Truth Magazine

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

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