Truth Magazine

By Luther Blackmon

Etymologically the word “hypocrite” means an actor; one who pretends to be something which he is not. Hypocrites come in varied forms; their hypocrisy finds expression in different ways, but basically they are all the same under the skin: dishonest and unreliable.

Not the least among the hypocrites is the fellow that is all sweetness and generosity when he is out with the “gang”; he has the longest arm in the crowd when it comes time to reach for the beer check; he is the regular fellow. But he squeals like a pig stuck in a gate when his spouse asks for an extra dollar above the dole he gives her to buy the groceries, and wants to know how she manages to get rid of so much money. The female counterpart of this nice fellow is the little lady who calls her husband all sorts of endearing names in company, and gives the impression that life with him is a preview of paradise, but who makes Socrates’ wife Zanthippe look like Whistler’s mother with her haggling and nagging when there is nobody home but the family.

Then there is the hypocrite who is not a member of the church because there are hypocrites in the church. It does not take a close observer to see that his excuse is as phony as a four-dollar bill. He goes to the football game where there are gamblers, whoremongers, liars, murderers, and reprobates a plenty. He will stand in line and be shoved, insulted, and slobbered on by drunks, and smile it all off as a part of the game. But if someone who goes to church has failed to pay a debt somewhere that he knows about, his sensitive soul is so shocked by such an atrocity that he simply cannot bring himself to worship God in the company of such persons. We have no disposition to defend those who refuse to honor their obligation, but we also know that you cannot prevent some counterfeits from getting into the church. They are found in every strata of society. And when we go to worship we should go for the purpose of worshiping God, not to analyze the lives and judge the hearts- of the worshipers. A person who lets a hypocrite keep him out of the church stands to spend eternity with that hypocrite. Because salvation is in Christ, and to be in Christ is to be in the church, if the hypocrite does not change, we will spend eternity in torment. The one who lets the hypocrite keep him from obeying the gospel will be there with him (2 Thess. 1:7-9).

Another one whose name belongs in this list of notables is the preacher who denounces dancing, petting, divorce and remarriage, while carrying on a clandestine affair with the wife of another man. This one belongs in the hypocrites hall of fame. Along side of him ought to hang the portrait of the preacher who declares his soundness to the remotest bounds, and loves the truth above all other considerations, who in debate seeks always for truth and never for personal victory, who would have his tongue cleave to the roof of his mouth rather than have it said that he had ever failed to stand for the truth on any matter affecting the kingdom of God; but who when issues arise and lines are drawn which leave him on the side with those “everywhere spoken against,” he changes his course completely or maintains a sphinx-like silence until he is forced to speak, and then evades and double-talks like a politician making a speech on integration.

And last but not least, we would mention the one who comes to worship only now and then when he (or she) has a pang of conscience about letting the children grow up without the influence of Christianity in their lives. But, who, if encouraged to come more often, will give out a line of excuses that ought to get him elected president of the Ananias club, but which excuses never keep him from the little league games and other activities. I am still looking for that fellow who will just walk up to the lick-log and say, “I don’t attend worship because I have no interest m spiritual things. The church means nothing to me. If there was ever a flame of love for the Lord and His church in my heart, it has gone out, or remains only a dying ember.” If one could ever bring himself to face this fact, he could begin to be faithful. Nobody wants to go to Hell.

Truth Magazine XXI: 3, pp. 45-46
January 20, 1977

By Robert H. West

The religious system popularly known as “Mormonism” looks to Joseph Smith, Jr., as it founder. Smith, born in Vermont in 1805, claimed to have received visitations from the Father and the Son, and the angel Moroni in 1820 and 1823, respectively. The first alleged appearance was for the purpose of warning young Smith not to join any of the religious groups in his area. During the second visit he was supposed to have been advised that God had selected him for a divine purpose. He was further advised, we are told, of an ancient book written on golden plates which was hidden in a hill near Palmyra, New York. He was allowed to visit this location once each year until September, 1827, when the plates, according to his claims, were delivered to him.

In April, 1829, assisted by a local school teacher, Oliver Cowdery, Smith began to translate the peculiar characters on the golden plates into English. This, it is claimed, was accomplished by “the gift and power of God.”

The result of these supposed labors was published in 1830 under the title, The Book of Mormon. This highly ungrammatical and tedious work claimed to be an account of the ancient inhabitants of the American continent-their origin, religion, and wars. But far more than just a historical work, it claimed to be the word of God-the “fulness of the everlasting gospel.”

The same year this book was published, Joseph Smith, claiming to be a divinely appointed prophet, organized a church which, in 1834, was officially called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. From that time until now, this group claims to be the “one true church,” divinely restored to the earth.

In the ensuing years before the violent murder of Smith in 1844, he produced two other books, Doctrine and Covenants and The Pearl of Great Price. Both of these works, like The Book of Mormon, purported to be the word of God.

After the death of Joseph Smith, his followers were divided into warring camps. The largest of these, under the brilliant leadership of Brigham Young, made the famous exodus to the Salt Lake Valley, from which headquarters Young’s successors still govern the people we know as the Mormons.

Although there have been some ninety Book of Mormon-believing groups formed since 1830, the one centered in Salt Lake City is by far the largest. It is to its tenets that we shall be primarily addressing our remarks. However, much of the material will also have application to the other “Mormon” groups.

Why Examine The Claims Of Mormonism?

The answer to the above question can be best seen in the words of Orson Pratt, one of the original “apostles” of the Latter-day Saint Church. Speaking of the Book of Mormon, he wrote:

“If after a rigid examination, it be found an imposition, it should be extensively published to the world as such; the evidences and arguments upon which the Imposture was detected should be clearly and logically stated, that those who have been sincerely yet unfortunately deceived, may perceive the mature of the deception, and be reclaimed, and that those who continue to publish the delusion, may be exposed and silenced, not by physical force, neither by persecutions, bare assertions, nor ridicule, but by strong and powerful arguments-by evidences adduced from scripture and reason” (Orson Pratt’s Works, 1899 Edition, p. 69).

Pratt further wrote:

“This book must be either true or false. If true, it is one of the most important messages ever sent from God to man, affecting both the temporal and eternal Interests of every people under heaven …. If false, it is one of the most cunning, wicked, bold, deep-laid impositions ever palmed upon the world, calculated to deceive and ruin millions who will sincerely receive it as the word of God. . .” (Ibid., p. 63).

We agree emphatically with both of these statements which clearly present justification-more than that, a challenge, to examine and, if possible, prove whether the claims of Mormonism are from God or men.

We enter this examination not only with the approbation of a Mormon spokesman, but by the eminently higher authority of the Bible. On its pages we are told to “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them” (Eph. 5:11) and “Beloved, believe not every spirit; but try the spirits, whether they be of God, for many false prophets axe gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1).

Having established both Mormon and Biblical authority to pursue this study, we direct your attention to the consideration of the principal question-IS MORMONISM FROM GOD OR MAN?

It Is From Man If The Bible Is Complete

The doctrine of continuous revelation is the basic premise from which the entire system of Mormonism is derived. This doctrine asserts that revelation was not completed with the New Testament, but, rather, other revelations from God (such as the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price ) have been and will continue to be made known to man through the years. But, if it can be established that revelation was completed in the First Century-that the Bible contains all of the truth-the entire structure of Mormonism is proved to be man-made and, therefore, false.

Orson Pratt understood this point and stated the proposition as follows:

“If it could be proven from scripture that God had revealed all that He ever intended to reveal, then a professed revelation would not require investigation; for It would be known at once, that every thing of the kind was an imposition. It would be folly in the extreme to Inquire whether a professed new revelation were true or false; for if God had declared In His word that no more was to be given, all writings or books purporting to be a new revelation could not be otherwise than false” (Ibid., p. 70).

We see from these statements that all of Mormonism hinges upon whether or not the Bible is a sufficient guide in religion. This, Mormonism emphatically denies. Not only do they tell us that not all the truth was revealed in the Bible, but they also say that what was revealed has been corrupted and much of it lost. Listen to these words from the Book of Mormon:

“And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the foundation of a great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the lamb, many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away …. Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which Is the book of the Lamb of God. . .” (1 Nephl 13:26-28).

Having the Mormon position clearly in mind, let us examine the Bible itself. What are its claims concerning completeness? Has it been corrupted as the Book of Mormon claims?

In John 16:13 our Savior was speaking to His apostles when He said, “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth.”

The precise nature of the truth into which the apostles were to be guided by the Spirit is limited and defined by the following scripture: “According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue” (2 Pet. 1:3).

By letting the Bible define its own terms, we see that the apostles were guided into all truth “pertaining to life and godliness.”

Notice carefully, please, that all truth containing “All things which pertain to life and godliness,” was revealed to the apostles. The inclusion of the word “ALL” in these passages proves beyond doubt the fullness of revelation in the First Century!

We might pause here to observe that since all truth was revealed in the First Century, and Mormonism was not revealed in the First Century, therefore, Mormonism must not be any part of the truth!

But continuing our search of the scriptures, we read: “That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us . . . And these things write we unto you. . .” (1 John 1:3-4).

So we see that what the apostles received (all truth), they declared to mankind in writing, which writings were to be viewed as the “commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37).

These and many other passages conclusively establish the fullness of revelation in the First Century and show that such revelation was also delivered to mankind.

But, remember, the Mormon position is that the gospel was indeed delivered in the First Century and again delivered in 1830. The inspired writer in Jude 3 conclusively settles the matter when he states: “. . . earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.”

That “the faith” is the truth revealed to the apostles and prophets is seen from Gal. 3.23. But notice that this faith was “once” delivered. This word is translated from the original Greek work hapax which means:

“Used of what is so done as to be of perpetual validity and never never need repitition, once for all” (Joseph H. Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 54).

You see then that “the faith” which was the “all truth” into which the apostles and prophets were guides, was “so delivered as to be of perpetual validity and never need repetition!” The entire Mormon system falls under the rebuke of this passage.

But not only was the faith “once for all” delivered in the First Century, it was also given the divine promise of indestructibility, whereby its continued existence would be assured: “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever … the word of the Lord endureth forever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you” (I Pet. 1:23-25). To contend, as do the Mormons, that much of the word was lost and corrupted, is to deny this plain passage.

The apostles and prophets of the New Testament clearly understood that their teaching would comprise the complete and final body of truth for mankind. We know this because they frequently warned against preaching anything other than their teachings. Notice: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:8).

The gospel of Mormonism is not the same as that of the New Testament. It cannot contain more truth than the First Century Gospel, because the first Gospel contains “all truth.” Since the Mormon gospel is not the same and cannot contain more truth than the Gospel of the First Century, it must be another gospel, and, therefore, is expressly condemned!

Mormonism is of man, not God, because the Bible is both complete and uncorrupted – a sufficient religious guide for mankind.

Truth Magazine XXI, 3: pp. 42-44
January 20, 1977

By Frank Drover

This may appear a simple question, but attempts to answer it has been the occasion of much disagreement and misunderstanding. The general view toward any religious group is denominational. Any way the word “denomination” is used, is as a part of the whole, and that is precisely what a denomination is-one among many, all together forming the whole. Thus, we would have the “Church of Christ” made up of many churches, many faiths, no two alike, all divided. Is this the Church of Christ? Can this be the meaning of the Apostle Paul when he said, “There is one body,” Ephesians 4:4?

The Bible never reveals the church in this light. It is always one, singular. Jesus built it (Matthew 16:18). He alone is its head (Ephesians 1:22, 23, Colossians 1:18). It is entered by baptism (1 Corinthians 12:13). It is composed by its members (Acts 2:47), each sustaining his own spiritual relationship to God.

The Church of Christ is not the name even of the church we read of in the Bible. It simply designates the church that belongs to Christ. In most cases in the Bible it is simply referred to as the church.

Twenty miles south of Fort Collins is a children’s home with a big sign in front, “Supported by Church of Christ and friends.” First, what is the Church of Christ as c here? If it had been Methodist church, Mormon church, Catholic church, etc. I would have known, but what is Church of Christ? We have long been taught that church of Christ is not a denomination, but few know why. We still speak of it as one.

Back to our illustration above. The children’s home supported by “Church of Christ.” I ask again, what is in the New Testament church is not a denomination, ho this possible? Designations of religious orders gene refer to the whole in the singular, because it is understand to have a central governing administration for collection of all local churches, and all this makes up church” of that particular order. This makes it a denomination. But the New Testament church, the Body of Christ, is not a denomination, and consequently is of this arrangement, and therefore cannot scripturally be identified in this way. Yet it is so spoken of, especially in connection with the act of combining local churches for common function, and with united support and maintenance of “our institutions. This is one of the many dangers of institutionalism. Besides being unscriptural itself, it is necessary to create a denominational concept of the church to maintain it. There is no way to create organization unauthorized of God, without corrupting perverting the organization God has authorized, in order to support and maintain it. Thus, one unscriptural prat leads to another.

The New Testament church that saves, and perfects in his relationship with the Lord, is a spiritual relation not a visible and active function to carry out the purposes of God. It was God’s will for local communities of people (local churches) to perform this latter work. Each of these is to function by itself, independently, as not the others existed. They are not considered collective making up the whole church. This is getting back to the denominational idea again. Some brethren have never been able to learn this lesson. “Our” big internal radio program (Herald of Truth) thus presents itself, “The churches of Christ salute you.” I can well remember in the early years of this program, they claimed about 12% of the churches were supporting their work. Very recent statements from themselves claim about the same percentage even today, yet they present themselves to the world, “The churches of Christ Salute You!” Another danger of these combines and institutions is misrepresentation that results from misleading statements and expressions of support, endorsement, and identity with the church, or rather churches, which they do not have. The wisdom of God in this design and arrangement is sufficient. If we would only be content to strengthen the resources of the local churches God has given us, large or small, to function after the divine order, more and more could be accomplished to the spiritual good of the world and the glory of God, than through our present machinations of our own human wisdom. I hope to write soon on the potential of growth and fruitful service in the independent function of local churches.

Truth Magazine XXI, 3, pp. 41-42
January 20, 1977

By Ron Halbrook

The word of God is composed of both milk and meat (Heb. 5:12-14). The Bible includes both simple principles and “some things hard to be understood” (2 Pet. 3:16). At best, we all have challenges to overcome in studying God’s word. We need to “let the word of Christ dwell in you richly” (Col. 3:16). Just as inspired men were gifted to “speak as the oracles of God” and were to speak only God’s word, so we are to “speak the things which become sound doctrine” and nothing else (1 Pet. 4:11; Tit. 2:1; Rev. 22:18-19). As we immerse ourselves in the Bible and Bible language, we equip ourselves to “call Bible things by Bible names.” The more we understand about God’s word, the purer our speech should become.

Some individuals have the knack of creating needless confusion. They think they are teaching the brethren a pure speech at times when they are only making pointless distinctions. Some seem to pride themselves in discovering supposed gross inconsistencies in language commonly used by brethren. Perfectly good synonyms in the English language are labeled “the language of Ashdod,” and speaking a Bible language has been made by some to mean speaking the King James English of 1611. Speaking Bible language and calling Bible things by Bible names does not mean freezing James’ English for ever more, amen! We speak as the Bible speaks when we teach exactly what it teaches-and that does not necessarily mean constant rote recitation of a Bible verse in King James English.

Some think they have discovered earthshaking distinctions by moving, removing, or otherwise rearranging commas, question marks, periods, colons, and other punctuation marks. Occasionally, an observation on some punctuation mark can bring a point into clearer focus; but here again, some brethren seem to pride themselves in juggling the punctuation marks to discover some great truth overlooked by others (and amazingly missed by the translators and grammarians who have spent a lifetime studying such matters!). Doubt and confusion is thus created regarding commonly accepted and sound use of scripture.

We do not mean to question the sincerity of all brethren who may feel safer using one verse than another to teach some Bible truth, or who may raise points for study. We recognize that some even hold personal opinions on some such matters, but they have the good sense to recognize them for nothing more than that-personal opinions. But some are creating needless confusion over such matters. Brethren, there are enough difficulties, challenges, and problems at best. It would be well to use extreme caution, common sense, and patience in further examination before blurting out some “new-found discovery overlooked by most of the brethren.”

Ever so often we are treated to an “appeal for Bible language” by an elimination of the expression “members of the church.” The ignorance of this appeal has probably been exposed a thousand times through the years, but every so often some bright new “scholar” does an “in-depth” study and “discovers” it all over again. It is currently circulating in several places again, so we shall look at it again.

What Is the Church?

The word “church” as used in New Testament times was not just a religious word or used only in a religious context. It meant any “called-out” group. In the Dictionary of New Testament Words, W.E. Vine points out church “was used among the Greeks of a body of citizens gathered to discuss the affairs of State, Acts 19:39” and even of “a riotous mob” (Acts 19:32,41). The word was applied to “companies of Christians,” either “the whole company of the redeemed throughout the present era” (Matt. 16:18) or “a company consisting of professed believers” as in a given locality (1 Cor. 1:2). Joseph H. Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament says “the Greeks” used the term church of various gatherings of people, then “the Israelites” used it of their various assemblies; the word could be used of “any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance” for whatever purpose; because the word basically meant any “gathering” or “assembly” of people, it was properly used of “an assembly of Christians gathered for worship” or “a company of Christians.” The original word is ekklesia.

What are some English words used today which represent the idea found in the Greek word ekklesia. Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary reports there is an English word church which is currently used of “a body or organization of religious believers” or “congregation.” Ekklesia is a body or congregation of believers, so “church” is a good translation for today. Searching for synonyms, we find company would fit well because it means an “association” or “fellowship,” “a group of persons.” Assembly will also work, since it means “a company of persons gathered for deliberation, and legislation, worship, or entertainment.” Obviously, many different kinds of groups can be called an assembly and obviously a group of God’s people gathered for worship can be called an assembly.

Some translators have suggested community, which will also convey the idea of ekklesia. A community is “a unified body of individuals,” “a group of people with a common characteristic or interest,” “a group linked together by common policy,” “joint ownership or participation,” “fellowship.” Congregation is sometimes used, and correctly so; it is “an assembly of persons: gathering.” The common, humble word group works very well, meaning “a number of individuals assembled together or having common interests.” The ekklesia is certainly a number of individuals with common interests.

But what is a member? Webster reports it is, “one of the individuals composing a group,” “a constituent part of a whole.” One of the individuals composing the ekklesia is a member of the ekklesia! If the ekklesia is a group, one of its individuals is a member! Since a congregation is “an assembly of persons,” then any one person is “a constituent part of (the) whole”-a member. A community is “a unified body of individuals” and a member is “one of the individuals;” a community has members. An assembly is “a company of persons” and any one person of the whole is a member. A company is “a group” and “a group” has members. A “church” is a body or group or congregation, and any “one of the individuals” composing it is a member-“a constituent part of a whole.” If it is proper to translate ekklesia “church” (or “company,” “assembly,” “community,” “congregation,” “group”)and it is – then it is proper to speak of members of the church.

When the Holy Spirit chose ekklesia, he chose a word which designates a whole or a group. Every whole or group has parts or members, so it is necessarily implied that the ekklesia has parts or members. Yet one cannot find in the Bible the expression “parts of the whole,” “parts of the church,” “members of the whole,” or “members of the church.” The concept of members of the church is revealed through the very word ekklesia. A rose is a rose by any other name-the church has members regardless of how one may choose to express it. Brethren are at liberty to use a synonym for “member” if they wish, but not a liberty to create needless confusion over the matter.

Institution, Organization?

Sometimes brethren object to the expression “bloodbought institution” to describe the church. “The church is not an institution or organization-such terms are not found in the Bible-they are `the language of Ashdod!’ ” Brethren will labor long and hard on such points as though their speech were more sound than others’, then demonstrate their own absurdity by calling the church “an aggregate.” As a brother who witnessed one of these performances said one time, “Since that term was not in the Bible either, I had to go home and look it up in the dictionary!” Some who urge the use of “collective” to the exclusion of other terms apparently have not noticed that it is also in the dictionary but not in the Bible.

A collective is “a number of persons or things considered as one group or whole,” “a collective body: group,” “a cooperative unit or organization.” That describes the church all right, but so does “institution.” Any “significant practice, relationship, or organization,” any “established society” is an institution. Taking another source along with Webster, we learn an institution is “that which is instituted or established,” as under certain principles and laws.

The church is an “organization” because it has “the condition . . . of being organized,” it is an “association, society. ” To “organize” is “to arrange or form into a coherent unity or functioning whole,” “to arrange by systematic planning and united effort.” Yes, the church ,has the condition. of being organized and is therefore an organization. “Aggregate” is also a proper term; it means anything “formed by the collection of units or particles into a body, mass, or amount: COLLECTIVE.” (Notice that “aggregation” is “a group, body, or mass composed of many distinct parts: ASSEMBLAGE”-it has parts or members!)

The charge is made that when we call the church an institution or organization, we are evidencing the denominational idea of institutionalism. We are told we should do everything possible to get people’s minds away from institutionalism, therefore we should drop the use of “institution.” But there is a difference between institution al-ISM and the church being an institution.

“ISM” frequently denotes “abnormal state or condition resulting from excess of a (specified) thing.” Accordingly, the definition of institutionalism is “emphasis on organization (as in religion) at the expense of other factors.” The “ism” carries the significance of undue emphasis, out-of-balance, abuse. The scheme of redemption revealed in the Gospel Age is rational, emotional, and legal in various aspects; it also involves an institution-bought by the blood of Christ, extablished and organized under the direction of Christ, headed by Christ, belonging to him. But the scheme of redemption is not characterized by rationalism, emotionalism, legalism, or institutionalism.

The way to correct the abuse of the gospel by the religious world is not by dropping perfectly good terms and throwing away all helpful synonyms, but by showing what the Bible teaches on each matter in plainness and simplicity. The same is true of terms like grace, faith, love, etc. (To be continued.)

Truth Magazine XXI: 3, pp. 40-41
January 20, 1977