak “the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15). Love is not the opposite of rebuke; instead it is the motivation for rebuke, they are inseparable. Notice this from a reading of Proverbs 3:12, “For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.”

Jesus would be thought of as being “too negative.” The “positive mental attitude” philosophy advocated by the world has permeated God’s people. More and more, we hear the demand (and the compliance with the demand) for more “positive” preaching, and less, if any, “negative” preaching. We are told that the problem with the Pharisees is that they were too negative in their teaching. It is true that Jesus’ message had positive elements in it, but it is also a fact that he was one of the most negative preachers in the history of time. Read for yourself his scathing rebuke of the Pharisees in Matthew 23. Most churches today would not be able to take the negative preaching from Paul that the church at Corinth took. Among other things, he rebuked them for division in chapter 1, for harboring an adulterer in chapter 5, for taking the brethren to law in chapter 6, and for improprieties in the Lord’s supper in chapter 11. A desire for less negative preaching by Christians today seems to indicate that many people are tired of being made to feel guilty for the sins that they are practicing. Brethren, we cannot afford to let up.

Jesus believed in “just using a lot of proof texts.” One “preacher” has claimed that “there is no book, chapter, and verse for book, chapter, and verse.” Although they would not admit it in word, many of our more popular meeting preachers indicate by their preaching that they agree with this sentiment. They are “too good of a speaker” to just do like Paul and persuade “concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets” (Acts 28:23). It is indicated that “reasoning with them out of the Scriptures ” (Acts 17:2-3) would bore the audience and not hold their attention. Instead we are told that we need more stories and jokes to get the gospel (so-called) message across. I don’t know about you, but I think I will continue to do like Apollos, and show “by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ” (Acts 18:28). After all, the gospel is actually the “power of God unto salvation” (Rom. 1:16).

Jesus was “dogmatic.” In today’s religious world, any person who “earnestly contends for the faith” (Jude 3) is thought of as dogmatic. If that is the case, I want to be dogmatic. Anything that is as important as God’s truth is certainly worth rigorously contending for. Evidently Paul thought so. Acts 17:17 reads, “Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him.” From just a casual reading of the sermon on the mount (Matt. 5-7), we can see that Jesus was very dogmatic about the truth he was bringing into the world. The audience sure knew it as vv. 28-29 of chapter 7 reads, “And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.” If being dogmatic means that we refuse to compromise the truth under any circumstances, then Paul was certainly being dogmatic as recorded in the context ending with Galatians 2:5, “To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.”

Jesus thought of the Bible as a “book of rules,” a “list of do’s and don’t’s.” When one brother was questioned from the Scriptures concerning a false position he took on the marriage, divorce, and remarriage question, he replied, “You have the wrong approach to the Bible, you think of it as a book of rules.” With the concept of the Bible that this brother has, you could make God’s word say anything you want it to. It is obvious that Jesus thought of the Old Testament as a book of rules. When asked by the rich young ruler in Matthew 19:16, “Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?,” Jesus answered in v. 17, “If thou wilt enter into life ‘ keep the commandments,” and further proceeded to name a few of them. Many non-Christians and Christians alike don’t like it, and stringently object to it, but the Bible still says, “He that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous” (1 Jn. 3:7).

Jesus believed it “only takes one sin to separate from God.” For “more security” and in order to allow “fellowship” with more people, many have come to the new conclusion that one sin does not necessarily separate us from God, especially if we are “sincere.” I don’t see how they learned this from Isaiah 59:2 (“your iniquities have separated between you and your God”) or Romans 6:23 (“For the wages of sin is death”). They certainly could not have learned it from the examples of Adam and Eve, Nadab and Abihu, Uzzah, Ananias and Sapphira, and Simon the sorcerer, all of which were condemned by one sin. Security is nice, fellowship is great, but both are damaging when interpreted more loosely than the Bible allows.

Jesus believed in keeping the “letter of the law” as,well as the spirit. Many have been labeled Pharisees because it is claimed that they, as well as the Pharisees, emphasize the “letter” of the law over the “spirit” of the law, as if ssuchh were possible. Men usually use this terminology with “let,ter” meaning what the words actually say, and “spirit” meaning what the words really mean. First of all, this way of using the terms is not a Bible way. For example, in 2 Corinthians 3:6, the contrast of “letter” and “spirit” has nothing to do with keeping the law outwardly verses keeping the law inwardly; instead, it is a contrast between the Old Testament law (v. 14) and the New Testament law (v. 6). Second, even granting the terminology as it is being used, it is impossible to keep the outward without having the right attitude, and vice versa. Matthew 13:19 shows this by teaching that everything we do on the outside comes from the inside; either we have both a good outside and a good inside, or we have both a bad outside and a bad inside, there is no mix. Obviously, the only way we can know what Jesus really meant is from the words he actually said. Jesus not only believed in keeping the “letter” of the law, he believed in keeping the “jot” and “tittle” of the law (Matt. 5:18-19).

Jesus would be thought of as being “too strict.” Everybody has heard many times that the Pharisees’ main problem was that they were too strict with God’s law. This is simply not the case. Even the text used to show that they were too strict, Matthew 23:23, really shows that they were not condemned by Jesus for being too strict, but for not being strict enough. They were not rebuked for being good at keeping the “fighter” matters of the law; instead they were rebuked for not being good at keeping the “weightier” matters of the law. They were not condemned for doing God’s law, but for not doing God’s law. I imagine Uzzah found out about the strictness of God when he touched the ark in 1 Chronicles 13:7-10. Jesus was so strict with the old law that he said in Matthew 5:18, “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” Jesus taught in Matthew 7:5 that we are supposed to get the beam out of our own eye so that we can get the mote (smallest speck) out of our brother’s eye. God’s way is a strict (strait and narrow) way (Matt. 7:14), accusations of Phariseeism notwithstanding.

Conclusion

As has been shown, according to some Christians’ view of Phariseeism, Jesus Christ himself would be labeled a Pharisee. Therefore, we shouldn’t get discouraged if some call us a Pharisee for simply following in the steps of Jesus (1 Pet. 2:21). We must not let false accusations keep us from continuing to follow Jesus’ example, even if it does mean being called a Pharisee by some our own brethren. To you who are making the charges: realize that most of your charges could be levied verbatim against Jesus. Make sure you understand exactly what Phariseeism is before accusing someone else of being one. Don’t make emotionally filled charges, just to get out of having to strictly follow the Bible.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 22, pp. 691-693
November 19, 1992

By Randy Reynolds

Without God, we would all be lost in our sins. But God, through his wonderful, bountiful love, sent Jesus to be the sacrifice for our sins. In 1 John 4:9 the writer John expresses this thought very well. “In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him.”

Since the Bible informs us that sin is lawlessness (1 Jn. 3:4) and that “all have sinned andfallen short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). The ultimate consequence of our sin will lead us into spiritual death (cf. Rom. 6:16,23; Jas. 1:15), which is an eternal separation from our God (2 Thess. 1:9). We should be thankful that God has made provision for an alternative. God has provided a way of escape. He has provided a way for each man to be set free of sin and its eternal consequences. We don’t have to be lost, forever separated from God, cast into the fires of hell. There has been provided for us a way of escape.

What is our way of escape? Jesus Christ. Jesus said, “For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost” (Lk. 19:10). Paul plainly told Timothy, “This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners” (1 Tim. 1:15). Jesus continues to be our only way to the Father (cf. Jn. 14:6).

Jesus is our ransom. The word “ransom” simply refers to something paid or given to liberate a man from a situation from which it is impossible for him to free himself. In Matthew’s gospel record, Jesus said of himself, “Just as the Son of Man did come not to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (20:28). This is one of the clearest statements in the New Testament that describes the saving effect of Jesus’ death. A payment was needed to release man from his sin(s) and bring him back to God, and Jesus was that price.

Jesus is our propitiation. To fully comprehend and appreciate Christ as our “propitiation” it is good to consider some points in 1 John 1:6-2:1. Obviously in these verses the emphasis is placed upon man’s need to be in fellowship with Deity. Once again it is emphasized that the supreme problem of this fellowship is sin. John would have us to know that “He Himself (Jesus) is the propitiation for our sins” (1 Jn. 2:2). In other words, it is through or by Jesus that man’s fellowship is restored and maintained. A way has been provided for the defilement of sin to be removed (cf. 1 Jn. 1:7,9). Once that defilement has been covered or removed, man’s relationship can be fully restored.

“Being justifiedfireely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God setforth to be a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in Hisforbearance God haspassed over the sins that were previously committed” (Rom. 3:24-25).

Jesus is our sacrifice. I appreciate the way the Hebrew writer expresses this thought, “For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens; who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He cf(ered up Himself” (Heb. 7:26-27, emp. mine, RR). The greatest Day of Atonement was not when the Levitical High Priest washed his hands and his feet; put off his beautiful robe; clothed himself in linen clothes, the holy garments, and made sacrifice for himself and all the people. The greatest Day of Atonement came when the sinless Son of God, our High Priest, offered the one perfect sacrifice – Himself. Thus, by doing so, by His sacrifice, He opened the way to God.

“But this Man, after He had offered one sacrificefor sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God” (Heb. 10:12). “But now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself” (Heb. 9:26).

Jesus is our reconcilation. “Blessed is the man to whom the Lord does not impute iniquity” (Psa. 32:2). The apostle Paul tells us that it is one who is in Christ, the New Creation (cf. 2 Cor. 5:17). Now wait a minute! I thought that man was lost and without hope because of sin? That’s exactly right. But something great has taken place. Listen to what Paul has to say in 2 Corinthians 5:18-19, “Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, that is; that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.”

Closing. “We implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God” (2 Cor. 5:20b).

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 22, p. 684
November 19, 1992

By Michael Garrison

There is a popular assumption among some, that there are other books or epistles that should be in our Bible. The idea is that these writings have been lost down through the ages, or were intentionally left out by scribes over the years. Of course, those who make this claim, attempt to get us to accept something else as a rule of faith to go along with the Bible.

Some years ago, I had a study for several weeks with some so-called Mormon “elders.” I say “so-called” because the Bible teaches that elders are older married men with children and certain other qualifications (see 1 Tim. 3:1-7; Tit. 1:5). (Note: elders and bishops for overseers] are terms which refer to the same people; see Titus 1:5, 7 and Acts 20:17, 28.) During this study, these Mormons gave me a list of “Books the Bible talks about, but it doesn’t contain, which makes it not perfect and complete.” I answered this list of Books not in the Bible and gave it to the Mormons, but they decided it was time to go and never responded. I share their list and my answers to them with you here.

1. Book of the Covenant – Exodus 24:7. No missing book here. The book of the covenant was simply the book where the covenant was written. We find this covenant in Exodus and Deuteronomy.

2. Book of Wars – Numbers 21:14. “It would seem from the fragment in vv. 14b, 15 that the Book of the Wars of the Lord (v. 14a) was a collection of popular songs, like the book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18), made perhaps in the early days of the monarchy to preserve some of the most notable traditions of the tribes” (The Interpreter’s Bible 11:244).

3. Book of Jasher – see answer number 2.

4. Book of the Acts of Solomon – 1 Kings 11:41. “There were other writings extant at the times covered by the biblical ones, besides those included in the Bible; inspired writers referred to them (Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18; Acts 17:28)” (E.M. Zerr, Commentary I:110).

5. Books of Nathan and Gad – 1 Chronicles 29:29. Nathan and Gad were historians of David and Solomon’s reign. See The Jewish Encyclopedia. They could certainly write things other than what God inspired them to write. And others could refer to these writings.

6. Book of Jehu – 2 Chronicles 20:34. He was another history writer and, like others, could write without God’s inspiration upon him.

7. Another epistle of Paul – 1 Corinthians 5:9. If there is a missing epistle, we can be assured that the Holy Spirit saw fit to include all of that teaching in other epistles (as is here indicated). There is no evidence that any necessary Truth has been left out of the New Testament (see Matt. 24:35).

8. Another epistle of Paul to the Ephesians – Ephesians 3:3. To get another (missing) letter out of this is a grand assumption! As we have it, Paul had already written two chapters before what he was now writing. Why think he had any thing else in mind?

9. A former epistle of Jude – Jude 3. This is simply wishful thinking!

10. Prophecy of Enoch – Jude 14. No mention is made in this verse of Enoch’s having written his prophecies. The Holy Spirit knew of these prophecies, so informed Jude that we might know at least one of them.

If one is truly interested in Truth, he will “study to shew (himself) approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15) and believe, not fight against, the Bible. The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia, quoted by E.M. Zerr at 1 Kings 14:19 says, “Chronicles contains a reliable history, being drawn from the official records of the Israelites.” Let us not be like atheists, agnostics, or infidels and find fault with, and try to tear down, people’s belief in the Bible, God’s word. When we have a genuine question about something in the Bible, rather than condemn the Bible, let us really study and find out the right answer to the problem. If we have the kind of faith God expects us to have, we will trust the Bible, because we know it is God’s Truth. There may be some things I do not know or understand right now, but I can have faith in the Bible because of what I do know!

I pointed out these things to the Mormons and then asked, “Since the Book of Mormon makes the claim ‘that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book’ (referring to the Bible, mlg) – 1 Nephi 13:28, why don’t we find the so-called ‘missing’ books, as listed by you, in the Book of Mormon or other ‘new revelations’?” They never would give me an answer! And I think I know why – they see they are trapped! These so-called ‘missing” books were never intended to be in the Bible and their “new” revelation is not from God.

It is a sad truth, but no book has ever been more abused, more attacked, nor more criticized than the Bible. With all the attacks heaped upon it over the years, by those claiming to be its friends, as well as its enemies, not one genuine fault has ever been found which stands upon investigation. It does not contradict one scientific fact, nor has any of its history been found to be in error. It is truly the Book given by God’s inspiration (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Let us put our faith in it!

“Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1 Thess. 5:21). “Let God be true, but every man a liar” (Rom. 3:4).

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 21, pp. 660-661
November 5, 1992