Truth Magazine

By David A. Webb

Some time ago I had the privilege of hearing Brother Joe Corley of Dothan, Alabama preaching in a gospel meeting at the Northside Church of Christ in Jonesboro, Arkansas. In the sermon, which dealt with “The Power of the Gospel,” Brother Corley ably illustrated the duel effect that the preaching of the gospel would produce. Some, upon hearing the word, were convicted of their sins and humbly turned in obedience to God (Acts 2). Others, upon hearing the same word, would rebel against the truth, sometimes in a rather violent way (Acts 7). In each case the simple truth was declared. This was the truth that could lead the hearers to salvation.

But why did the same truth receive a variety of reactions? The fault did not lie in the gospel itself nor in the preacher and the manner in which he revealed it. The fault was in the hearts of the hearers themselves. Some hearts were receptive to the gospel. Those hearers would obey whatever was required of them. On the other hand, some hearts were filled with pride, arrogance and a desire to please self. These hearers would obey only that with which they agreed. But let someone expose the sin in their life and they would become rebellious and reject not only the truth but also the one who delivered that truth.

This point in Brother Corley’s sermon caused me to think of the mistakes many of us make in “holding back” certain things our hearers may need to be told. We sometimes feel that by teaching on certain subjects we may alienate certain people from the gospel altogether. So we reason that once these individuals become “grounded,” we will begin to introduce them to other truths which deal with serious problems in their lives. While our reasoning may sound valid, it is not! The apostle Paul would have simply labeled this reasoning as “shunning to declare the whole counsel of God.”

As gospel preachers and teachers, we need to simply preach and teach the gospel, the whole gospel. Some of those in sin will respond by obeying those precepts, and others will rebel and turn away. If any are lost the fault will not lie in the gospel or in us for exposing their sins to them, the fault will lie in their own rebellious hearts.

God has not given us the privilege of selecting which parts of His word we will teach and which parts we will not teach. Since we do not know how anyone will react to truth, God expects us to teach it all. Paul did, and he was able to say, “I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you . . . Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God” (Acts 20:20, 26-27).

Thank you, Brother Corley.

Truth Magazine, XX:5, p. 9
January 29, 1976

By H. L. Bruce

(Editor’s Note: This is the third of a three-part series on marriage. We suggest you read the articles in our previous issues before proceeding to this one.)

There is a growing tendency among many preachers, elders and other teachers to circumvent marital issues and let people pursue whatever course they desire without reprimand or censure. This is particularly true with regard to the status of the guilty parties in remarriage as discussed in our earlier article, and whether or not there is any such thing as an alien sinner living in adultery. To many these subjects are sort of the “hot potato” type and should be minimized because of their disturbing nature among brethren, and the tendency for lines to be drawn once positions are well defined and known.

Yet there are some who choose the alternate course. Among them someone will contend that God doesn’t take any particular note of the marital status of the alien sinner; that the alien is not under God’s law and is under only civil law. Regardless of what he does, that God does not reckon with other than the fact that he is an alien sinner.

Stating the Issue

Specifically, it is reasoned if he is a habitual drunkard, fornicator, or, if he marries and divorces repetitiously for various causes irrespective of whether or not fornication is involved as a reason for dismissing his companion, that such is not of particular note in God’s sight, and that he being an alien sinner, such specifics are not indictable, as such in God’s mind. According to that line of reasoning one could divorce a companion, without fornication being the reason, and could remarry and adultery would not be chargeable in any event owing to the idea that God does not take note of the specifics on the part of the alien sinner.

Extending the Problem

However, as the theory goes, if such a person obeys the Gospel, he may keep the present companion, be it his first, his fifth or whatever, there is absolutely no need for any companion to be put away. From thence forth he must be exceedingly cautious though, for God then begins to take note of his specifics and if he puts away a companion for other than fornication, and marries another he is guilty of adultery.

There are those who actually argue the above case. Many others believe it sort of “underground” without arguing it. The conclusions and practices of yet others are of such nature, that while disclaiming the view, they could not effectively offer refutable argument against it.

The Basic Fallacy

Now that the case has been stated, is it right? Or, is it wrong? If it is right, where are the scriptures which so teach? If, on the other hand, it is wrong, just where does the basic and fundamental fallacy reside?

My friends, the theory is wrong and the basic fallacy resides in an assumption which has never been proven and which is unprovable-namely: that God does not take note of the specific sins of alien sinners.

The truth of the matter is that God, through the Holy Spirit has assured us that He does take note of the specific sins of the alien sinner. This assurance is clearly revealed in the scripture and not only indicates that the alien specifically sins, but that his sins will be a factor in his eternal destiny.

Scriptural Facts

First let us note what Paul indicated about specific guilt at Corinth among those who were then disciples, but with regard to their condition before they obeyed the Gospel: “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:9-11).

According to this some of the Corinthians were not only guilty before their having obeyed the Gospel, but certain specific sins were noted of which they had been charged. Among the specific sins of which they were guilty before their having been washed, sanctified and justified, one will observe the particular mention of adultery. This being true the possibility is sustained of one being specifically charged with such guilt before he obeys the gospel.

But please note again, “Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth: fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupesence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: for which things sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: in the which ye also walked sometime when you lived in them” (Col. 3:5-7). Indicated in this scripture . is the fact that the Colossians had previously been guilty of these specifics and that contemporary children of disobedience then were, and because of these very things God would execute his wrath upon them. My friends, in view of this, answer for yourself: does this sound as if God does not take note of specific sins of alien sinners?

Adulterers Recourse

At this point many become concerned about another angle of the subject at hand. If it is true that aliens are amenable to God’s law on marriage, and there is such a thing as an alien sinner living in adultery, what recourse would he have upon his obedience to the Gospel. Some reason that among the converts of the First Century there surely must have been just such individuals who were living with companions far removed from the first and that it was quite likely that the first companion was discharged for reasons other than fornication. Now that being assumed, “Just where is the example of any such, said, person being told that he, or, she must separate from his, or, her present companion?” we are asked! From this line of thought the conclusion is sometimes reached that since we have no example of such person being told to break-up an adulterous relationship that such admonition should not be given today.

While we are on the examples let us not let this fact escape us: while it is true that we have no examples of any inspired man specifically admonishing any one to break-up an adulterous relationship upon his obedience to the gospel, it is also true that there is no specific example of such problem being recorded. Consequently in the example-family there is more than one member absent!

Example vs. Consequences

As many have argued all along, there is far more involved in any taught topic than what is learned from “example.” Let us consider “consequences” for just a moment! If the fact be sustained that an adulterous relationship exists before obedience to the Gospel and that obedience does not sanctify an otherwise sinful marriage the question is still extant as to what recourse does the adulterer have remaining? It is not merely a question of whether or not we find an example of adulterers being told to separate, but what are the consequences of the their abiding in adultery and thus facing God in the Judgment? What are their alternatives? The Bible teaches that adulterers shall not inherit the kingdom of God (see 1 Cor. 6:9-11, Gal. 5:19-21). This being true, their alternatives are quite clear: they either repent of and discontinue their sin according to the will of God; or they continue in their adultery and face God in the Judgment and not go to Heaven. Obviously this point turns upon something other than what was exemplified; namely, the consequence of abiding in a sinful state until the Judgment.

Significance of Taking a Stand

This subject is too important to be ignored. If people are given the wrong information and are led to believe that they are alright without correcting their sinful condition and thus face God in the Judgment their souls will be doomed to a Devil’s Hell. Also, if the subject is avoided in favor of a more popularity enhancing variety, many will no doubt, err through a lack of being properly grounded. The only other alternative is that the truth be studied, loved and taught, that dangers may be avoided, souls restored and heaven gained. “And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, nor whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the lamb’s book of life” (Rev. 21:27).

Truth Magazine, XX:5, p. 7-8
January 29, 1976

By John McCort

(All of the material in this series of articles has been gleaned by researching materials compiled by other authors. I make no claim to originality. Some of the material in this opening article is taken from Homer Hailey’s published notes on Mormonism. Much of the material in later articles came from outlines and original source materials supplied by Bro. Bob West of St. Petersburg, Florida. This material was compiled during my study for a debate with the Mormons which was cancelled shortly before it was to take place.)

Every false system of religion is based upon some fundamental error that church tradition carries equal authority with the Bible in matters of religion. Calvinism is based upon the false concept of predestination; Likewise, Mormonism is built upon the sandy foundation of latter day revelation. The uniqueness of the Mormon claim is based upon the assumption that God continues to reveal saving truth through modern day prophets. Modern day revelations of truth from God are the taproot of the whole Mormon system. If this concept can be destroyed the whole system of Mormon theology will collapse.

The New Covenant

The Mormons claim that the Book of Mormon is the new covenant. “And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I have given them” (Doctrines And Covenants, 84:57). “Behold I say unto you, that all old covenants have I caused to be done away in this thing, and this is a new and everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning . . . . For it is because of your dead works that I have caused this covenant and this church to be built up unto me” (Doctrines And Covenants, 22:1, 3).

This teaching contradicts what the New Testament claims for itself. The writer of Hebrews states that the New Testament is the new covenant (Heb. 8:6-13). When Jesus died the new covenant was instituted with his blood (Heb. 9:16-22; Matt. 26:28). If the Book of Mormon is the new covenant, and all old covenants were done away with, that means that the New Testament was done away with. Heb. 13:20 states that the new covenant is an eternal covenant. Since the new covenant is eternal then it could not be done away with.

“For if that first covenant had been faultless then should no place have been sought for the second . . . . In that he saith, a new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxed old is ready to vanish away” (Heb. 8:6, 7, 13). The writer argues that if the first covenant had been perfect there would have been no need for a second covenant. Since the new covenant is eternal (Hob. 13:20), it must be perfect. Using the logic of the writer of Hebrews, “If the second covenant were faultless there would be no need for a third covenant.” The Mormon claim that the Book of Mormon is a new and eternal covenant would render the Bible imperfect.

. . . by so much He is also the Mediator of a better covenant which was built on better promises” (Heb. 8:6). Since the New Testament is built upon better promises than the Old Testament, that would mean that the Book of Mormon is built upon better promises than the New Testament. I wonder what better promises it could be built upon? What better promise is there than the prospect of eternal salvation in heaven?

“For the priesthood being changed, a change of law must also come about” (Heb. 7:12). The law cannot be changed without a corresponding change in the priesthood and vice-versa. The Levitical priesthood was abolished (Heb. 7:11). The new priesthood of Christ is unchangeable (Heb. 7:24) and eternal (Heb. 5:6). The Book of Mormon and other latter day revelations represent a change in law, especially in light of the claim that the Book of Mormon is the new and everlasting covenant. Thus, a change in the law would make necessary a change in the priesthood which is now unchangeable and eternal. Therefore the law of Christ contained in the New Testament is eternal and unchangeable.

“Who also made us able ministers of the new covenant … ” (2 Cor. 3:6). “. . . by so much He is also the Mediator of a better covenant . . .” (Heb. 8:6). The apostles were able ministers of the new covenant. The apostles were not ministers of the Book of Mormon. Thus, the Book of Mormon is not the new covenant. Jesus is the mediator of the new covenant of which the apostles were able ministers. The Book of Mormon is not the new covenant of which the apostles were able ministers. Thus, Jesus is not the mediator of the Book of Mormon.

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). All Scripture, both. the Old and New Testament, is inspired. Peter said that Paul’s epistles were inspired Scripture (2 Pet. 3:15-16). If the Scriptures make a man perfect (complete) there is no need for the Book of .Mormon. How can perfection be improved upon?

The Things Of God .

“Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee. For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me . . .” (John 17:7). All things from the Father were delivered unto the Son. The Son delivered all things to the apostles. The Book of Mormon was not given to the apostles. Therefore the Book of Mormon is not from the Father. If the apostles were given all things they needed nothing more.

“But the comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to you remembrance all things, whatsoever I have said unto you …. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak; and he will show you things to come” (John 14:26; 16:13). Jesus promised the apostles that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth. The Holy Spirit did not guide the apostles into the Book of Mormon. Thus, the Book of Mormon is not truth inspired by the Holy Spirit.

“According to his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue (2 Pet. 1:3). All things have been given unto us that pertains to life and godliness. God did not give New Testament Christians the Book of Mormon. Thus, the Book of Mormon is not, necessary to life or godliness. If we have all things that pertain to life and godliness then what could the Book of Mormon possibly have that the Christian would need?

“Though we or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let-him be anathema” (Gal. 1:8). The angel Moroni supposedly appeared to Joseph Smith and told him where he could find the Book of Mormon written on some golden plates which would contain new truth. Anything which is essential to salvation is gospel. The apostle Paul stated that the curse of God rests upon him who preaches another gospel. The Book of Mormon is “.another gospel”, a new covenant. The “gospel of Mormonism” was not preached by the apostles. Thus, he who preaches “Mormonism” is under a curse.

Essential to Salvation?

There is one question that is devastating to the whole concept of latter day revelation. Does the Book of Mormon (or any other inspired Mormon literature) contain anything essential to salvation that I cannot find in the Bible? Could one follow the New Testament today, obey its commands, and go to heaven without the Book of Mormon? If the Book of Mormon contains anything essential to salvation then it is “another gospel.” Paul said that anybody who preached another gospel was under a curse. If the Book of Mormon contains nothing that is essential to salvation, then what useful purpose could the Book of Mormon serve to a Christian?

“For the married woman is bound by law to the living husband. But if the husband dies, she is freed from the law of her husband. So, then, while the husband is alive she will be called an adulteress if she becomes another man’s. So that, my brothers, you also were made dead to the Law through the body of Christ, in order for you to become Another’s (who was raised from among the dead so that we could bear fruit to God” (Rom. 7:2-4). When Christ instituted the new covenant with his blood he also abolished the old covenant. Paul argues in this passage that Christians cannot be under two covenants (laws) at the same time without committing spiritual adultery. The New Testament claims to be the new covenant. The Book of Mormon claims to be the new and everlasting covenant. We cannot be under both the New Testament and the Book of Mormon since both claim to be the new covenant.

“and exhort you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3). “The faith” signifies that body of doctrine which is believed. “The faith” was delivered by God and was not discovered. “Once for all” signifies that the faith was once and for all time delivered unto the saints. Heb. 10:10 states that Jesus was crucified “once for all.” If the faith delivered unto the saints was not a final and complete revelation then the sacrifice of Christ was not a final and complete sacrifice. Both were “once for all.”

The whole system of Mormon theology completely unwinds when deprived of the latter day revelation concept. In dealing with Mormonism, all other issues are subsidiary to the latter day revelation issue. Thus, the Scriptures strike a death blow to the very heart of Mormonism.

(Continued next week)

Truth Magazine, XX:5, p. 5-7
January 29, 1976

By Cecil Willis

This is now the third lesson that we have devoted to a study of the relation of the Law and the Gospel. Already, the Law has been defined as the Law of Moses, the Ten Commandment. Law, and the Gospel refers to the system of salvation in Christ. This is one of the most misunderstood teachings of the New Testament.

Last week we pointed out from the teaching of Jeremiah the prophet that the Law of Moses was only intended to be temporary. We studied his statement in Jer. 31:31-34 which shows that the Law of Moses was to be replaced by another law, namely the Law of Christ. Paul quoted this prophecy as having been fulfilled in Heb. 8:7-13. Then we concluded our study by reviewing the teaching of the apostle Paul in Ephesians, showing that the barrier, which Paul declared to be the Law of Commandments, was done away so that now Jew and Gentile may become one new man in Christ through the one body (Eph. 2:14-18). The Scriptures abound in statements showing that the Law of Moses has been done away. We would like to remind you that these passages apply not only to those that try to bind the keeping of the Sabbath day upon us, but they are equally as applicable to any of us that fail to find justification for our doctrine or practice in the New Testament, and therefore revert back to an abrogated law for their authority.

Colossians 2:13-15

The passage we shall study this week is another statement from the pen of the apostle Paul. This time, we are studying the letter written to the Colossian brethren. One of the problems confronting this church was that of intermixing Judaism and Christianity. Hence, Paul made the following statement unto them: “And you, being dead through your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, you, I say, did he make alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses; having blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us: and he hath taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross; having despoiled the principalities and the powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it” (2:1315).

Notice that in this passage, Paul said that the bond written in ordinances that was against us hath been taken out of the way, and nailed to the cross of Christ. Of what was Paul speaking when he referred to the ordinances that were against us? He was speaking of the Law of Moses, or the old covenant. As this same apostle addressed the brethren at Galatia, he taught precisely how the Law of Moses was against us. A lot of the people of Galatia, as are many people today, were trying to put themselves back under the Law of Moses. Paul taught them the impossibility of this by telling them that to go back under the Law of Moses, they would have to give up Christ. But he also declared to them that the Law was but a curse to them. He said, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us; for it is written, Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree” (Gal. 3:13). Having been redeemed from the curse of the Law, are we so foolish as to want to go back under it? We should praise God for the fact that no longer are we living under the Old Testament Law, but that we are now permitted to live under the Law of Christ.

We have seen that the Law was a curse to us, but why was it a curse? Fortunately, Paul went into detail to tell us why the law was a curse to man. In Gal. 3:10, he said, “For as many as are of the works of the law are under a curse: for it is written, Cursed is everyone who continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law, to do them.” The Law was a curse to man because the very moment one failed to observe a single commandment of the Law, he was condemned. In discussing this very problem, Paul, to the Roman brethren, said, “For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). He said that all, both Jew and Gentile, had failed to live up to the rigid requirements of the Old Testament Law. In the passage in Gal. 3:10, he said that “cursed is everyone who continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law, to do them.” So the Law shut them up under sin, as Paul said to the Galatian brethren in Gal. 3:22. It could only condemn them.

So when Paul comes to speak of the Law of Moses to the Colossian church, he called it the “bond written in ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us.” This is but another way of saying that the Law was a curse to us. It condemned them. While we are on this particular phase of the Old Testament Law, it is important that we study another statement of Paul, showing why the Law was a curse to them. Already we have seen how he taught that no one lived up to the requirements of the Law. All were guilty of some infraction of the Law. But under the Law, there was no provision made for the forgiveness of sins. In Heb. l0:lff Paul said, “For the law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things, can never with the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer continually, make perfect them that draw nigh.” He was saying they cannot be forgiven under the Law. Why? “But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance made of sins year by year. For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sin.” So when one violated the Law of Moses he was condemned, the blood of animals not being able to take away his sin, and thus he was under a curse.

Now with these truths in our minds, let us turn again to the passage with which we began. Paul said, “And you, being dead through your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, you, I say, did he make alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses; having blotted out the bond written in ordinances, that was against us, which was contrary to us, and hath taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross” (Col. 2:13, 14). Already, having established that he was referring to the Law of Moses, what did Paul say about,’ it? He said it was blotted out. It was nailed to the cross. None of us have difficulty understanding what Paul was teaching in the Colossian epistle concerning the Law of Moses. We have correlated a number of other passages from Paul’s writings to show that in this passage, as in the others to which we have referred, Paul was declaring that the Law of Moses was done away in the death of Christ.

With this thought fresh in our minds, let us merely cite the passage we discussed last week. It is very similar, both in words and meaning, to the passage we are studying this week from Colossians. He said, “But now in Christ Jesus ye that once were far off are made nigh in the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who made both one, and brake down the middle wall of partition, having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; that he might create in himself of the two one new man, so making peace; and might reconcile them both in one body unto God through the cross, having slain the enmity thereby” (Eph. 2:13-16).

After Paul had made it clear that the Law was done away, he then exhorted the Colossians that they beware of those that would bind portions of Judaism upon them: “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a feast day, or a new moon, or a sabbath day: which are a shadow of the things to come; but the body is Christ’s.” Even though these brethren had been taught that the Law of Moses was nailed to the cross of Christ, yet there were some that were bent on binding upon others the precepts of the Law. So Paul exhorted these brethren that they not permit any to come in and bind on them portions of a law that had been taken out of the way. They were not to be condemned (this is the meaning of the word “judge” in this passage) for failing to keep the Law of Moses, whether this failure consisted of the eating of meat, failing to keep a feast day, or whether it referred to one’s trying to make it obligatory upon all that they keep the Sabbath day.

Many people today who meet on the First Day of the week refer to Sunday as the Sabbath day, but this is to misuse the word “Sabbath.” The “Sabbath” refers to Saturday, the seventh day. Yet there are one or more religious denominations that maintain that we should keep the Sabbath day now. At the present, I can think of some two or three denominations that meet on the seventh day, the Sabbath day, rather than on the First Day of the week. Did you ever hear a Sabbitarian comment on Paul’s exhortation to the Colossian brethren in which he told them not to let men condemn them for not keeping the Sabbath day, for the Old Covenant was but a shadow of the good things to come?

They conveniently overlook this and many other similar passages of Holy Writ because they do not happen to coincide with their previously chosen religious theories.

Conclusion

Paul taught us that the Law was nailed to the cross of Christ, and therefore it is wrong for one to try to continue to bind it upon the citizens of God’s Kingdom. For an illustration, let us consider this historical incident: At one time in the history of this land, we were subjects of the English nation. But today this land of ours is an independent and free country. It is no longer bound by the laws of the government of England. Suppose a man were to come along today who feels that we should not adhere to the laws of this land, but that we should continue to live under the laws of the government of England, inasmuch as we were one time under them. Or suppose, that he were to try to get everyone to live under both the law of England and the constitution of the United States. This would be both impossible and absurd.

Yet this land abounds in people, who, because man was once under the Law of Moses, think that we should continue to live according to the dictates of that Law, even though Christ died to give us the New Covenant. But there are myriads more who feel that inasmuch as man was once under the Law of Moses, and now lives under the Law of Christ it would be perfectly legitimate for us to choose that portion of either of these laws that best fits our religious needs as established by man. The majority of the religious denominations go back to the Old Testament for the authority for at least one part of their worship. You name the denomination, and I believe that it will be a simple matter to show what portion of their worship is taken from the Old Testament law. Remember that it was this Old Law that was nailed to our Savior’s cross. We should daily thank God that we no longer live under the curse of the Law, but may participate in the blessings of Christ.

Truth Magazine, XX:5, p. 3-5
January 29, 1976