Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

In this concluding article, I would like to wrap up this study of the deity of Christ. When we have finished this study, I hope that we will have no question that Jesus was God in the flesh.

The Son of Man Is the Son of God

There are two frequently used phrases to describe Jesus: Son of Man and Son of God (see Matt. 16:13,16). The phrase “Son of Man” is drawn from the Messianic prophecy of Daniel 7:13,14. To describe Jesus as the Son of Man is to affirm him to be the Messiah. However, it also emphasizes his identification with man, his humanity (for a study of the manhood of Jesus, see Hebrews 2:5-18). There can be no doubt that Jesus was a man.

The corresponding phrase “Son of God” must be understood as an affirmation of Jesus’ deity. So it was understood by the Jews of the first century. When Jesus spoke of God as his Father, the Jews stated that he made himself equal with God (Jn. 5:17-18; cf. 10:33). During his trial the Jews said to Pilate, “We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God” (Jn. 19:7).

Jesus was the God-man. He was the perfect union of God and man. Being conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of a woman, Jesus united in one spirit both his manhood and his deity. I can no more explain how this occurred than I can explain any other miracle (such as walking on water, feeding 5000 with five loaves and two fish, etc.). There is nothing gained by belittling the attempts to communicate that Jesus was both Son of Man and Son of God. There is also nothing gained by speculations about how the miracle was done. Let us be content to believe and use the language of Scripture.

Jesus Was God While on Earth

Jesus did not cease to be God when he became a man. This is seen from the material already presented, in addition to these following evidences:

1. Jesus had power to forgive sins. Mark 2:1-12 records one of the conflicts Jesus had with the Jews on the occasion that he healed the lame man who was let down through the roof in order to have access to Jesus. As the man was being let down, Jesus said, “Son, thy sins be forgiven thee” (2:5). The Jews reasoned that only God could forgive sin; not believing that Jesus was God they concluded in their hearts that Jesus was guilty of blasphemy (2:6-7). Jesus responded to their thoughts saying, “Why reason ye these things in your hearts? Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, take up thy bed, and walk? But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house” (2:8-11). Jesus’ forgiving sins while on earth demonstrated that he was God while on earth.

2. Jesus received worship while on earth. Jesus taught a strict monotheism which affirmed, “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve” (Matt. 4: 10). This is the monotheism which caused Peter to refuse to allow Cornelius to bow before him (Acts 10:25-26), Paul and Barnabas to refuse worship by the men of Lystra (Acts 14:14-15) and the angel to refuse worship from John (Rev. 22:8-9). Nevertheless, Jesus allowed men to worship him (Matt. 2:11; 8:2; 9:18; 15:25; 17:14-15; 20:20; etc.). Was Jesus a hypocrite in teaching that men should only worship God and then allowing men to worship him or was he the incarnate God?

Jesus’ Power Was Inherent, Not Derived

Jesus’ power was unlike that of Moses, Joshua, the prophets, Peter, Paul, and other apostles. Each of these received their power from the Holy Spirit. Jesus’ miracles “differ from the miracles of the prophets and Apostles in that, instead of being answers to prayer, granted by a Higher Power, they manifestly flow from the majestic Life resident in the Worker” (Liddon, 158). Jesus had power inherent within himself (Jn. 5:21,26; 10:17-18).

There are several passages from John’s gospel which have been incorrectly understood to teach that Jesus received his message and did his works from the power given to him by the Father (3:34; 5:19,30; 6:38; 8:26,28; etc.). Far from teaching that Jesus derived his power from the Father, these passages boldly assert a unity between God and Christ, affirming that the will of the one is the will of the other. He did not receive his power as an answer to prayer to the Father. He was not a mere tool of the Father. In all that he does and says he is one with the Father. R.C.H. Lenski said, “Between the prophets of God and the God who sent them a wide gap appears, which is abridged by the word they brought; between Jesus and his Sender there is no gap – in the one you see the other, for the Son is the express image of the Father, Heb. 1:3- (The Interpretation of John, 893).

These passages must be understood to reflect this oneness, not interpreted to imply that the Son while on earth was not God and received his power from the Holy Spirit. Compare the statements which attribute the resurrection to both the Father (Acts 2:32) and the Son (Jn. 10:17-18). Both statements are true because the will of the Father and the Son are the same. Similarly, Jesus could say, “My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me” (7:16) to emphasize the unity between him and the Father. He knew God’s will like no mere man could know it. What he spake was not the doctrine of a mere man; it was the doctrine of God.

The Deity of Christ and the Atonement

That which gave efficacy to the blood of Christ to atone for sins was his deity. Were a mere sinless human a sacrifice adequate to atone for sin, the offering of a newborn baby could atone for sin just as certainly as did the blood of sinless Jesus. A mere man’s blood could not atone for sin. That which gave efficacy to the blood of Christ was that it was the blood of the incainate God. Peter said, “Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you. . . ” (1 Pet. 1:18-20). The contrast between the blood of Christ and that of bulls and goats is not limited to the fact that one is animal and the other human; the efficacy in the blood of Christ is the fact that he whose blood was shed was God (Heb. 9:13,15). It was the blood of God which purchased the church (Acts 20:28). Jesus was the perfect mediator between God and man because he could equally represent God to man as he could man to God. This was true because he was the God-man. Any doctrine which denies the deity of Christ undermines the efficacy of the atonement! As such it must be rejected.

Conclusion

We are content to use the language of Scripture to describe the Christ. He was the Son of Man, the Son of God, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace, the Wonderful Counselor, the Alpha and the Omega, the bright and Morning Star, the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world, etc. When the language of Scripture is correctly assessed, who can doubt that it points to a Christ who was the incarnation of God?

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 24, pp. 738, 750
December 20, 1990

By Aude McKee

The title of this article was the subject of a lesson taught by Randy Harris on May 13, 1990, at the Woodmont Hills church of Christ in Nashville. Since some of the division in the Lord’s church has been brought about by departures from the truth on this subject, I thought that the positions taken in that lesson are worthy of our consideration.

The brother’s lesson had three major points: (1) It is caring, loving service with no strings attached. (2) Proclaim the holiness and perfection of God. (3) Constantly reminding ourselves that every human aspiration and accomplishment falls short of the divine perfection and is not finally worthy of human trust. Direct reference was made to only three Bible passages – Romans 8 (no verses cited), Leviticus 19:1-14, and Philippians 2:5-8. Listed in the next paragraph are quotes taken from the tape of that lesson.

“The identity of the church is determined primarily by Jesus Christ, its head . . . . What the church is about is living out in its corporate life what Jesus was about in living out his individual life. So our primary point of reference is not the early church but Jesus himself . . . Jesus, when he healed the masses, didn’t check them out to see if they were worthy, didn’t check their lifestyle. They were hurt so he helped them . . . That’s what we do . . . That is how the church justifies all the do-good programs it engages in – counseling, day care, literacy programs, food and housing, drug and alcohol dependency programs . . . The church is free to do those by the divine love that doesn’t keep score . . . The church has to be a do-good agency but it will never be human as long as it sees all of its activities as an expression of the relentless love of God which transcends all human goodness . . . The church as an organization is concerned about the handicap’s rights . . . Social welfare is one of the concerns of the church. We have a legitimate concern to see that everybody gets a fair day in court . . . When a survey is taken to see what organization cares for people, it isn’t the church, it’s the Salvation Army ! We have to broaden our agenda.”

Even after all we have gone through in the past 35 years, it is still difficult to imagine a brother in Christ being so taken in by the social gospel that he would give the Salvation Army more credit for caring for people than the Lord’s church. The Woodmont Hills church could give every person in the world a million dollars, but without obedience to the gospel of Christ they would all go to hell.

I wonder what our brother would say if be were preaching on the worship of the church instead of its mission? Would he say that he church can have instrumental music because “the church is free to do those by the divine love that doesn’t keep score”? Would he say that the church can put coke and hamburger on the Lord’s Table “as long as it sees all of its activities as an expression of the relentless love of God”? How would our brother justify the Lord’s Supper on the first day of every week? Remember that his point of reference is not the early church but Jesus himself. It so happens that the only passage that puts the Lord’s Supper in the assembly on the first day is Acts 20:7 and that is a record of what the early church did! We know when to observe the Lord’s Supper and how often by an approved example. You see, the reason he doesn’t want to take the early church as an example of its mission is because he knows that the church of the first century was not involved in the social gospel. The church back in those days was not a modern Salvation Army.

It may be a truism but it is a fact that history repeats itself. In 1849, brethren organized the first missionary society and then in 1859 the instrument was first introduced into the worship of the Lord’s church. In 1906, the U.S. government recognized that a division had occurred – the Christian Church had been formed. But you know, the division was not really caused by the missionary society and instrumental music. These were but symptoms of the real disease a lack of respect for divine authority! Those of us past middle age have seen the Lord’s people divided again with three issues in the forefront – the mission of the church, institutionalism and the autonomy of the local church. But, as was true over 100 years ago, these were not the real cause of the division – the real culprit was attitude toward authority.

We would certainly agree that “Jesus is our point of reference.” He has “all authority in heaven and in earth” and “every soul that will not hear that prophet shall be destroyed from among the people” (Matt. 28:18; Acts 3:22-23). Jesus’ authority is expressed in the New Testament (Heb. 9:15). If a person does not abide within the teaching of Jesus, he forfeits the fellowship of God (2 Jn. 9-11). If a man preaches any other gospel he stands accursed (Gal. 1:6-12).

All who have obeyed the gospel from the heart are privileged to be a part of the “true tabernacle which the Lord pitched and not man” (Heb. 8:1-5). But in that very context the inspired apostle made the point clear that the tabernacle Moses “pitched” had to be made according to the pattern God gave. The “true tabernacle” can only be the true one if God’s pattern (the New Testament) is followed.

Our brother spoke in his lesson of “the theology of the 21st century church.” His problem is, he got his “theology” from denominationalism and not from God’s word. He is far afield when he wants the Lord’s church to outstrip the Salvation Army. That organization can be a “do-good agency” because they have no higher authority for their existence than man’s wisdom. But what command, approved example or necessary inference from God’s word puts the church of the New Testament into day care, secular education, social welfare, drug and alcohol dependency programs and on and on and on? If the love of God is their authority how can they oppose open membership, instrumental music, the altar type of salvation, one man rule, and on and on and on? If the Lord’s concern for sick folk is authority for the church being a do-good agency, then we wonder how those who take this position would view “good, sincere people” who are enmeshed in denominationalism? The “one body” of Ephesians 4:4, might just be too rigid for those who want to take a “no strings attached” approached. Is the way that leads to life “strait and narrow” or is it as broad as man’s wisdom wants to make it?

What does the New Testament teach about the mission of the church? First of all, the church must preach the gospel to the lost. There is both command and approved example for such. Look at 1 Timothy 3:15; 1 Thessalonians 1:8; Philippians 1:5; 4:15-16 and 2 Corinthians 11:8. From these we learn that the church is “the pillar and ground of the truth,” the church in Thessalonica had “sounded out the word of the Lord,” the church at Philippi had “fellowship in the gospel” with Paul and had “sent once and again to his necessities,” and Paul had “taken wages of other churches. “

Second, the church must see that saints are edified. Look carefully at Ephesians 4:7-16; Acts 11:22-26; 20:28 and 1 Peter 5:1-4. In these verses we learn that the church is a self-edifying body, that the church in Jerusalem sent Barnabas to Antioch for the expressed purpose of exhorting those newborn babes “that with purpose of heart they should cleave to the Lord,” and that elders have the fearful responsibility of “feeding the flock of God.”

Third, it is the responsibility of the local church to provide for needy saints. We ask our readers to take the time to examine these verses closely: Acts 2:41-47; 4:31-37; 6:1-7; 11:27-30; 1 Corinthians 16:1-3; Romans 15:25-28; 2 Corinthians 8:1-7; 9:1-7. These verses cover different emergencies that arose in the first century. Would any among us argue that only saints were in need during those difficult times? Of course there were hungry non-saints, but do you find the church trying to feed and clothe those who were not Christians? You can take about “the relentless love of God” all you want, but you still cannot, by divine authority, make the church into a modern-day Salvation Army!

Something we need to remember is that God ordained three arrangements for man’s benefit. The oldest and the smallest is the home, then civil government and finally the church. Each has its own sphere – its own responsibilities. Our liberal brethren, by espousing the social gospel, are determined that the church take over the responsibilities of the other two. Think about it.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 24, pp. 739-740
December 20, 1990

By Jerry Angelo

Jamaica gets its name from an Indian word meaning “Land of Wood and Water.” Looking out of my office window, Montego Bay lies below me and I can see about 20 miles of coastline beyond. It truly is beautiful. However, when you get downtown the stench of garbage is everywhere. Vendors selling all kinds of fruits and vegetables line the sidewalks in the midst of the filth. It is nauseating at times. Poverty is ever present, with over 50 percent unemployment and the average worker making about $150 per month.

We arrived exactly one month ago (September 11, 1990). On the first Lord’s day we were here, we arrived for worship and found no one there. Eventually the local preacher arrived and, after we had dismissed two hours later, one sister and her small son came. Evening services had not been held for several weeks. On Friday evening, the regular “midweek” service, only Bev and 1, in addition to the local preacher, attended. We have now resumed the Sunday evening service and have started a Tuesday night study in our home. This week seven members were in attendance. In addition, one young man, David Smith, was baptized into Christ (October 4).

Brother Kyle Smith from El Cajon, California spent two weeks with us, arriving September 21st and leaving October 5th. He baptized David the day before he left to go home. Kyle preached in Savanna-La-Mar, Catadupa and Montego Bay.

During his stay I received word that brother Carlton Medley from Plum district, wanted to talk. Plum is about 20 miles from Montego Bay. Carlton told us that there are 21 brethren in Plum (13 members of his family and 8 others) and they want us to work with them. At this time we are unable to do so due to lack of transportation.

We are severely hampered by not having a vehicle at this time. We are in desperate need of our vehicle, located in Miami, awaiting completion of the paperwork to obtain an import license. We are also in need of about $6,500.00 for duty and fees. It is imperative that we have transportation if we are going to get around as we should. Local residents move about by taxi. Sometimes you wait an hour or more on a street corner, in the hot sun, before one with space available comes along. Then there is the problem of transferring to a different taxi to go in a different direction. That will require walking to another taxi stand in another part of town. Since you are American, they try to charge you five to ten times the going rate. On Sunday the problem gets worse. You either have to call for a “charter” taxi ($35.00 each way) or walk, hoping that a taxi will come along with space available. That doesn’t happen often.

Jamaica is currently suffering through a period of severe financial instability. Inflation is rampant. Some items have doubled in cost since we have arrived. It costs us more to live here than back in California. However, we are trying to live on $1,000.00 per month less than we were prior to coming.

Our youngest son, Tony, arrived two days ago. He will be joined later by Travis Kimball from San Jose, California. They will be living in my apartment in Catadupa, 21 miles southeast of Montego Bay. They will work with the church there. Since Catadupa and Plum are about 12 miles apart, with a larger town, Cambridge located almost midway between, we are going to try to persuade the brethren in Plum to agree to merge with the brethren in Catadupa and find a meeting place in Cambridge. Since there are about 5 or 6 brethren in Catadupa, this would be a group of almost 30, including Tony and Travis.

The church in May Pen, Clarendon, is making progress. The local evangelist there, brother Leslie K. Williams, has been hampered by transportation problems. He is a good man, experienced in the preaching of the gospel. He spent over 20 years with the institutional brethren. He is worthy of your support.

The church is Savanna-La-Mar is an example of what hard work and devotion will do. Brother J.S. Lawson and his wife Euphemia have devoted themselves to the lord and his church in Sav for the past years and it has produced good results. The church has grown, especially during the past two years, due to the Lawson’s efforts, assisted by various brethren from the States. They are in desperate need of a larger meeting place. The Lawson’s spend an unusual amount of their personal funds to provide a meeting place and transportation for the members.

I am writing this to accomplish two goals: (1) inform brethren regarding the church in Jamaica, and (2) hoping to stir up the “go ye” fever in someone who reads this. There is a great need for faithful men and women to come to Jamaica to work, not only here in Montego Bay but in many other areas. There is not one faithful church in Kingston, a city with a population of over one million people. This would be a suitable work for older couples without children or those that are unmarried. Let me hear from you.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 24, p. 745
December 20, 1990

By Corbin T. Volluz

The Bible teaches that it is the complete and final revelation of God to mankind.

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints. As such, I believe in continuing, extra-biblical revelation from God to man. Indeed, I have been the recipient of such revelation. What I have to say will no doubt receive an unwelcome response from most of the readers of this publication. Nevertheless, the truth must be championed. And the truth is that Mr. La Coste is wrong, dead wrong, in his assertion that “the Bible teaches that it is the complete and final revelation of God to mankind.”

If the Bible teaches anything, it teaches this: That throughout history, whenever God has had a people on the earth he recognized as his, he has always revealed his will directly to them through living prophets. At no time did God require them to rely solely on the words of dead prophets. This pattern is clear and uncontroverted from Genesis to John to Patmos. Ongoing revelation is the rule. With this in mind, consider the following statement by a latter-day apostle of the Lord: “A doctrine which rejects new revelation is a new doctrine, invented by the devil and his agents during the second century after Christ; it is a doctrine in direct opposition to the one believed in and enjoyed by the saints in all ages. As the doctrine, then, of continuing revelation is one that was always believed by the saints, it ought not to be required of any man to prove the necessity of the continuation of such a doctrine. It would be the great presumption to call it in question at this late date. Instead of being required to prove the necessity of its continuance, all people have the right to call upon the new-revelation deniers of the last eighteen centuries to bring forward their strong reasoning and testimonies for breaking in upon the long-established order of heaven, and introducing a new doctrine so entirely different from the old. If they wish their new doctrine to be believed, let them demonstrate it to be of divine origin, or else all people will be justified in rejecting it and clinging to the old” (Orson Pratt, Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon).

In his preceding article, Mr. La Coste has attempted to demonstrate the divine origin of his doctrine that revelation has been done away, that the heavens are sealed, and that the Bible is the complete and final revelation of God to mankind. In this attempt, Mr. La Coste has failed miserably. My worthy opponent has cited no less than twenty-two Scriptures, not one of which supports his contention. Instead of presenting “strong reasonings” for his doctrine, he has given us three arguments, all of which are non sequiturs. A non sequitur is an argument in which the evidence does not support the conclusion, or in other words, it is an argument in which the conclusion does not follow from the premise. If an argument is a non sequitur, it is not valid. All three of Mr. La Coste’s arguments that he advances to support his cause are non sequiturs, and are therefore not valid. I will treat each of Mr. La Coste’s non sequitur arguments individually.

1. Mr. La Coste quotes a number of Scriptures to show that the first-century Christians possessed a fulness of the gospel. On this point we are in agreement. I, too, believe the first-century Christians possessed a fulness of the gospel. But that is not the issue. The issue is whether the Bible is the complete and final revelation of God to man. To argue that since first-century Christians possessed a fulness of the gospel, the Bible is therefore final and complete is to promote an argument that is a non sequitur. The conclusion does not follow from the premise. The Scriptures cited are therefore immaterial to the issues under consideration.

For the Scriptures cited to be material, Mr. La Coste must first establish a number of intermediate steps, or premises, to get from there to his conclusion that the Bible is final and complete. These intermediate steps that he must establish are: (t) that the first-century Christians, who possessed the fulness of the gospel, actually wrote it all down; (2) that all their writings were collected and put in the Bible; and (3) that God suddenly changed his mind and decided that reading the written word was superior to hearing his own voice from the heavens, the pattern which God had followed religiously since the creation of man.

Only if these three additional premises can be established can Mr. La Coste cogently argue that the Bible is final and complete. Mr. La Coste has not established these three additional premises, neither can he. Therefore his first argument fails.

2. Mr. La Coste’s second argument is based upon the third verse of the epistle of Jude. Mr. La Coste asserts that “once” as used in Jude 3 means “one time for all time.” It is ironic that Mr. La Coste should state at the beginning of his article that the Bible is complete, meaning “lacking nothing,” and then only six paragraphs later, we find him under the necessity of adding words to the third verse of Jude in order to get it to say what he wants it to say.

I will not, however, waste valuable space refuting Mr. La Coste’s interpretation of Jude 3, though it is a temptation. The reason? Even if I were to concede to Mr. La Coste’s interpretation of this verse – that the gospel was once and for all delivered to the saints – his argument amounts to nothing more than another non sequitur. The conclusion does not follow from the premise. The three intermediary steps, or premises, that would need to be established in Mr. La Coste’s first argument to make it valid would similarly need to be established here to make his second argument valid. Without those intermediary premises, Mr. La Coste’s assertion that the gospel was “one time for all time” delivered to first-century Christians is logicalfy distinct and rationally unconnected from his conclusion that the Bible is final and complete.

Further, to adopt Mr. La Coste’s interpretation of Jude 3 creates an internal inconsistency within that Scripture. Mr. La Coste argues that once the gospel was delivered, no more revelation was necessary. The Bible was then complete and final. Now, Jude 3 says the gospel was once “delivered. Note that the past tense of the word is used: “Delivered. It is clear from this that the epistle of Jude was written sometime after the faith was delivered. So, what is the inconsistency? Simply this: If Mr. La Coste’s interpretation of Jude 3 is correct, that once the faith was delivered there was no more need of revelation and the Bible was final and complete, then the epistle of Jude could not be revelation, since it was written after the faith was delivered, and therefore could not be in the Bible! But such is not the case. The epistle of Jude is in the Bible. The fact that Jude’s epistle was written after the faith was once delivered to the saints and is yet still found within the Bible completely refutes Mr. La Coste’s interpretation of Jude 3.

3. The final non sequitur argument advanced by Mr. La Coste is based on Matthew 24:35 and 1 Peter 1:22-25. Mr. La Coste argues that if the word of God “lives and abides forever,” the Bible is the complete and final revelation of God. Once again, the conclusion does not follow from the premise. To demonstrate this, let us apply Mr. La Coste’s reasoning to the book of Genesis. Is the Book of Genesis the word of God? Yes, surely. Does it therefore, “live and abide forever”? Yes, it does. Then, according to Mr. La Coste’s argument, the Book of Genesis is the final and complete revelation of God! Everything else from Exodus to Revelation is not really revelation at all, but merely a gross imposture! When viewed in this light, the speciousness of Mr. LaCoste’s third argument becomes self-evident.

In conclusion, Mr. La Coste has presented three arguments to support his theory. None of his arguments, however, are able to withstand scrutiny. Mr. La Coste has in reality not advanced one scintilla of evidence that supports his position. In the words of Orson Pratt, since Mr. La Coste has not been able to demonstrate his new doctrine of no-revelation to be of divine origin, all people are justified in rejecting it and clinging to the old, biblical doctrine of continuing revelation.

To claim that the Bible is the complete and final revelati on of God to mankind is to claim something for the Bible w hich the Bible does not claim for itself. No, Mr. La Coste, try as you might to prove otherwise, the fact is that your proposition is wrong. The Bible does not teach that it is the complete and final revelation of Go6 to mankind.

It might be well at this point to briefly examine why Mr. La Coste, as a Church of Christ minister, maintains that the Bible is the complete and final revelation of God, in spite of the Bible’s silence on the matter. The answer is that the Bible is all he has. He receives no revelation from God. This is the true reason Mr. La Coste asserts that the Bible is complete and final. If it is not, and if he himself receives no revelation, it is because he is not a true minister of Jesus Christ.

As a minister of the Church of Christ, Mr. La Coste has a difficult position to defend. We might ask Mr. La Coste, “Do you claim to be the same church as that established by Christ two-thousand years ago?” “Why, yes, of course I do.” “Do we not read in the Bible that the church Christ established received ongoing revelation?” “Yes, that is true.” “Does the Church of Christ receive ongoing revelation too, then?” “No.” “Why doesn’t it?” “Because all revelation was done away with. The Bible is now the complete and final revelation of God.” “Oh. Does the Bible say that?” “Well, no, it doesn’t. But you must believe it anyway. “

We, as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints, believe that the Bible is not the complete and final revelation of God. We do not worship the Bible, but rather the God who gave it. We believe that God is loving enough to want to continue to speak to us today, that he is powerful enough to continue to speak to us today in the same manner he has always spoken to his people throughout the ages: By direct revelation through living prophets and apostles. For surely, “The Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets” (Amos 3:7).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 23, pp. 714-715
December 6, 1990