Truth Magazine

By Tony Eldridge

It was January of 1990 when I read my first Charles Swindoll book, Living Above the Level of Mediocrity. I was fascinated by his grasp of spiritual matters. He seemed to have a way of picking me up and showing me the light that exists in a dark world. In the following two months I read five of his books and before long I became a Swindoll “disciple.” As I began to explore this untouched region of my life, I encountered another author, Max Lucado, and his book, Six Hours One Friday. His style is much like Swindoll’s in that he uses spiritual principles to give the hope of living a life that makes a difference in the eyes of God.

Within a matter of weeks, I began to use illustrations, points, and materials by these men in my sermons. People asked for copies of my outline because the material impressed them so much and made them feel charged. I felt as if I finally found a way of presenting the Truth the way it was in the New Testament. I realized that my sermons were more motivational than doctrinal, but I felt that Jesus himself approved of that when he told the Pharisees, “. . . you have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice, mercy and faith” (Matt. 23:23). I was confident that the “devotional” aspect of the law was weightier than the “doctrinal” aspect of the law.

Oh, I didn’t think that doctrine was unimportant; I just thought that here was the material that we Christians have been forsaking in our lives and especially in our preaching. My mission was clear show Christians what living a life devoted to Christ was all about.

It was during spring break of this past year that something happened that caused me to re-evaluate my spiritual feasting. My mother had met a young man at work who showed an interest in spiritual matters. She mentioned me to him and within a week he called me in Florida to set up a time that we could meet over the break. I was elated! I met him one night and before long, we were joined by four other people who began to “study” with me. We all agreed on the attitude that we should have; we all agreed on the power of Christ in our life; and we all agreed on the potential that Christians had in a life with Christ. Yet the charges he laid before me against the church belonging to Christ were above my head. I was simply not able to defend the teachings of Scripture concerning the precious body of Christ.

Don’t misunderstand me. I am not a novice in the faith. I have been studying the Bible for the biggest part of my life. The conversation that my friend and I participated in was one of meaty consistency. Yet I was silenced because of my ignorance. I went back to school both disillusioned and wiser. I was disillusioned with the books that I had put so much trust in. Though I thought they offered life, they gave me no assistance when I was called to defend my King. I was ready to pitch my whole collection of “feel-good” books. I came back a little wiser because I realized that there was no substitute for the true book of life, the Bible.

Now that I look back on my experience, I see that I went from one extreme to the other. Don’t get me wrong – I believe with firm resolve that there is no substitute for God’s Word; however, I still see some good that can be gained from the books that I mentioned earlier. My advice is simple: “Read them with care!” They have some good things in them that Christians can use. Just don’t make them your Bible.

Yes, we must be able to see the beautiful life that our Saviour promises. We must be able to understand the limits of “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.” But we must also be able to “be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth ” (2 Tim. 2:15). As Peter said, “. . . always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you” (1 Pet. 3:15). It is a sad thing when members who ought to be teachers can’t wield the sword of the Spirit effectively in defense of their King.

It is my strong plea that every Christian engage in some sort of daily Bible reading, for it is in his Word that we know the mind of God. That seemed to be the whole point of Paul’s message in 1 Corinthians 2. God had revealed his will to the inspired writers (v. 10) so that we might know it (v. 12). Only by searching the Scriptures can we equip ourselves with God’s words to give a defense to everyone who asks a reason for the hope that is in us so we don’t have to be ashamed.

As I said before, books written by men can be good. Many contain inspirational messages that can lift our souls and cause us to think about our commitment to the Father. But I pray that everyone who reads this will remember that there is no substitute for the living Word of God. It is the power of salvation (Rom. 1:16). It contains eternal life (Jn. 5:24). It can save your soul (Jas. 1:21). Can any other book today make such bold claims? Doesn’t it only make sense that our true spiritual feast should come often from the inspired writers? Let our foundation be built on the words of Christ and we will stand firm in his doctrine.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 23, pp. 707-708
December 6, 1990

By Clinton D. Hamilton

Question: Please explain Acts 21:21-26. Why were Jewish Christians and Paul keeping the law?

Reply: Context in which an act is done is extremely important to understand both the purpose and implication of what is done. Let us set this specific occurrence in a larger context of the teaching of the gospel relative to what is required and what is a matter of liberty.

If circumcision is done as a duty in order to please God under the New Covenant, it is condemned. Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything (Gal. 5:6; 6:15; 1 Cor. 7:19). Men are not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Christ (Gal. 2:16). If righteousness is by the law, then Christ died in vain (Gal. 2:21). Clearly Paul understood this and his behavior in Antioch against those who came from Judea demonstrated that he fully understood it. These from Judea taught that in order to be saved ‘ one had to be circumcised after the manner of Moses (Acts 15:1). A conference was later conducted in Jerusalem at which Paul was in attendance having been directed of God to go to it (Gal. 2:2). By direction of the Holy Spirit, a letter was sent out that said those who teach circumcision as being essential to salvation under Christ received no commandment for such teaching (Acts 15:24). However, there were certain necessary things which were laid on their conscience: to abstain from idols, blood, things strangled, and fornication (Acts 15:29). It is clearly evident that in the context of being required to keep the law of Moses, including circumcision and sacrifices in order to be saved, there is an unequivocal denial. Men are saved by faith in Christ and not by doing the works of the taw (Gat. 2:16).

However, there is another major part of the larger context that needs to be articulated. Distinctions in food, days, and the like are not now required of God (Rom. 14:1-21). Some individuals, however, may desire to, and believe they should, observe certain distinctions. Those who know better according to the gospel are not to exclude these individuals who do such observances between themselves and God. Each of these persons making the distinctions must act within the permission of his/her conscience (Rom. 14:23). On the other hand, the person with clearer understanding and fuller knowledge must not destroy his brother by putting a stumbling block or occasion to fall in his brother’s way (Rom. 14:13, 20-22). In 1 Corinthians 8-10, there is an extended treatment of the matter of liberty, which in relation to the question raised is extremely informative and helpful.

Foods neither make us better nor worse within themselves because the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking but is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit (Rom. 14:17). One has the liberty of eating or not eating. However, in some specific contexts, one is not to eat because of the influence or impact that eating would have on certain observers (1 Cor. 8:813; 10:23-33). On the other hand, in certain contexts, one might choose to engage in some specific conduct in relation to the view of another in order to influence that person to do good. One has the liberty to do or not to do the act, but in the particular context he might choose to do what he might otherwise not be disposed to do. Paul argues that he was free from all men (1 Cor. 9:19). However, in some contexts, he might make himself a servant in order to gain more people (1 Cor. 9:19).

To the Jews Paul made himself a Jew that he might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law as under the law in order to gain them that are under the law (1 Cor. 9:20). Likewise, to Gentiles as without the law in order to gain them, although he fully understood that he was under law to God (1 Cor. 9:21). When he was among the weak, he became weak that he might gain them (1 Cor. 9:22). All of this he did for the sake of the gospel (1 Cor. 9:23).

Certain customs and practices of the law could be observed as a matter of liberty. But if they were in the context of being essential to being saved, it is no longer a matter of liberty but a matter of conscience. Paul circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:3) but evidently in the context that it was not essential but was such an act of liberty as is contemplated in 1 Corinthians 9:1923. However, Titus was not circumcised in a context of its being required (Gal. 2:3-5). There is no question that Paul clearly understood and studiously observed conduct that demonstrated that circumcision and the keeping of the law were not required for salvation under Christ.

In Acts 21, it seems that some were saying that Paul forbade Jews to practice circumcision and other customs of the law (Acts 21:21). It is clear that this was a misrepresentation as the teaching and practice of Paul which were examined in preceding comments show. However, the brethren, who approached Paul understood that the enemies were misrepresenting him. They understood the issue of circumcision had been settled and clearly showed this in their remarks to Paul (Acts 21:23-25). They referred in verse 25 to the decision of the Holy Spirit communicated in Acts 15:29.

Evidently, Paul’s willingness to undertake being at charges for those who were to offer pursuant to what Numbers 6:2-12 directs in the case of the Nazarite vow is exactly what he taught in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23. To the Jews he became a Jew that he might gain the Jews. This was obviously in the context of its not being essential to salvation and is entirely consistent with what he did in the cases of Titus and Timothy. There is no implication in the context that what he did was essential to salvation. Had it been, he would not have done it. It was in the context of the liberty he had in Christ. His practice and that of the other brethren was an exercise of their liberty for the sake of the gospel.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 23, pp. 709, 717
December 6, 1990

By Corbin T. Volluz

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

In his attempt to present more an affirmative paper instead of a negative, as he should have done, Mr. Volluz’s demise rests in his own pen. We remind him that it is the duty of the negative to answer the affirmative’s contentions. First, I would encourage each reader to go back through my first affirmative, look at the arguments presented, the many passages used (as even Mr. Volluz confesses) and then look again at how many passages Mr. Volluz used and how he used them. We are destined, it appears, to have as Mr. Volluz’s “authority” for his convictions and his writings, so called latter-day prophets such as Orson Pratt and Mr. Volluz’s own personal revelation. But, who is Orson Pratt that I should hear his voice and what makes the personal revelation of Corbin Volluz any more credible than that of Oral Roberts or Jimmy Swaggert? No thanks, I reject them all and stand on the exalted standard “once and for all delivered” (Jude 3).

Mr. Volluz loves the term non-sequitur. He says that my arguments concerning the Bible being complete and final aren’t valid because, although the early Christians had a full gospel, which Mr. Volluz confesses, “that doesn’t mean it was the final word of God to man, because if that were true, God would be contradicting his principle of speaking through living prophets as he always has.” Mr. Volluz has made this his “sugar-stick” in his first negative. You the reader saw where he said more than once that God has spoken through living prophets from “the garden of Eden to the present.”

But now, hold everything. Stop the presses! Let’s see who is offering non-sequitur arguments! We challenge Mr. Volluz to produce from the Bible where God ever spoke to those in the garden through prophets! Furthermore, we challenge Mr. Volluz to show where God spoke to men like Abraham through prophets! It is true, God used prophets at different times through the Old Testament era and no one is denying that, but Mr. Volluz’s argument is, that God has “always used living prophets.” Wholly incorrect! Simply because he used them at different times, doesn’t mean he has always used them. Mr. Volluz’s major foundation has cracks in it! God has not always spoken through prophets and therefore it is non-sequitur to say he does today. Let the Hebrew writer tell us if God speaks through living phophets today: “God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past (emphasis mine, RWL) unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son” (Heb. 1:1-2). The Bible says “time past” and “through his Son.” Corbin Volluz says that today he speaks through living men who are prophets. It’s Volluz vs. Hebrews. But how does Jesus speak to men today? Paul says the “gospel is the power of God unto salvation” (Rom. 1:16) and Peter declares, “This is the truth . . . which by the gospel is preached unto you” (1 Pet. 1:25).

Those first two “intermediate steps” that Mr. Volluz referred to, I did establish. I did it with Scripture that he “observed the passover” on. As he did not accept them, will he accept these? The Bible is the complete and final revelation of God to man today and was written:

“That men might believe in Christ and have life” (Jn. 20:30-31); that men might know the things which Jesus did and taught (Acts 1:1); that men might be assured of the certainty of that which they were orally taught (Lk. 1:3-4); that men might know the commandments of the Lord (1 Cor. 14:37); that men might understand the mystery of Christ which was revealed to the apostles and prophets (Eph. 3:3-5); that men might know what the apostle has seen and heard and might have fellowship with God, Christ and the Apostles and that joy might be full and complete (1 Jn. 1:34); that men might not sin (1 Jn. 2:1); that men might remember the teaching of the apostles after their death (2 Pet. 1:12-21); that the revelation of the mystery (the gospel) might be manifested unto all nations unto the obedience of faith (Rom. 16:25-26).

Yet, in spite of all these truths, Mr. Volluz still thinks we need living prophets. Does he not see that though the prophets and apostles of the Bible are dead, yet “they still speak” (Heb. 11:4). In that regard they are very much alive, for “God is not the God of the dead, but of the living” (Matt. 22:32). How weak a God our Mormon friends must think God is, that he could not give a standard “one time for all time,” keep it pure and use it to lead men to salvation. That’s not the God that Bob La Coste serves!

It’s ironic indeed that one like Mr. Volluz who believes in continuing revelation should accuse me of adding words to Jude 3. All that I did was define from the original language the word “once.” I told you in my first affirmative that this Scripture would stand when this debate was over and Mr.Volluz surely proved that it does stand by not answering what I had to say about it. What did he say about the word hapax (“one time for all time”) and how it is used in other passages such as Hebrews 9:27-28? Nothing. I’m not surprised. This verse is devastating to the modern who believes in continuing revelations and they know it. However, it was somewhat amusing to read what he had to say about the verse in general. To Mr. Volluz, since Jude used the past tense word “delivered” and since the gospel was already given, then Jude 3 cannot be used to show there is no more revelation in the future. Maybe we better look again! Jude writes of the “common salvation.” Though the gospel had been orally preached in its fulness, inspired men (as Jude) were still writing it down. Jude was not writing anything that had not been preached orally. He, as Peter, was simply “stirring up their remembrance” (2 Pet. 1:13). He was certainly not writing anything different, unlike the so-called modern revelations. Jude was saying that the common salvation is here, it has been delivered, and it will not have to be delivered again . . . and again . . . and again. The word had been confirmed (Mk. 16:20) and prophecy has ceased just as Paul predicted it would when the perfect revelation was come (1Cor. 13:8-10).

Mr. Volluz totally missed my point from Matthew 24:35 and 1 Peter 1:22-25. It was not the purpose of these passages to show incorruptibility. The word of God by its very nature is incorruptible. It lives and it abides forever. The cry of the modernist is that the reason we need continuing revelation and the reason the Bible can not be trusted to be the final and complete revelation, is because some of the truth of God has been lost, or to listen to Mr. Volluz, it was not all written down. Mormons believe both. The Bible totally rejects this. Again, Jesus promised all truth to his disciples (Jn. 16:13) and Peter affirmed that he preached that same incorruptible truth (1 Pet. 1:22-25). Yes, the gospel is “all I have,” because I trust God to have given me, “all things that pertain unto life and godliness” (2 Pet. 1:3). We would that Mr. Volluz would have such confidence toward God. Confidence in God’s word doesn’t mean one worships a book. I’m sure along those lines that many Mormons have been accused of worshiping the book Mormon, but I’m sure they would deny it. Mr. Volluz: Was the gospel Peter and the others preached sufficient enough to make them Christians in the first century and lead them to eternal life? If so, why will not the same gospel do the same today? If it will not, why won’t it?

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 23, pp. 716-717
December 6, 1990

By Robert Wayne La Coste

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

First of all, I want to express my appreciation to brother Mike Willis for allowing this discussion to take place in the Guardian of Truth. This paper, editor, and its staff writers stand to be commended for having the policy that they will open their pages to controversy and the avenue of honorable debate. As I love truth, I love each of them for their proper attitude in regard to such matters. I love the soul of my honorable disputant and desire only that he would turn from darkness to light and that all members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints would read this with an open heart and in concern for truth.

After several months of private correspondence and in hopes of a future public debate, I stand ready to defend the following proposition; Mr. Volluz will negate it.

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

It is only proper, that I define the key terms of this proposition.

By “Bible” I mean the sixty-six books that comprise the cannon of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation, called also the Old and New Testaments. By complete, I’m using the word even as Paul did, when he wrote to Timothy and spoke of the word of God furnishing a man “completely unto every good work” (2 Tim. 3:17), i.e. “lacking nothing; entire, ended or finished.” By “final,” I mean “of or coming to an end; settled and conclusive.” And by “revelation,” I mean “a revealing, a disclosure to man concerning God and his will.” Finally, by “mankind,” I mean a term that is synonymous with the term Jesus used when he commanded, “preach the gospel to every creature” (Mk. 16:15) and the apostle Paul’s word, when he wrote about the gospel being preached in his generation to “all creation,” thusly fulfilling that command of Christ (Col. 1:23).

Yes, indeed, the Bible teaches that the complete and final word of God was revealed in the first century and that it would be all sufficient and would never perish. Let’s notice these truths together.

In John 16:12-13, just prior to the crucifixion, resurrection and ascension, Jesus promised his confused apostles, “I have many things to say unto you, but ye can not bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth.”

Dear reader, either the first century apostles were given all the truth or Jesus lied about it! This is the same truth mentioned above that was preached unto “all nations” (Matt. 28:19) and to all the “world” or “every creature” (Mk. 16:15-16).

This word was spoken and written in the first century as it came from the Holy Spirit, even as Jesus had promised it would be. Paul wrote, “God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit; for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea the deep things of God . . . now we have received, not the spirit of the world but the Spirit which is of God . . . which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth” (1 Cor. 2:10-13). Paul later wrote to the Galatians, “But I certify you brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man, for I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:11-12). Paul also wrote, “When ye read ye will understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ, which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed (emphasis mine – RWL) unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit” (Eph. 3:3-5). The apostle John declared, “That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you . . . and these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full” (1 Jn. 1:34).

Friend, how much plainer could Scripture be? Jesus promised all the truth and Paul, John and others said they received it and preached it and wrote it so that others could hear, as well as read, the will of God for mankind.

As if these truths were not enough, in his short epistle Jude delivers a crushing blow to any who would believe in modern day revelation having come or going to come from God. Jude wrote, “Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3). The faith mentioned here is the gospel (Gal. 1:11-23; Col. 1:24). The word “once” is from the Greek work hapax and is defined simply as “one time for all time.”

Please notice how it is used in other places in the word of God. The Hebrew writer writes concerning Jesus’ death, “Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice . . . for this he did once, when he offered up himself” (Heb. 7:27). We are very interested in what Mr. Volluz will say about this. Does Jesus have to keep offering up himself in thse latter times? To even think such is wholly absurd, yet Mr. Volluz, our Mormon friends and others believe that the word of God was not “one time and for all time” delivered and that we are still receiving revelation today. What about the following passage? “It has been appointed unto man once to die, but after this, the judgment. So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many” (Heb. 9:27-28). How many times does a man die physically, Mr. Volluz, and how many times will he be judged? The death or offering of Christ, was even as man’s own death and occurs only once. Jesus told John on Patmos, “I am he who was dead, but behold, I am alive forevermore” (Rev. 1:18).

In the same way with the same word, Jude says the truth of God was once delivered. That Scripture will stand when this debate is over.

The word of God manifested in the first century makes one “free from sin and the servant of righteousness” (Rom. 6:17). It also “presents every man perfect in Christ Jesus” (Col. 1:28). Anything else is superfluous!

In Matthew 24:35, the Lord Jesus claims incorruptibility for his words (more enduring than heaven and earth!) and Peter agrees when he writes that the word of God is an incorruptible seed which lives and abides forever (1 Pet. 1:22-25). We do not need so-called latter-day revelations, even if they were truth!

How appropriate therefore it was for James to call the gospel he preached in the first century, the “perfect law of liberty” (Jas. 1:25). The gospel is perfect in that it is flawless, full or complete and is lacking nothing; therefore I stand with firm conviction on this all-sufficient gospel preached in the first century, knowing full well that, “if any man preach any other gospel, he is accursed” (Gal. 1:8-9).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 23, pp. 712-713
December 6, 1990