Truth Magazine

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

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