Truth Magazine

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

By Bruce Edwards, Jr.

One cannot help but be a little bemused by the outcry in various papers against “scholarship.” It is quite fashionable now to assail that terrible “ivory tower preacher, elder or editor” who will not come down to earth to “us common folk” and “just preach the gospel.” Granted, there may be some who will fit that ignominious category and justly deserve our taunting and badgering- but just what constitutes this “pseudo-scholarship” that we must be on guard against? Who will step forward with the infallible criteria by which we can all judge “true” scholarship and “false” scholarship? Is it a matter of vocabulary? Does it involve subject matter? Or is quantity of footnotes the ominous sign of defection from “proper scholarship?” Before we set out to ostracize every innocent “preacher-boy” who may inadvertently use an occasional “exegesis” or “apocalyptic” or “ignominious” or every older preaching brother who gets a new set of commentaries on the Greek text and has the audacity to use them – let us at least make an attempt at identifying the enemy.

I would suggest that it is somewhat naive to begin suddenly dispensing with scholarly studies in the word of God. Every man, woman or child who picks up his or her Bible in an attempt to learn the will of the Lord is a scholar. There is no dedicated preacher, elder or editor who is not a scholar. And yet we find good men prefacing their articles almost apologetically, “Now, I am no scholar . . . ” Preposterous! It is a dangerous disposition to be voicing abroad that “scholarship” is suspect and not to be trusted. This is the height of folly and, ultimately, the exaltation of ignorance. Of course not every individual who attempts to understand the word of God and then write down his conclusions for the world to examine is going to be correct, trustworthy and full of wisdom. But that has always been in the case and not a phenomenon peculiar to this time and place. Perhaps some of the criticism is more reflective of a low view of reader intelligence and perception than a high view of the truth of the gospel.

What, I think, must be understood is that not everyone in the body of Christ is going to have the same tastes and needs. We all have different backgrounds, educational experience and levels of spiritual maturity. When we begin to speak in behalf of “the rest of the brethren” we ought to take these things into account. Regardless of what publication one picks up he will encounter at least three kinds of articles: 1) those “above his head;” 2) those “right at his level;” 3) those somewhat “below his level.” No writer can write on three or even two of these levels at once and I would dare say that one’s efforts are probably going to be on all three of these levels to differing audiences. The point is this: there is no sure way to gauge what the optimum level may be for everybody. The best we can do, I suspect, is simply to write . . . and let our efforts find their audience – if any. And ultimately it is the editor who must resolve this tricky question of what is fit for publication and what is not.

We do not need less scholarship . . . we need more. And it is the responsibility of every child of God to be a diligent student of the word. No, we do not need a return to the “scholasticism” of the middle ages that obscures the will of God, but before we give “scholarship” a bad name let us seriously and rationally consider the direction of our thinking. Promoting a convenient superficiality in lieu of good, honest scholarship is to provide fertile soil for the seeds of false doctrine. There is meat and milk in the word. We cannot afford to dispense with either.

Truth Magazine, XX:5, p. 2
January 29, 1976

By Bruce Edward, Jr.

One cannot help but be a little bemused by the outcry in various papers against “scholarship.” It is quite fashionable now to assail that terrible “ivory tower preacher, elder or editor” who will not come down to earth to “us common folk” and “just preach the gospel.” Granted, there may be some who will fit that ignominious category and justly deserve_ our tauting and badgering- but just what constitutes this “pseudoscholarship” that we must be on guard against? Who will step forward with the infallible criteria by which we can all judge “true” scholarship and “false” scholarship? Is it a matter of vocabulary? Does it involve subject matter? Or is quantity of footnotes the ominous sign of defection from “proper scholarship?” Before we set out to ostracize every innocent “preacher-boy” who may inadvertently use an occasional “exegesis” or “apocalyptic” or “ignominious” or every older preaching brother who gets a new set of commentaries on the greek text and has the audacity to use them- let us at least make an attempt at identifying the enemy.

I would suggest that it is somewhat naive to begin suddenly dispensing with scholarly studies in the word of God. Every man, woman or child who picks up his or her Bible in an attempt to learn the will of the Lord is a scholar. There is no dedicated preacher, elder or editor who is not a scholar. And yet we find good men prefacing their articles almost apologetically, “Now, I am no scholar . . . ” Preposterous! It is a dangerous disposition to be voicing abroad that “scholarship” is suspect and not to be trusted. This is the height of folly and, ultimately, the exaltation of ignorance. Of course not every individual who attempts to understand the word of God and then write down his conclusions for the world to examine is going to be correct, trustworthy and full of wisdom. But that has always been in the case and not a phenomenon peculiar to this time and place. Perhaps some of the criticism is more reflective of a low view of reader intelligence and perception than a high view of the truth of the gospel.

What, I think, must be understood is that not everyone in the body of Christ is going to have the same tastes and needs. We all have different backgrounds, educational experience and levels of spiritual maturity. When we begin to speak in behalf of “the rest of the brethern” we ought to take these things into account. Regardless of what publication one picks up he will encounter at least three kinds of articles: 1) those “above his head;” 2) those “right at his level;” 3) those somewhat “below his level.” No writer can write on three or even two of these levels at once and I would dare say that one’s efforts are probably going to be on all three of these levels to differing audiences. The point is this: there is no sure way to gauge what the optimum level may be for everybody. The best we can do, I suspect, is simply to write . . . and let our efforts find their audience – if any. And ultimately it is the editor who must resolve this tricky question of what is fit for publication and what is not.

We do not need less scholarship . . . we need more. And it is the responsibility of every child of God to be a diligent student of the word. No, we do not need a return to the “scholasticism” of the middle ages that obscures the will of God, but before we give “scholarship” a bad name let us seriously and rationally consider the direction of our thinking. Promoting a convenient superficiality in lieu of good, honest scholarship is to. provide fertile soil for the seeds of false doctrine. There is meat and milk in the word. We cannot afford to dispense with either.

Try Teaching with Tracts

from Truth Magazine Bookstore Box 403, Marion, Indiana 46952

Special Series of Studies announced for Miami, Florida

“What Is The Church of Christ” 7:45 p.m. Saturday

“Lessons from Restoration

History” 10:00 a.m. Sunday

“The Spirit of Restoration” 11:00 a.m. Sunday

“Standing for the Truth” 3:00 p.m. Sunday

YOU ARE CORDIALLY INVITED

“Lessons From the Past” will be the general theme of a series of special studies to be presented by the Southwest Church of Christ, 1450 S.W. 24th Avenue, in Miami, Florida, February 13, 14, and 15, 1976 with Ed Harrell to be the speaker and evangelist.

Topics to be discussed and time of meetings are as follows:

“The Concept of Restoration” 7:45 p.m. Friday

Edible Commentary

By E. M. Zerr. The only commentaries on the whole Bible by a member of a church of Christ. Six volumes on entire Bible, $32.50. Each volume $5.95.

(66)