Truth Magazine

By Corbin T. Volluz

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

In my response to Mr. La Coste’s first installment of this debate, I thought I had made my meaning so clear that a wayfaring man, though a fool, need not err therein (Isa. 35:8). Obviously I was mistaken. I have demonstrated as plainly as language permits that none of the three arguments advanced by Mr. La Coste in support of his proposition are valid. (In fact, Mr. La Coste now admits that his third argument dealt not with “finality” after all, but with “incorruptibility.” Incorruptibility, however, is not the issue here. Finality and completeness are.)

In spite of this, Mr, La Coste either refuses to acknowledge, or is incapable of understanding, why his arguments do not support his contention. Instead, he has decided to engage in a number of somewhat deceptive rhetorical techniques designed to cloud the issue for the unwary reader.

In his first paragraph, Mr. La Coste intimates that since he employed more passages of Scripture than I, he must be right. Is this the argument of a thinking man? Perhaps Mr. La Coste had forgotten that it is his task to prove that the Bible teaches it is the complete and final revelation of God. To do this, it is only natural he should quote from the Bible. My task, on the other hand, is to show that his arguments are unfounded. To do this requires no Scripture, but only a modicum of common sense.

In paragraph two, Mr. La Coste goes so far as to quote words I did not write and attributes ideas to me that are not mine. In responding to Mr. La Coste’s arguments, I used no “sugar-stick.” Mr. La Coste’s arguments concerning the Bible’s being complete and final aren’t valid simply because they are not valid. I need no “sugar-stick” to make that point. (Incidentally, I do not love the term non sequitur half so much as Mr. La Coste loves to use them in his arguments.)

In paragraph three, Mr. La Coste accuses me of using a non sequitur argument. He then challenges me to “produce from the Bible where God ever spoke to those in the garden” or “Abraham through prophets,” Apparently Mr. La Coste is not aware that a prophet is one to whom God reveals his will personally (Amos 3:7). Apparently Mr. La Coste is also not aware that God revealed his will personally to Adam in the garden and to Abraham (Gen. 2:16,17; 3:17; 12:1-3; 13:14-17). Therefore, Adam and Abraham were both prophets themselves, to whom and through whom God revealed his will. Instead of weakening my position that God has always spoken to his people through living prophets, Mr. La Coste’s challenge has served only to strengthen it.

It is interesting that later on in his response, in another context, Mr. La Coste quotes Hebrews 1:1,2 which specifically states that God did indeed “speak in times past unto the father by the prophets, “thus proving false his claim that “God has not always spoken through prophets.”

In all fairness to La Coste, though, it must be admitted that the Bible does speak of a group of people who, like himself, believed all the true prophets were dead, that God no longer speaks through living prophets, and that everything God ever said was written down and contained between the covers of a sacred book. Unfortunately for Mr. La Coste, however, that group of people who shared his beliefs was none other than the Pharisees. In fact, it was precisely because they “built the tombs of the [dead] prophets” but rejected the living bearers of God’s word that Christ excoriated them in Matthew 23.

So we see that not only does Mr. La Coste’s position put him out of step with every prophet of the Bible (Adam and Abraham included), it also lands Mr. La Coste squarely in the rank and file of the group primarily responsible for the crucifixion of the Savior.

Mr. La Coste next quotes Hebrews 1:1,2, to the effect that, since God spoke by prophets “in time past,” this must mean he ceased using that modus operandi once Jesus came in the flesh. Such a conclusion is not only unwarranted by the Scripture cited, it is also at complete variance with the words of Christ himself, who stated he would send prophets subsequent to his death (Matt. 23:34).

Now to the fourth paragraph of Mr. La Coste’s second installment. No, Mr. La Coste, you did not establish any of the three (not two, as you say) intermediary steps outlined in my first response, without which your arguments are non sequiturs. Nor do any of the nine Scriptures you quote establish them, as a cursory examination of each will reveal. And no, Mr. La Coste, it is not that I am “observing the passover” on your “strong” arguments. It is simply that one is under no obligation to seriously discuss nonsense. None of the Scriptures you have quoted in either of your two installments even begins to establish that (1) the leadership of the early church wrote all the truth they had down; (2) that all the books they wrote it all down in were compiled into the Bible; or (3) that for some reason God decided to suddenly change his pattern of revealing his will to men by ceasing to speak from heaven and letting an inanimate book do the work for him.

In fact, the very first of these elements of Mr. La Coste’s argument that he has failed to establish, that “the leadership of the early church wrote all the truth they had down,” is controverted by such passages as the following: John 16:12; “1 have yet many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now.” Acts 10:41: “Not unto all the people, but unto witness chosen.” Acts 15:28: “For it seemed good . . . to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things.” Clementine Recognitions 1, 21, in PG 1:1218: “Which things were plainly spoken but not plainly written.” Clementine Recognitions 1, 23, 52, in PG 1: 1236; 111, 1: “I [Peter] . . . endeavor to avoid publishing the chief knowledge concerning the Supreme Divinity to unworthy ears.” Innumberable passages on this head might be cited, but I most move on to other matters.

In his fifth paragraph, Mr. La Coste informs us, by means of two wrested verses and a scriptural railsplit, that the dead prophets are not really dead, but are alive and well due to the fact that they wrote books! This line of thought falls short of being persuasive, or even coherent for that matter. It is hard for me to believe that the members of Mr.La Coste’s congregation actually are willing to trust someone with so great a dearth of mental ability to lead them in the path of salvation. I wouldn’t trust him to mow my lawn. If Mr. La Coste’s arguments are considered logical, then I am led to exclaim with Shakespeare’s Marc Anthony, “O judgment, thou art fled to brutish beasts, and men have lost their reason.”

In his sixth paragraph, Mr. La Coste returns to harp on his non sequitur argument based on Jude 3. He clearly fails to understand why I don’t care what hapax means or how it is used in other Scriptures, even though I plainly stated my reasons in my first response. Look, Mr. La Coste, I’ll talk slow. Read my lips. Even if hapax means “one time for all time,” it doesn’t prove the Bible is the complete and final word of God. The only way it can be logically interpreted to mean what Mr. La Coste claims is if one makes the mistake of equating the “faith/gospel,” which was delivered “one time for all time,” with the Bible. But the gospel is not the Bible, contrary to what Mr. La Coste seems to believe. The Bible is a collection of sacred books. The gospel, on the other hand, is the “good news” of Christ’s resurrection and atonement, which was indeed delivered “one time for all time,” even as Jude declares. The only way Mr. La Coste can use this Scripture to support his position is by ignoring what it says.

Also, I argued in my first response that if we follow Mr. La Coste’s interpretation of Jude 3, then the epistle of Jude cannot be part of the Bible since it was written after the gospel had been “delivered.” Mr. La Coste attempts to weasel out of his predicament by saying, “Though the gospel had been orally preached in its fulness, inspired men as Jude were still writing it down,” Of course, Mr. La Coste’s excuse in no way explains why John the Beloved should be receiving a cartload of brand new revelation on Patmos many years after Jude wrote his epistle. I suppose this means that not only Jude, but also the Revelation cannot be part of the Bible, according to Mr. La Coste’s interpretation of Jude 3.

Mr. La Coste would have been wise to leave Jude alone. Mr. La Coste says, “Jude writes of the ‘common salvation. “‘ Is that a fact? And just where does Jude write about this important subject? You will not find it in the Bible, for Jude says he wrote about the “common salvation” in an epistle prior to the one we have in the Bible (Jude 3). Can the Bible really be complete without this important missing epistle of Jude? Obviously not. Later, Jude refers to a story about Moses not found anywhere in the Old Testament (Jude 9). Why is that? Because the book from which Jude quotes is call “The Assumption of Moses,” and is not contained in the Old Testament. Evidently Jude thought it good enough Scripture to quote in his epistle. So why is it not in the Bible? Because the Bible is not complete. Still later, Jude quotes from another ancient source, this one involving a prophecy of Enoch (Jude 14-16). This quote comes from the Book of Enoch. Both the Book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses were clearly considered good Scripture by Jude, one of the original disciples. Being a disciple, we can only assume his missing epistle in which he talked about the “common salvation” was good Scripture as well. Since these books of Scripture are not in the Bible, it can mean only one thing: The Bible is not complete, and Mr. La Coste is wrong in contending that it is.

Nor are these three books alluded to by Jude the only books of Scripture mentioned in the Bible but not found in the Bible. Other such missing books of Scripture include the Book of the Covenant (Exod. 24:7); the Book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14); the Book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18); the Book of the Acts of Solomon (1 Kgs. 11:41); the book of Samuel the Seer (1 Chron. 29:29); the Book of Nathan the Prophet (2 Chron. 12:15); the Acts of Abijah in the Story of the Prophet Iddo (2 Chron. 13:22); the Book of Jehu (2 Chr. 20:34); the Sayings of the Seers (2 Chron. 33:19); another Epsitle to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9); another Epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 3:3); and an Epistle to the Church of Laodicea (Col. 4;16).

With no fewer than sixteen books of Scripture referred to by the Bible yet not included within its pages, thefact that the Bible is not complete becomes incontrovertible. Mr. La Coste is simply mistaken in his assertion that the Bible is the complete word of God, and his error by none other than the Bible itself.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 23, pp. 717-719
December 6, 1990

By Corbin T. Volluz

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

I will respond to Mr. La Coste’s third affirmative paragraph by paragraph.

Paragraph No. 1: Mr. La Coste is in error when he says I agreed “to use the Bible to prove it is not the final and complete revelation of God to mankind.” As I said in a previous installment, Mr. La Coste has the burden of proving by the Bible that it is final and complete. All I need to do to fulfill my part of the bargain is to show the faulty reasoning and misinterpreted Scriptures Mr. La Coste uses to support his proposition. Once this is done, Mr. La Coste fails in establishing his propositions as true and I succeed in my mission of negating it. Mr. La Coste must quote Scripture to advance his proposition. To negate it requires, as I said, no Scripture but only common sense.

Next, Mr. La Coste attempts to demonstrate how little I think of the Bible by means of an orgy of word-twisting that would have done the Pharisees proud. Mr. La Coste says I “demeaningly equate the Bible to the ‘sacred book’ of the Pharisees.” Since the “sacred book” of the Pharisees was the Old Testament, which itself comprises fully two-thirds of the Bible, I fail to see how this reference could be styled “demeaning.” What I “demeaned” was not these sacred books, but rather the manner in which the Pharisees and Mr. La Coste view them; as substitutes for ongoing revelation through living prophets. Mr. La Coste then claims I called the Bible “‘inanimate’ which means dull or empty”! Mr. La Coste is really stretching for this one. Whereas I did call the Bible “inanimate,” I did so purely in the commonly understood meaning of the word, “not endowed with life or spirit” (Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 422). And surely the Bible is inanimate in the sense I used the word. At least mine is. Perhaps Mr. La Coste’s Bible struts and frets its hour upon the stage, but mine lies peacefully on the shelf when I set it there. So, contrary to Mr. La Coste’s base allegations, I do revere the Bible, and I think that my reverence is evidenced by the fact that I do not make claims for the Bible which the Bible does not make for itself; a tactic Mr. La Coste engages in regularly.

Paragraph No. 2: Adam and Abraham were indeed prophets. It proved this to be the case using Scripture from the Bible in a logical manner. If this process seems to Mr. La Coste to be “hocus pocus,” I am less than surprised.

Paragraph No. 3: Mr. La Coste states that, if Amos 3:7 is true, I must be claiming to be a prophet myself, since I claim personal revelation. Mr. La Coste may be closer to the mark here than anywhere else in this entire debate. Unfortunately for Mr. La Coste, according to the Bible, the fact that he claims no personal revelation brands him as a false teacher of the gospel. That this is so was made clear by Joseph Smith: “If any person should ask me if I were a prophet, I should not deny it, as that would give me the lie; for, according to John, ‘the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy’ (Rev. 19:10); therefore, if I profess to be a witness or teacher, and have not the spirit of prophecy, which is the testimony of Jesus, I must be a false witness; but if I be a true teacher and witness, I must possess the spirit of prophecy, and that constitutes a prophet; and any man who says he is a teacher or a preacher of righteousness, and denies the spirit of prophecy is a liar, and the truth is not in him; and by this key false teachers and imposters may be detected” (Documented History of the Church, 5:215-216). If I may say so, it appears that by “this key,” a false teacher and imposter has indeed been detected, and it is none other than Mr. La Coste.

Paragraph No. 4: We now deal with Mr. La Coste’s strained interpretation of Hebrews 1:1-2. In his preceding paragraph he claimed the passage in question states that God speaks “not through prophets anymore, but through his Son ” (emphasis in original). Even a cursory examination of the passage, however, shows it says nothing of the sort. Rather, Hebrews 1:1-2 states simply that the same God who spoke to the prophets in Old Testament times had spoken in New Testament times through his Son. This is in no way intimates that God would cease to speak through prophets. Indeed as I said before, Christ himself proclaimed he would send prophets subsequent to his death.

Mr. La Coste’s second problem with Hebrews 1:1-2 is trying to make a phrase that is clearly past tense into the present tense. Mr. La Coste wishes the verse to read, “God now speaks through his Son” (emphasis in original), but the plain language of the Scripture is, “God has spoken unto us by his Son.” I am at a loss as to how Mr. La Coste can misinterpret a plainly past tense statement such as this to be present tense. Perhaps the answer lies in necessity, for if the passage is past tense, as it clearly is, then Mr. La Coste’s arguments based upon it is demolished. Necessity is the mother of invention.

Paragraph No. 5: There is nothing much to comment on here except that, if Mr. La Coste thinks that “name calling and innuendo” are reserved only for one “who is in trouble with his position,” I can only assume this charge applies equally to John the Baptist (Matt. 3:7), Paul (Acts 23:3), and Jesus Christ himself (Matt. 16:23; 23:29-32). “Name calling and innuendo” aren’t necessarily the result of one’s having trouble with one’s position. It can also result from extreme frustration caused by the stubborn refusal of pompous individuals to listen to reason.

Paragraph No. 6: Once again, Mr. La Coste is in error. I never suggested he said that “the leadership of the early church wrote all the truth they had down.” I know he didn’t say that. And that is precisely his problem! How can Mr. La Coste rationally expect us to accept that the Bible is “complete” without even trying to show that the leadership of the early church at least wrote down all the truth they had? Unwritten truth certainly cannot be found in the Bible! And it is questionable as to how much good unwritten truth does Mr. La Coste today.

As I’ve said twice previously, in order to successfully prove his proposition, Mr. La Coste must not only demonstrate that the “Holy Spirit led the early disciples into all truth” (a belief we share), but he must also demonstrate that all the truth was written down (which he has failed to prove), that all the written-down truth made it into the Bible (which he has failed to prove), and that God inexplicably chose to change his ways and stop revealing his will directly to men through revelation (which he failed to prove). Mr. La Coste has had three installments in which to prove these essential elements of his proposition, but he has not done so. Since Mr, La Coste is incapable of bringing forth the evidence necessary to establish his proposition that the Bible is the complete and final revelation of God to men, why should any right-minded person feel obliged to believe him?

Mr. La Coste says the early disciples “wrote all the truth that ‘makes men free from sin and the servant of righteousness,”‘ and cites Romans 6:17 as support for his statement. Setting aside the fact that Mr. La Coste meant to cite Romans 6:18, anyone who wishes to take the briefest glance at the Scripture under consideration will immediately note that it does not stand for Mr. La Coste’s proposition at all. It says nothing about the disciple’s having written down all necessary truth. This is purely Mr. La Coste’s wishful thinking. Such has been his pattern from the beginning; to quote half a Scripture here and half a Scripture there in order to give the false impression that his views are biblical. If Mr. La Coste could find enough dupes who are willing to take his word for what the Scriptures say without checking it out for themselves, he could be the minister of a congregation! After all, in the kingdom of the blind, the man with one eye is king.

If anyone will take the time to check Mr. La Coste’s references against his interpretations, they will see what palpable rubbish Mr. La Coste is spouting. I have already given a number of examples of this sort of thing. I am only sorry I haven’t space to expose them all in the detail they deserve.

Before proceeding, I must remark on the humorousness of Mr. La Coste’s referring to the apostolic father, Clement, as “Clementine.” I should have thought one who proclaims to be a minister of Christ’s church would have known Clement was a disciple of the apostle Peter. Clement was therefore in an excellent position to quote Peter, as he did to the effect that the most sacred truths were not written down or vouchsafed to the uninitiated. For Mr. La Coste to dismiss out of hand the Clementine Recognitions as “not of inspired origin” and therefore not worthy of his notice is juvenile and shows he hasn’t done his homework. In short, Mr. La Coste is remaining true to form.

Paragraph No. 7.- Mr. La Coste gives us another example of twisting Scriptures to suit his ends. If anyone is deceived by Mr. La Coste’s lame attempt to fuse Matthew 22:32 and Hebrews 11:4 into a good reason for rejecting living prophets, they may pick up their Pharisee membership-card at the door on the way out. I have nothing more to say to them.

Then, Mr. La Coste again misuses Hebrews 1:1-2. He says he tries “to follow Jesus Christ; whom God ‘speaks through today. “‘ Mr. La Coste is still confusing his past with his present tense. Further, Mr. La Coste has made it abundantly clear he doesn’t believe that God speaks through Christ today. He believes God speaks through the Bible instead! Hardly the same thing at all. The Mormons are the ones who believe God still speaks through Jesus Christ, not Mr. La Coste. Mr. La Coste must have become confused in the heat of battle as to which side of the debate he was representing.

Paragraph Nos. 8, 9, 10.- Here, Mr. La Coste attempts to use my own statement against me. By means of a small miracle, he correctly quotes my statement that one would have to make the mistake of equating the faith/gospel of Jude 3 with the Bible in order for Mr. La Coste’s argument to make any sense. After having seized upon my statement, Mr. La Coste almost pops a vein showing not that the faith/gospel is equivalent to the Bible as I said he must, but instead that the faith is equivalent to the gospel! I am perfectly aware that the faith may be equated with the gospel. Mr. La Coste has evidently been debating too long and has entirely missed the point of my argument. I refuse to waste space here repeating that argument, but refer the reader back to my second installment where I originally set it forth. Though he took a mighty swing, Mr. La Coste did not even so much as lay a glove on that argument.

Paragraph No. 11: There are two things overlooked in Mr. La Coste’s quote from Frederic Kenyon: (1) None of the “hundreds and even thousands” of the “manuscripts of the New Tesatment” are originals. They are copies of copies of copies, and thus their reliability is put into question. (2) None of these “thousands of manuscripts” are identical. Thev all differ from each other to some extent, some to a substantial degree. Now, whether it was Mr. Kenyon who withheld this information from the reader, or an injudicious quote from Mr. La Coste did the trick I do not say. Nevertheless, both the above factors contribute heavily to our lack of certainty as to the accuracy of the text of the Bible in its present form.

Paragraph No. 12: Mr. La Coste cites I Corinthians 13:8-10, about which he earlier said that I “observed the passover,” and gave his interpretation of that passage as meaning that once the disciples “revealed the complete revelation (read: “Bible”) then prophets and prophecy would cease” (Paragraphs 4,5). 1 trust that no one will be shocked at this late date to find that Mr. La Coste is once again reading into the Scriptures things that are not there. (“The other night upon the stair, I saw a man who wasn’t there. “)

The Scripture cited states, “When that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part (prophecy, etc.) shall be done away” (1 Cor. 13:10). The key question is, “What is meant by ‘that which is perfect’?” Mr. La Coste jumps to the erroneous conclusion that it must mean the Bible. But this not the case. The above verse must be taken in context with verse 12, “Now we see through the glass darkly, but then face to face. ” Having the gifts of prophecy and revelation is not the perfect order. It is like “seeing through a glass darkly.” The perfect order is not, as Mr. La Coste thinks, to have a book which becomes the last will and testament of a mute God, but to have the Savior here personally; to be in his presence; to behold him “face to face.” When the Savior comes, there will be no more need for revelation and prophecy. He will tell us all things personally. But revelation and prophecy are to continue in the Lord’s church until the return of the Son of God; until we “see face to face”; until “that which is perfect (i.e., Christ himself) is come.” Inasmuch as the Savior has not yet returned, we should still expect to find the gifts of prophecy and revelation in God’s true church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints professes to have these gifts of the spirit. The Church of Christ does not.

The Rest of the Paragraphs.- I’m afraid that, as with his lack of knowledge of Clement, Mr. LaCoste’s ignorance of “The Assumption of Moses” does him no credit. It wouldn’t be so bad if he simply hadn’t heard of these things. It’s the way in which he flaunts his ignorance that is so disquieting.

Mr. La Coste writes, “Mormonism is notorious for creating books which never existed.” Well, Mormonism did not create all the books of Scripture that are missing from the Bible. The Bible did that all by itself, as I demonstrated at length in my previous installment.

Then, Mr. La Coste gives us the heartening statement, “Let’s clear up this ‘missing book’ mystery shall we?” Sad to say, Mr. La Coste does not follow through on his suggestion. He does not clear up the mystery at all. Save for the missing epistle of Jude, he doesn’t even attempt to give an explanation to this problem. Since Mr. La Coste doesn’t even mention any of the other many missing books from the Bible, I can only conclude that he concedes the issue and is at a loss to give a satisfactory answer to this problem that is so devastating to his proposition. As to Mr. La Coste’s attempt to solve the mystery of the missing epistle of Jude by showing that no such epistle existed, he once again falls into his own snare of confusing past tense with present tenses. He quotes from Jude, “I gave all diligence to write,” and then has the audacity to label this as “present tense”! I do not know where Mr. La Coste attended school, but it, might be in order to fire the English teacher at that institu tion, since he or she was apparently unable to teach Mr. L.a Coste that “gave” is the past tense of the verb “give.” Without this missing epistle of Jude or any of the other missing epistles and books mentioned previously, the Bible can in no sense be considered “complete” as Mr. La Coste claims, and his attempt to solve this mystery has only left the waters more muddied than at the outset.

Finally, we get to Mr. La Coste’s last question; the question he thinks is the death-knell to continuing revelation: “Were the Romans saved in Romans 6 and can we be saved like them today by obeying what we can read and know they obeyed?” Of course, this question has nothing to do with whether God continues to reveal his will to men from heaven. However, the straight answer to the proposed question is an unqualified, “No.” This is so because we don’t know that what we are reading is all the truth the Romans had, and Mr. La Coste has failed to bring forth one iota of evidence to show that it is. Further, we cannot “know” what “they obeyed” from the Bible alone, although Mr. La Coste likes to think he does. I think this is most clearly shown by the fact that there are over three hundred denominations of Christian churches in this country alone, all of them differing as to what the Bible says. The reason these sects are so hopelessly divided is because their interpretations of the Scripture come not from God, but are their own private inventions. This in spite of the admonition of Peter, “No Scripture is of any private interpretation” (2 Pet. 1:20). In order for an interpretation to be correct, therefore, it must be given of God. Mr. La Coste’s interpretation cannot be from God, since he claims no revelation. His interpretation can therefore only be “private,” showing that not only does he proceed contrary to Peter’s warning, but also that Mr. La Coste cannot know what the Romans obeyed, and the means whereby they were saved solely by means of his private interpretation of the Scriptures. Indeed, this has been the problem with Protestantism all along. They pick up the Bible and try to recreate what their private interpretations tell them once existed. They then proclaim their new “church” to be the true church of Christ. This is foolishness. It is as if to say that one could attempt to duplicate Da Vinci’s “The Last Supper,” and once completed, to claim to have created an original work by Da Vinci! No, Mr. La Coste, the only person who can create the Church of Christ is Christ himself, not Alexander Campbell or any other man. Men, through searching, cannot find out God. God must reveal himself to mankind or remain forever unknown. How long will it take for Mr. La Coste to understand the deep import of the Psalmist’s declaration, “Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it” (Psa. 127:1)? But the Lord has built his house again, and restored his true church to the earth. He did it himself, through a prophet of God, the same way he always operated in biblical times. That church is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and his prophet was Joseph Smith.

Mr. La Coste has failed to establish his proposition that “The Bible is the complete and final revelation of God to mankind.” He did not establish all the necessary elements of his case, and the few meager arguments he did bring forth have been completely controverted. I am grateful for this opportunity to defend the true gospel of Jesus Christ, and to the editor of this publication for allowing me the opportunity to share my views. I welcome any comments and questions.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 23, pp. 722-725
December 6, 1990

By Robert Wayne La Coste

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

It is the responsibility of any affirmative in a debate to prove the proposition he is affirming to be true. It has not been a difficult matter to prove that the Bible is the complete and final revelation of God to mankind. The Bible does not need Bob La Coste or any other man to prove that. The Bible defends itself. All I need do is point any interested person to the passages that show such. I have done just that. Mr. Volluz says he doesn’t need to use the Bible to prove it is not the final and complete revelation of God to mankind. Yet, that’s precisely what he signed his name to do! To discuss what the Bible teaches. Of course, we knew from earlier statements that Mr. Volluz has no interest in what the Bible teaches. We knew it from his statements about “modern prophets” and “personal revelation.” Dear reader, just mark it down that when a person starts talking about “personal revelation” and “latter day prophets” he has tossed the Bible out the window! He couldn’t care less what the Bible says. If you don’t think Mr. Volluz feels this way, look at what he has just written. In his attempts to attack me instead of the argument (and of course that’s alot easier, since the arguments are “nonsense” – isn’t that clear?), he demeaningly equates the Bible to the “sacred book” of the Pharisees. He even says, and you read it yourself, that the Bible is “inanimate” which means dull or empty! Now we know the real Corbin Volluz, don’t we? Now, we know why the Mormon Church has its very own “bible” because the one God gave just isn’t good enough. It is unthinkable that a man professing faith in God would want such an attitude known openly and I have a sneaking suspicion that when “the powers that be” in Salt Lake City read his statements they may have somewhat to say to Mr. Volluz. Most Mormons I have conversed with in the past 25 years at least manifest some respect for the Bible. Their own writings reveal this: “. . . the Bible as now translated is one of the marvels of the ages, and is revered and devoutly believed by the Latter-Day-Saints” (What The Mormons Think of Christ, tract, 1982, p. 3).

How did you like the way Mr. Volluz handles the challenges concerning God talking to Adam and Abraham through prophets? Mr. Volluz just waved his magic wand and “hocus point” he made Adam and Abraham prophets themselves! How convenient!

However, where does the Bible call them prophets? Now, we will not get an answer to that, since Mr. Volluz says he doesn’t need the Bible, he only needs his “common sense.” However, Mr. Volluz “speaks with forked tongue” and can’t seem to make up his mind when to use the Bible and wtien not to use it. He will use the Bible (or misuse it) when it seems to help his position and so he gave Amos 3:7. However, if that passage is teaching God never, ever spoke except through prophets, then Mr. Volluz himself is a prophet, since he says that God speaks also to him. And what does this do to Hebrews 1: 1-2 which says that he now speaks not through prophets any more, but through his Son? Anyone believing any of this “common sense” or “half Bible” approach? I really believe our readers are more intelligent than Mr. Volluz gives them credit for. We reject any man’s personal revelation as being from God when it conflicts with that revelation which indeed has proven itself as being from God. Mr. Volluz has the problem his founding father, Joseph Smith had, that being, his “revelation” conflicts with plain Bible teaching. From Mormon writers themselves, comes their own judgment: “The doctrines of false teachers will not stand the test when tried by the accepted standards of measurement, the scriptures” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1, p. 188).

Mr. Volluz is having a hard time with Hebrews 1:1-2 isn’t he? I really think I can read his lips better than he can read God’s Word. Hebrews 1:1-2 says nothing about Jesus in the flesh. Mr. Volluz added that and we encourage him to quit adding to the Scriptures! What it does say in that context is that God now speaks through his Son and this Jesus is “at the right hand of God” (v.3). So it is obvious that when Jesus talked about sending prophets (Matt. 23:24) after his death, this would be only until they helped reveal the complete revelation and then they and prophecy would cease (1 Cor. 13:8-10).

Mr. Volluz adds to the Scriptures, observes the passover on 1 Corinthians 13; says nothing about the question I proposed about Christians being saved in the first century with what was being delivered; and yet has the nerve to call me a Pharisee. Amazing! I have learned over the years that when a man is in trouble with his position, he then begins the ad hominem tactics. That is, the name calling and innuendo. Did not the Pharisees do this with Jesus when they could not forthrightly answer him? Who is really acting like a Pharisee? I seek honorable debate! Mr. Volluz, we are persuaded better things of you!

Once again, Mr. Volluz likes to quote the Bible only when he thinks it will help him; otherwise he falls back on his “common sense.” This was a tactic used by Satan in tempting Jesus. However, if Mr. Volluz is having problems quoting the Bible, that should not surprise us, for he can’t even accurately quote me! Look back and see where I said, “The leadership of the early church wrote all the truth they had, down.” Did I say that? Where did I say it? Oh, Mr. Volluz, “Thou that challenges me to read thy lips, had best learn to read thyself.” What I said was and please get it this time: Jesus promised them all truth via the Holy Spirit” (Jn. 16:13, etc.). I never said they wrote everything down. Why the world could not contain the books that could have been written (Jn. 20;30-31). Now understand, for this is exactly my position: They did not write every last single incident down, but rather they wrote all the truth that “makes men free from sin and the servant of righteousness” (Rom. 6; 18). They wrote down all that people needed to appreciate “all things that pertain unto life and godliness” (1 Pet. 1:3). So your misuse of John 16:12 was wasted space. He would not teach them then and there, but would send the Holy Spirit to be the teacher. The witnesses of Acts 10:41, Peter says, are these same men of John 16. Peter says, “us” that is, those who “did eat and drink with him after that he rose from the dead.” If Mr. Volluz would have quoted all the verse he would surely have seen this. Acts 15:28 is a verse for me, Mr. Volluz. It proves my point exactly! They could have written a whole lot more than they did, but God saved for us those “necessary things.” Thanks for the help. I will not comment on Clementine, as it is not of inspired origin. I don’t think I need to. The point is obvious. They had all the truth they needed and so do we in the exact same things they wrote! Tell us in your last installment, please Mr. Volluz: Were the Romans saved in Romans 6? Can we he saved like them, if we obey what they obeyed? We know they were saved and we also know what saved them. All of this before Joseph Smith and his false doctrines ever plagued mankind! I rest my salvation in what the Romans obeyed, not in the meanderings of a man impressed with his own personal revelations and “common sense.”

In like manner, and here Mr. Volluz goes again, he has me saying “that the dead prophets are not really dead.” Come on Mr. Volluz, we believe you can read better than this! They surely are dead physically, but “God is not the God of the dead, but the living.” Why don’t you explain what the passage means instead of poking fun at me? They are not alive physically because they wrote books, but they are alive, or that is, their spirits exist don’t they, or does Mormonism agree with the Jehovah Witness false doctrine of “once dead, you cease to exist’?” Now get it Mr. Volluz: Though dead they yet speak (Heb. 11:4). Did you get it this time? Why not deal with the Hebrew passage also? I guess it’s easier to poke fun. Now, if they still speak, then we don’t need actual physically alive prophets, do we? I’ll take the prophets and apostles of the Bible thank you, not some self-appointed ones who have devised their own priesthood, plan and human church. After this slaughter of what I said, Mr. Volluz then has the gall to mock my mentality, call into question the mentality of the congregation where I preach and concludes that he wouldn’t trust me to mow his lawn! However, you have made one very notable contrast again between us and Mormons. The congregations where we preach do not follow men, Mr. Volluz. We all simply try to follow Jesus Christ; whom God “speaks through today” (Heb. 1:1-2). Jesus is our only prophet, high priest and king! -We need no other. If I were you, Mr. Volluz, I would try listening more to him and less of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Orson Pratt, Clementine, your own personal feelings or William Shakespeare.

Here we go with Jude 3. I told you this verse was insurmountable to the modern who believes in latter day revelation, didn’t I? Mr. Volluz isn’t quite sure what to do with this verse. First he tells us, “I don’t care what hapax means (Greek word for “once”) or how it is used in other Scripture. ” Well, we already knew that! Mr. Volluz proves what I said earlier about those believing in modern revelation not caring about what the Bible says.

However, then he spends the rest of his negative talking about Jude 3. For a fellow who doesn’t care how the word “once” in the verse is used, that’s rather hard to reconcile!

Now it has happened! I knew Jude 3 would cause it! In reality Mr. Volluz concedes the debate by stating, “The only way it (hapax) can be logically interpreted to mean what Mr. La Coste claims, is if one makes the mistake of equating the faith/gospel which was delivered ‘one time for all time’ with the Bible.” Mr. Volluz has set in condemnation over the apostle Paul! Paul surely equates the faith with the gospel not only in Romans 1:16-17 but also in 1 Corinthians 2:5. Why? Because the gospel is a whole lot more than the atonement and resurrection of Christ. It takes more than just believing in those matters to obey and live the gospel of Christ and John obviously believed that when he wrote about “the doctrine of Christ” (2 Jn. 9-11). In Ephesians 2 Paul talks about the promises of the gospel which included fellowship with God, a spiritual family (church), and a complete and mature spiritual knowledge of Christ. There’s surely a whole lot more there than just the crucifixion of Christ! Where is the salvation of Christ and the gospel to the early church recorded? Again we must ask about, not only the Romans (Rom. 6:3-17), but the Galatians (Gal. 3:26-27), the Ephesians (Eph. 1:13), the Colossians (Col. 1:13-14) and all the rest: Were they saved? How do we know they were? Can we obey what they obeyed? Sure, because in the same book where we know they are saved, we can read how they were saved!

Is Mr. Volluz having problems with the canonicity of the Bible? I think it obvious he is! Sir Frederic Kenyon, one of the greatest authorities in the field of New Testament textual criticism, has stated: “It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible is certain. Especially is this the case with the New Testament. This can be said of no other ancient book in the world. The manuscripts of the New Testament are counted by hundreds and even thousands” (Frederic G. Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, p. 23).

Mr. Volluz may think he has given us “a new revelation” by telling us that the book of Revelation was written after Jude, but I think our readers already knew that. This is no way hinders the veracity of Jude 3, for as I explained before, these men were both still existent in the first century when inspiration was also existent; however when the perfect law of liberty was come then such spiritual gifts including revelation and inspiration ceased (1 Cor. 13:8-10). Mr. Volluz then tells us Jude is quoting “the assumption of Moses.” (I think it is the “assumption of Volluz” on it being the “assumption of Moses. ” What do you think?) But since Jude didn’t put that “assumed book” in his writings, poor old Jude makes the Bible incomplete.

This is clear as mud, and if Mr. Volluz expects his lawn to be moved, I think we can safely say he will have to mow it, for he will not be able to employ anyone to do so!

Mormonism is notorious for creating other books which never existed or were supposedly found years later. Let’s clear up this “missing book” mystery, shall we? We deny Jude doesn’t write about the common salvation even as he confirms that which had already been written by others. Take a close look at the book! He writes about being “preserved in Christ” (v. 1); “Blemished souls of old time and among yourselves” (vv. 4-12); “Judgment of Christ” (v. 25). Yet after all this, Corbin Volluz says that Jude doesn’t write about the common salvation. Mr.Volluz has the verse saying, “I wrote unto you . . . (past tense) in the Assumption of Moses . . . ” instead of what it does say, “I gave all diligence to write. . . ” (present tense).

No, Mr. Volluz will need more than a last negative installment to get himself out of this mess. As you read it, be mindfu that the last negative is forbidden to introduce any new material. As you read it, keep the proposition before you, for indeed the Bible is the complete andfinal revelation of God to mankind. Last, but not least, see if Mr. Volluz answers the questions: Were the Romans saved in Romans 6 and can we be saved like them today by obeying what we can read and know they obeyed? We thank God for his word which is a “lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path.” This word enables us to save our souls like they in the first century and to oppose and expose false prophets like Joseph Smith and Corbin Volluz though they may even claim that what they have received be “given by an angel from heaven” (Gal. 1:6-9).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 23, pp. 720-722
December 6, 1990

By Donald Townsley

Brother A. C. Grider passed from this life on Saturday morning, September 15, 1990. He was a native of the Bluegrass State, born in Creelsboro, Kentucky on January 15, 1912. His funeral service was conducted in the building of the Expressway church of Christ on Tuesday, September 18, 1990 at 11:00 a.m. by J.T. Smith and Connie W. Adams. His body was laid to rest in the Hebron Cemetery in Bullitt County, Kentucky with this writer conducting the graveside service. We express our sympathy to his good wife, Hallie; to his daughter Jane and her husband, Lee Ashbrook (an elder of the Manslick Road church), and to his two grand-daughters, Kelly and Melody.

No preacher of the gospel has had a greater impact on the direction that churches of Christ in Kentucky would take in the latter half of this century than has brother A.C. Grider. He began work with the Preston Highway church of Christ in Louisville on the first Sunday of September 1956, and preached his last sermon there on October 28, 1962. He labored with this church seventy-four months and when he left it was his own choice the elders invited him to stay. This was a period of time when the institutional-minded brethren were making their bid to take the churches of the Bluegrass state. Brother Grider was determined that this would not happen. He used every means at his disposal to alert brethren across the state (and especially in the Louisville area) to what was happening. The Preston Highway church had a radio program on WAKY on Sunday mornings which could be heard all over the Louisville area and a good distance down in the state. He used this program to expose institutionalism, the sponsoring church and those who promoted them. The Preston Highway church also had a weekly bulletin called The Reporter. With his powerful pen he exposed the institutional movement – week in and week out. He did not hestiate to name those who were teaching error, from the “least” to the “greatest.”

Brother Grider challenged the “best” that the institutional-minded brethren had for debate. During this period he met W.L. Totty at Corbin, Kentucky. In 1961 he met Guy N. Woods in Louisville. The debate with Guy N. Woods was held July 10-14 in Gottschaulk Junior High School on Taylor Boulevard. These five nights were all Guy N. Woods ever wanted of A.C. Grider! Brother Grider had James 1:27 diagrammed on a chart showing that the passage is individual in its application, and brother Woods could not answer it! The brethren in this area could see the error of the institutional position and the majority of the churches took a firm stand in opposition to it.

Without the work of A.C. Grider in this state during the fifties and sixties, there would not have been the turning back to the truth from the institutional movement that was seen. God in his providence had raised up a man who was uniquely fitted for this work. He was pure in life, had great faith and courage, and feared no man! He was not concerned with making money, but wanted to see souls saved from hell and the truth of God prevail over the doctrines of men. His preaching was plain and to the point: there was no guessing as to where he stood on any issue.

He hated every false way (Psa. 119:104) and fought all kinds of error in debate. He had around forty debates in his lifetime. He was also one of the most effective radio preachers during the last half of the twentieth century. There is no way of knowing the hundreds of people who have have been converted to the truth by his radio work – only eternity can tell! He worked with local churches in many states including Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, Texas and maybe some that I don’t know about. Although “retired,” he was preaching twice each Lord’s day (when not away in gospel meetings) for the church in Charlestown, Indiana. He had preached on Sunday before he became ill on Monday.

Brother Connie Adams said that brother Grider was a “legend in his own time, ” and indeed this was true. He was a “spiffy” dresser with beautiful white hair. He was a man of good humor who could keep you entertained with his stories – many of them his own experiences, but he never told anything that was offcolor. He was indeed a dignified gentleman who loved God, Jesus Christ and his church and the truth supremely. He was also a good family man: his love for his family was evident.

I had known brother Grider for around thirty years. Although not close, we were friends. I loved and respected him for his great work in the Kingdom of God. I believe he loved and respected me. He was unique and will not soon be forgotten. “Grider stories” will be told to generations not yet born if the world stands. I thank God that I knew such a man: we will miss him. It was a great honor and privilege to be asked to have the graveside service for, this great man of God. Brethren, we must never forget the truths for which he fought!

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 23, p. 710
December 6, 1990