Truth Magazine

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

By Clarence W. Fell

Cards are valuable tools for the personal worker. Anyone can use them; busy people can use them; the elderly who suffer physical limitations can use them; just about everyone can enhance his personal work efforts with cards. A card says, “I care,” “I’m thinking of you,” “I’m concerned,” “I love you,” etc. A card is practically a smile and a hug in an envelope.

Romans 12:15 instructs, “Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep.” Cards are one way we can share our joy and sorrows. Sometimes cards speak where our own words fail.

There are many occasions for expressing our love with cards. A short list would be: birthdays, anniversaries, holidays, other special days, just for fun days, times of sickness, bereavement, etc. Cards are also a great way to encourage visitors, teachers, preachers, deacons, elders and the spiritually weak (1 Thess. 5:11). A card can really say a lot.

If you take card sending seriously you may want to try the following system.

1. Get a box that will hold 81/2″ x 11″ file folders.

2. Label 12 folders for January thru December – one for each month of the year.

3. Label other folders for special occasions (i.e. birthdays, births, weddings, visitors, sickness . . . etc.). Label as many special folders as you want to send cards for.

4. Now for the fun part. Go card shopping! Take a couple of friends and make a morning of it. After your initial buying spree get in the habit of picking up a few cards here and there to keep your folders stocked. Now, when you need a card you can go straight to it.

5. On your next lazy Saturday plan your card sending for a few months ahead (i.e. birthdays, anniversaries, graduations . . . etc.). If you want to, you can go ahead and sign the card and address the envelope. Then, in the upper right hand corner where the stamp will go write the date the card is to be mailed and then put it in the appropriate monthly folder. Now you’re all set. When the date rolls around place a stamp over the date and put it out for the postman to pick up.

This system, or your own variation, will make card sending easier and more enjoyable. Have fun with it! Enjoy it! Let card sending be one of the many ways you share your love with other people.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 23, p. 708
December 6, 1990

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