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