Jump to content
The Smoakhouse Forums

WestHardinfan1

Administrators
  • Content Count

    68,290
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    123

Everything posted by WestHardinfan1

  1. I'm in....gonna need something to keep me busy in my retirement........
  2. Vol.VII No.VII Pg.7 September 1970 Queries And Answers Robert F. Turner Bro. Turner: In view of 2 Chron. 29:25-36; Psm. 81: 1-5; and Amos 6:5; was instrumental music under the Law of Moses a commandment? If not,, was it permissible? Was it condemned? P.W., Ala. Reply: Periodically the question about David and the instruments comes to the surface, to be rehashed. It is an excellent opportunity to show prejudices (as if special opportunity was needed) for there are some aspects of the problem that have no certain answer. It should be noted here that we are not subject to the Law of Moses; our worship must find its authority in the New Testament of Christ. There is no evidence of mechanical instruments of music related to the Jewish tabernacle, nor to the institution of the various sacrifices or festivals. But some 450 years later it seems instruments were common in certain phases of worship. With the coming of Gods Glory into the Temple which Solomon built, there was great instrumentation. Adam Clarke, opposed to such music in the church, says, Cymbals, psalteries, and harps, of any kind, in union with a hundred and twenty trumpets or horns, could not produce much harmony — as to melody, that must have been impossible, as the noise was too great. (2 Chron. 5:12-f) But even Clarke must admit that instrumental usage was there. Concerning the authority for such, Clarke cites the Syriac and Arabic texts on 2 Chron. 29:25 and says, "It was by the hand or commandment of the Lord and his prophets that the Levites should praise the Lord for so the Hebrew text may be understood; and it was by the order of David that so many instruments of music should be introduced into the Divine service. I can not verify such texts. The Hardeman-Boswell Debate has an interesting exchange on this. Hardeman did not deny instruments in Solomon's and Zerubbabels temple, but argued there was no evidence for such in the temple built by Herod. Psm. 81: 1-5 says the feast day is a statute for Israel, appointed in Joseph, commemorating deliverance from bondage. (Passover) Amos 6:5 is not, in my judgement, a woe pronounced on the instruments, per se; nor did David invent the first instrument. (Gen. 4:21, etc.) This passage condemns the at ease in Zion attitude that prevailed despite Gods obvious warnings. Note 5:21-f. God hated even their solemn assemblies etc., done without justice and righteousness. We can not go to David, or to Jewish worship under Judaism, for authority for N. T. church worship. If Temple worship authorizes harps, it also authorizes animal sacrifice and a priestly system. But both priesthood and law are changed (Heb. 7:12) and we find authority for religious service in the New Covenant. There we are taught by command and example to sing making melody in your heart to the Lord. (Eph. 5:19 1 Cor. 14:15) We have no authority to play. (Period!)
  3. Vol.VII No.VII Pg.6 September 1970 Action In 1845 Robert F. Turner The July 70 issue of ACTION announced Jimmie Lovells latest brainstorm for all church work: a Bible Foundation to print and distribute the scriptures. He wrote, In order to get things moving we must clear all legal angles, select a name and get a corporate address. We must set up a board of national and influential directors — men and women of all faiths. I have heard that Pat Boone has been appointed as President. Institutional churches are moving faster and faster toward universal church organization — with exactly the same principles that put an earlier digression there. Ponder the following quote from Search For The Ancient Order, by Earl West, Vol. 1, p. 164-f. And note how brethren reasoned in 1845. Today brethren follow the same path to organized folly. ******************************* One major step in this direction needs special attention, viz.: the American Christian Bible Society. It was the first attempt at anything similar to a brotherhood- wide organization yet promoted. It was founded by D.S. Burnet in Cincinnati, Ohio, on January 27, 1845. Soon after its establishment, its constitution was widely published in brotherhood periodicals along with articles urging the support of the brotherhood to this society. No sooner was the Bible Society organized than opposition poured down upon it. Aylette Raines, editor of the Christian Teacher, a Kentucky publication, doubted the practicability of the enterprise...J.J. Goss, editor of Christian Intelligencer of Virginia, thought it would be wiser to cooperate with the American and Foreign Bible Society, a Baptist organization, than to establish another. Campbell himself thought the Bible Society to be premature, thinking the brethren were not yet ready for it. Campbell also felt that the colleges— Bethany, Bacon, and Franklin — should be put on a more substantial financial basis before trying something like a Bible Society. Burnet seemed to have been stunned by the opposition. For several issues of the Harbinger after 1845 he and Campbell defended themselves over the society. Burnet wanted to know if the brotherhood had been sufficiently consulted when Campbell established Bethany College. Campbells reply was that the nature of the two institutions was entirely different. Bethany College was a private institution, established from the funds of himself and his friends, whereas the Bible Society purported to be a brotherhood organization. Very little of the opposition to the Society came because brethren thought it was an organization, but only because it was inexpedient at that time to start it. For eleven years the Bible Society existed with very little interest displayed in it. It was off to a bad start and never got much sympathy behind it. In 1856 the Ohio State Convention met and agreed to terminate the Bible Society and turn its funds over to the American Bible Union. This was done, and so ended the firs general brotherhood attempt at organization.
  4. Frankness Most of us want people to like us. We don’t want people to think bad of us. Instead, we want people to respect us. It is that basic desire that Satan uses against us. James 1:13-16 Behind “pride of life” is the simple desire of wanting to get along with people and enjoy their respect. I John 2:15-17 Our words and actions reflect our inclination. We often try to avoid conflict, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. James 1:19-20 But we can take it too far. A contributor to World War II was the attempt to appease Nazi Germany in its aggression. It didn’t work. But you can see it closer to home in parenting. Parents who want to be their child’s friend, so they work at avoiding any conflict and are surprised that they end up with spoiled brats. On the surface, it seems that telling someone they are wrong isn’t the way to gain his respect and admiration. Proverbs 28:23 To rebuke means to be right, to set to right, to show what is right, to decide, judge, reprove or correct. In a legal sense, it means to render judgment. For example, Laban accused Jacob of stealing his household idols, but could not show proof. Genesis 31:37 Then Jacob announced that God had rendered judgment on, or rebuked Laban in a dream that night. Genesis 31:42 It can also mean to bring a charge against, as with a lawyer. We can see this in Job’s complaint. Job 19:5 It can be also be people sitting down to decide what is right. Isaiah 1:18 Of course, it also means to correct. But notice there is always the implication it is toward what is right. It was required as the counter to hatred. Leviticus 19:17-18 To rebuke someone requires courage and love of your fellow man. It requires enough of this to overcome the fear of his anger. Think about how much courage it took Nathan to tell the great King David that he was a sinner. We often don’t think about it, but some prophets lost their lives doing this very thing. II Chronicles 24:17-22 Just because they were delivering a message from God didn’t mean they were shielded from men’s anger. Rebuking ought to be painful for us. We should not enjoy the fact that someone is in sin or that we need to correct them. Ecclesiastes 7:5-6 “Nothing is more irritating or hardening than to be rebuked by one who evidently enjoys his office. But if the one who points out our fault is evidently deeply pained himself, we must be very obdurate [stubborn] if we are insensible to such an appeal. The wayward child is conquered, not by the rod in his mother’s hand, but by the tears in her eyes.” [E. Hurndall]. We have a good example in the example of Paul. II Corinthians 2:4 Rebuking cannot be avoided. It is commanded. If someone sins against you, you are required to rebuke him. Luke 17:3 You have to tell someone when there is a fault, or they may never know it. Matthew 18:15 It is not a punishment. It is a call to repentance. II Corinthians 7:8-11 In the long run, rebuke is more likely to bring admiration and respect than displeasure. “We are so prone to self-love, and pride, that the most prudent, and needful, rebukes are apt to create transient displeasure. Yet upon reflection most men will have a better opinion of a faithful reprover, than of a soothing flatterer, and will show him more favor.” [T. Scott] A wise man will love you for it. Proverbs 9:8 It is more effective on a wise man. Proverbs 17:10 A delight and blessing with come upon the one who rebukes. Proverbs 24:24-25 That is why open rebuke is better. Proverbs 27:5 Not everyone will be happy about being rebuked. Those who reject the warning have no love for the one who warns. Proverbs 9:7-8 Sudden destruction awaits these folks. Proverbs 29:1 Flattery will fail. You aren’t helping people by telling them they are right as they are. Proverbs 24:24 The failure of flattery is that the flatterer is only thinking of himself. Psalm 12:1-4 “He who gives us kisses when he ought to give us reproof, or who holds back deserved rebuke from cowardice, is more cruel than if he withheld from us an indispensable medicine simply because it had a bitter taste. And if a wound is to be probed it is surely better for the patient that it should be done by a skillful and tender hand than by one who has no sympathy with us and no acquaintance with our inner life.” [W. Harris] Don’t take this as saying you never give a complement. Remember that rebukes are correcting toward what is right. Thus flattery is praising people in the wrong. Flattery is a deception. Romans 16:17-18 A flatterer is laying a trap. Proverbs 29:5 When rebukes work, it leads to an improved change. Are you ready to change?
  5. Vol.VII No.VII Pg.5 September 1970 Know Your Target Robert F. Turner As a boy, I hunted quail, rabbits, and squirrels — and BIG game was an occasional ground-hog. Consequently, on my first deer hunt I expected some huge animal to come charging through the woods — perhaps even threatening me with massive antlers. No wonder I had trouble seeing my first shadowy white-tail slip quietly through the brush and disappear. I hunted, but failed to see, because I had unseen conceptions about my proposed target. Now it seems we may be failing in the work of the Lord because we are not realistic about the most complex game of all — the hearts of people. And some make a life-time safari for numbers and church image without even realizing they seek the wrong game. If we do not capture the heart for Christ we have done nothing. Those church-members in the pews — are not hanging on every word the preacher or teacher speaks. Ideally, they hunger for Gods truth, and are anxious to drink the living water; but actually many are duty —conscious and polite enough to sit quietly and look at the speaker, while their mind copes with a problem at home. Some are dull of hearing due to stunted spiritual development; and some are mentally unable to grasp new material rapidly stated. Many are so tradition bound as to miss a very familiar point if stated differently — they are used to hearing it one way only — and may think you have some new doctrine, if they think anything. So, the preacher gives them a good lashing for their hypocrisy unconcerned, worldly minds — and they wonder what has come over the man. We have missed again failing to understand our targets. If we would flatly concede that they are not the dedicated, studious, single-hearted saints they should he, we can find no place in the line-up for ourselves? And just what do we honestly expect?? I believe we have a right to expect a people who want to do better, who realize they should be more spiritually minded than they are. We must help one-another to achieve this goal— and that means we must reach less-than-perfect hearts with Gods truth. The tradition-bound man would like to be a servant of Christ, but we must reach a tradition-bound heart to show him that he is tradition-bound. The distracted house-wife would like to truly worship God (after all, she did assemble with the saints) but we must get our message about true worship into a distracted heart. The same principle works in reaching for people of the world. One can not reach a vile heart with material aimed at a heart of faith. As the story of the cross, judgement, and eternal punishment have been neglected, so we have failed to reach the hearts of the world. Sometimes it seems our own lack of faith in the gospel of Christ keeps us from presenting this where it is most needed. A good shot learns his rifle well, understands the sight picture — and then, concentrates on the target. We must give more attention to understanding the hearts of people. Of what benefit is a powerful bullet — which misses by a country mile.
  6. Vol.VII No.VII Pg.4 September 1970 Is Emphasis Important? Robert F. Turner The preacher, hoping to reform an habitual thief, asked him to read Eph. 4:28. As the story goes, the man read, Let him that stole, steal! No more work! If you will check the passage you will see he misplaced the emphasis. When we were children we used to play a game with our reading lesson — changing the stress or emphasis so that we read the (sentence) but made the sentence say something very different from that intended. It was great fun — coupled with the distress it brought our teachers. Today, when Gods word is so mistreated, the consequences are too serious to be fun. But such abuse of scripture is not common, and would fool only the most ignorant. We regard as far more serious the subtle changes in emphasis of subject matter, which indicate a failure to understand essential elements in the gospel of Christ. It is one thing to teach the necessity of a faith which obeys — a trusting in Christ which leads one to repent and be baptized, for the remission of our sins; and quite another thing to put ones faith in baptism — as though we merited salvation because we were baptized. Christ is the Saviour, and no change in emphasis can change that. Several months ago I listened to a young man preach his first sermon. He said (and I wrote it down), God sent his Son to establish the church, so that through living in the church, and by the rules and regulations which He gave us in His word, we might have eternal life. I like to think I know what he meant — and my desire to be charitable, and to encourage the young man kept me from saying anything to him, or identifying him here. But the emphasis in the statement is wrong. God sent His Son to die for man. (Rom. 5:8) The church is the people of God — those who put their trust in Christ; it is not some vehicle that God set rolling toward heaven, with seats for those who will hop in and ride. In Christ is eternal life — without His sacrifice, so that God is justified in forgiving sins, no amount of rules and regulations could save us. Certain ones came to Antioch, and preached the Lord Jesus. A great number believed, and turned unto the Lord. Barnabas exhorted with them to cleave unto the Lord. And much people was added unto the Lord. Could Luke have said they preached the church or the kingdom? Yes, there is a sense in which this was true. (See Acts 8: 12) Were the obedient added unto the church? Yes — in that they were added to the number of people, in heaven and earth, who had come to the Lord. But the fact remains, Luke placed the emphasis upon their coming to the Lord, cleaving to the Lord, etc. Surely the wisdom, and rightness of this emphasis is clear. (Above example from Acts 11:20-f.) Do I believe baptism is essential? I certainly do — because Christ commanded it. Is the church important? Most assuredly — for that word says called out - people in Christ, when taken in its N.T. context. I have no quarrel with the words — it is the misplaced emphasis that makes me believe this article is in order.
  7. Vol.VII No.VII Pg.3 September 1970 The Family Record Jim R. Everett A person believes that those who claim to be his parents are such. He does not know it. He bases his belief upon records and his confidence in those who love him. The records could have been falsified, his confidence could be blind faith — his faith will not change the actual fact. Many conscientious, sincere people have a blind faith with reference to their spiritual parentage. They do not, and will not, investigate the written record for they believe that God must surely be their Father, if they believe it strongly enough. There is a record that each can examine to learn of his true sonship. Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ, (Gal. 3:26-27). Being sons of God is descriptive of our being in covenant relationship with Him who is our Father. Being in Christ, being saved, having the remission of sins and being in the body of Christ, all describe our relationship with God as His sons. Certainly, there are no sons who are not saved, and there are none saved who are not also sons. Jesus said, For if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins, (Jn. 8:24); therefore, he commissioned his apostles to go and tell the world, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned, ( Mk. 16: 15—16). One who refuses to believe and be baptized can never be a child of God. Every man who denies Christ and blasphemes that holy name, has rejected the only means of being adopted by God — Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved, (Acts 4: 12). The record so states — who can deny it? Peter was carrying out Christs commission when he said, repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost (Acts 2: 38). He later said, The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (1 Pet. 3:21). Repentance involves a change of heart and mind and, like all other commands of God, baptism must be done from the heart, (Rom. 6:17-18). This is not a ritual or a ceremony that has saving power within itself! A person who obeys the truth has his soul purified and is born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever, (1 Pet. 1:22-23). This record has not been perverted by passing time. The enduring truth that purifies says that one must believe in Christ, repent of sin, be baptized to wash away sin. Man does the obeying; God does the washing and adopting. No one should imagine that he is a son contrary to the record of God. Let no one beat his chest and boast of his sonship until his life conforms to what the Father has said. It is written! I CAN KNOW!
  8. Vol.VII No.VII Pg.2 September 1970 Ruts For Rules Robert F. Turner Out west, near Kingman, Ariz., time has preserved a segment of the old Santa Fe trail — ruts from wagon wheels, and pits where horses placed their hoofs, as they made a path over a rocky saddle. These ruts are cut in solid rock, evidence that this particular path was used over and over. We suppose there came a time when drivers followed the route because others had done so, with little thought that a better way might be found. And the same is true with reference to our methods for doing things in the worship and work of the church. (1 refer to true expedients — things having generic authority, but for which there is no single means specified.) There is authority to sing, to teach and admonish in song, (Col. 3:16; 1 Cor. 14:15). There is authority to invite (Rev. 22:17). But there is no specific demand that we have preaching, then stand and sing an invitation song so people can walk down the aisle, confess their faith in the Lord, and be baptized. But is it wrong to do it this way? As already stated, such comes within divine authority — it is NOT wrong — it is right. Nor is it too surprising that the other circumstances of a public preaching service should lead someone to adopt such a plan, and that others should follow the rut. It is not wrong to follow a rut. Sometimes we become so averse to ruts that we would send each wagon helter-skelter over the terrain, each to cut its own way, rather than allow a path to be followed which would give the driver something to contemplate other than inventing new arrangements. But our story is not finished. If the early Santa Fe drivers had allowed the ruts to become rules — so that future drivers were forbidden to seek new paths — the more direct and better grade of todays Santa Fe trail would never have been found. And in worship a far more vital aspect must be considered. When we follow ruts in worship, we tend to slog along, content with the form, and forgetting the real reason for coming this way in the first place. Soon, our rut becomes a rule that we regard as though it were divine. It is not the rut that is wrong; it is our party spirit and love for our own traditions that blinds us to the human source of the rules we impose. It is our unwillingness to prove all things by Gods word and refuse to bind anything but that which God has bound — to loose anything but that which God has loosed. Ruts For Rules Make Sectarians!
  9. Vol.VII No.VII Pg.1 September 1970 Study To Be Quiet Robert F. Turner Paul wrote the Thessalonians that they should study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your hands —. (1 Thes. 4:11) We feel this is much needed advice now. Study is from a word meaning be ambitious, used Rom. 15:20 (strived making it my aim) and 2 Cor. 5:9 (labour). This quietness is not a negative at ease in Zion attitude of unconcern. It is something set as a goal, something that requires positive planning and execution. The Thessalonians had reacted to preaching about the second coming of Christ by ceasing daily ordinary activities, and engaging in hysterical, useless waiting — becoming a deadweight upon society and brethren. Our generation has their counterpart. The text says break it up. Quietness is a worthy ambition; work for it. Lenski thinks to be quiet is, namely: to attend to your own business and to work with your hands even as, etc. It is the tranquility found in meaningful occupation; its counterpart being some that walk among you disorderly, that work not at all, but are busybodies. (2 Thes. 3:11) Luke uses the word four times: for rested (Lu. 23:56), and three times to indicate inward control, self-imposed peace. (Lu, 14:4; Acts 11:18; 21: 14) If we will grasp the self-imposed aspect of the word, we can see why Paul made it an ambition. Christians need not expect a life free from trials (1 Pet. 4:12-f), nor void of struggle (1 Tim. 6:12). We pray for kings, etc., that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life, but this is not an indolent, self—indulgent life. We seek greater opportunity for service to God, conditions conductive to the spread of His word. Our peace is that of the soldier who fights vigorously, with conviction that his cause is right and just. Our quietness is that of faith; the steadying influence, lest we beat the air. (1 Cor. 9:25-27) Our problems will not be solved by youthful bluster or aged compromise. We Need Men Who Study To Be Quiet.
  10. Culture Wars We think that things today are so much different from the way they used to be. We think that society is so much more depraved today than at any other time in history. Let’s start today by reading from the writings of Solomon, and see what the Holy Spirit told us about this through him. Ecclesiastes 1:3-11 Some questions are hard to answer. This is not because the Bible is unclear on the subject. Instead, its because there is a strong cultural bias against the correct answer Take the example of idolatry. We have no difficulty denouncing idol worship today. Even non-Christians understand that an idol is worthless. Jeremiah 10:14-15 But this wasn’t always the case. Paul’s teaching on idolatry upset people. I Corinthians 8:4 Just look at the reaction in Ephesus. Acts 19:25-29 The truth that idols are nothing has never been difficult to grasp. People understood this message when it was delivered by early Christians. What made the teaching difficult is that it went against the cultural norm. Teaching against society’s beliefs is never easy. We forget that the world of the New Testament was hostile to God. We read about the great sweeping acceptance of the Gospel and somehow think it must have been easier back then. Ecclesiastes 7:10 Think of what it must have been like to teach in those days. They faced indifference and often persecution from the governments of the day. The powers of the nations did not support religious freedom in any way. The Jewish authorities, both civil and religious, claimed to follow Moses, but the truth was they were more interested in upholding their own traditions. Matthew 15:1-9 Matthew 23:1-7 The Sadducees, made mostly of the civil rulers, did not believe in angels, spirits, or life after death. Acts 23:8 The Pharisees, the religious leaders, led the early persecution against the church. Philippians 3:4-6 The chief court, the Sanhedrin council, issued orders against the teaching of Christ. Acts 4:15-18 Acts 5:40-41 The chief priests issued orders to kill people in the church. Acts 26:10-11 It was no better in the Gentile cities. Provincial and city governments supported idolatry and the belief of multiple gods. Magistrates in Philippi had Paul and Silas beaten and thrown into prison. Acts 16:19-24 The Roman governor, Felix, delayed freeing Paul for two years in hopes of receiving a bribe. His replacement, Festus, kept Paul in imprisoned as a political favor to the Jews. Acts 24:22-27 The Roman Empire was officially polytheistic. This means they allowed the worship of many different idols. They eventually demanded that everyone worship the emperor as well. Claudius demanded that all Jews leave Rome. Acts 18:2 Nero is believed to have burnt some of the slums in Rome and blamed the Christians for it. Paul alludes to this as the present distress. I Corinthians 7:26 Under Domitian, food could not be purchased without proof that you worshiped the emperor. Revelation 13:16-17 In many ways the culture of the New Testament was far worse than our own. People didn’t understand the idea of morality. I Peter 4:3-4 Divorce was common place in Roman society and Jewish society. “According to the Roman writers of the first century BCE and first century CE, divorce became increasingly frequent after 200 BCE, initiated easily by the husband or the wife. In addition, wives had their own property, which they could sell, give away or bequeath as they liked. As a result, women became more liberated and less dependent on their husbands. In fact, by the late Republic a rich wife who could divorce and take her wealth with her had a real threat against her husband and could wield influence over him. The sense of independence also showed up in increasing sexual promiscuity and adultery.” [Family Values in Ancient Rome by Richard Saller] Child rearing was neglected. “Roman men deplored the fact that these rich women were more concerned with their own figures and luxuries than with their families. Unlike the good, old-time matrons, according to the historian Tacitus around 100 CE, these modern women did not spend time with their children and did not nurse their infants but left them to slave wet nurses. Furthermore, children were handed over to be raised by child-minders, usually the most useless slaves of the household. Roman authors don't say much about daughters in general, but they wrote about the moral decline of sons. In the age of degeneracy, sons in their youth no longer obeyed their fathers the way they used to, they spent profligately on women and wine and they became increasingly sexually promiscuous.” [Family Values in Ancient Rome by Richard Saller] “A standard character type in the comedies of Plautus, written not long after 200 BCE, was the loose-living son who was smitten with love, often for a prostitute. In the plays--ancient versions of sitcoms-- there is a debate about whether fathers should be strict or indulgent toward the moral failings of their sons--usually they were indulgent in the end, just as in modern sitcoms. In fact, sons in these plays are never beaten for their disobedience, as slaves are. Plautus' errant sons are not a fictitious type invented by his imagination but are characters that had their counterparts in reality. The historian Polybius, who lived in Rome around 160-150 BCE , described the lifestyle of his senatorial friend, Scipio Aemilianus. According to Polybius, Scipio was an unusual youth precisely because he did not indulge in the fast living of his peers.” [Family Values in Ancient Rome by Richard Saller] “Some Romans argued for the positive effect of corporal punishment of children, but in the surviving texts the more common view is that children should not be beaten. The advice to parents not to hit their children sounds similar to advice about child-rearing today. For the Romans, however, the logic was a bit different, because it was part of an ideology of a slave society. An author of a tract on child-rearing written around 100 CE had this to suggest: ‘Children ought to be led to honorable practices by means of encouragement and reasoning, and most certainly not by blows nor by ill treatment; for it is surely agreed that these are fitting rather for slaves than for the freeborn; for so they grow numb and shudder at their tasks, partly from the pain of blows, partly also on account of the hybris. Praise and reproof are more helpful for the freeborn than any sort of ill-usage, since the praise incites them toward what is honorable, and reproof keeps them from what is disgraceful.’In other words, in this slave society corporal punishment was regarded as fit for slaves, not for free citizen children. To beat free children risked making them slavelike. Around the same time, another Roman author, the philosopher Seneca, suggested that corporal punishment be used as a last resort on children before they were of an age to understand reason.” [Family Values in Ancient Rome by Richard Saller] Infanticide and abortion were common. “As Will Durant stated, infanticide was so common in ancient Rome that "birth itself was an adventure." Caesar and Christ, page 56. Indeed, so common was infanticide in ancient Greece that Polybius (205-118 BCE) blamed the decline of ancient Greece on it. (Histories, 6).” [Pagans, Christianity, and Infanticide by Christopher Price] “A chilling letter from a pagan husband to his wife captures the casual nature of this practice among the pagans: "Know that I am still in Alexandria.... I ask and beg you to take good care of our baby son, and as soon as I received payment I shall send it up to you. If you are delivered (before I come home), if it is a boy keep it, if a girl, discard it."” [Pagans, Christianity, and Infanticide by Christopher Price] The Jews, at least, did not follow this practice. “Cornelius Tacitus went so far as to condemn the Jews for their opposition to infanticide. He stated that the Jewish view that "it was a deadly sin to kill an unwanted child" was just another of the many "sinister and revolting practices" of the Jews. Histories 5.5.” [Pagans, Christianity, and Infanticide by Christopher Price] Homosexuality, fornication, and adultery were prevalent, as we can see from the congregation in Corinth, but also support in historical writings. I Corinthians 6:9-11. History records that homosexuals and pedophiles were widespread. They even had rules governing these types of relationships. Polygamy was also common. Christianity was met with persecution and violence because it often contradicted the cultural norms of its day. Yet, the message of Christ flourished in an atmosphere of violent opposition. Acts 8:4 The conflict did not stop people from speaking the truth. I Thessalonians 2:2 It was a message that the world in general could not grasp. I Corinthians 1:27-29 But it spread, and it turned the world upside down. Acts 17:5-6 Does the message of the gospel need to be modified for a modern society? No, modern society is falling back along old pathways. The sins of men remain the same and the solution remains the same. II Corinthians 10:3-6
  11. I Samuel 28 By: Jim Crews I Samuel 28: 1 - 2 The Philistines had gathered their forces to go to war with Israel. Achish made David his bodyguard. I Samuel 28: 3 - 7 Samuel had died and was buried in Ramah. Saul had thrown all the mediums, necromancers, and occultists out of Israel. When Saul saw the Philistines he was afraid. God would not speak with him, so he sought out a medium. They found a woman in Endor who claimed such powers. I Samuel 28: 8 - 14 Saul went to her in disguise, since he had kicked all the occultists out of Israel. He wanted her to bring up the spirit of Samuel. She was scared. Looks like if she truly had powers of this nature, she would have known that it was Saul speaking to her, but she did not. When the spirit of Samuel actually DID appear, she was frightened. I Samuel 28: 15 - 19 Samuel asked Saul why he had disturbed him. God was the one who allowed this to take place, because we are taught in Luke about the great gulf that exists between the two parts of the afterlife and between coming back. Saul told Samuel that God wasn’t speaking to him and he needed to inquire about the coming war with the Philistines. Samuel told Saul now was the time for the fulfillment of the prophecy about the kingdom being taken from him and given to David. He told Saul that on the next day, Saul and his sons would join him in the afterlife, and the army of Israel would be defeated. I Samuel 28: 20 - 25 Saul fell from weakness and from hearing this news. The woman offered him something to eat but he refused. Saul and his servants eventually ate and went away.
  12. Vol.VII No.VI Pg.8 August 1970 Stuff About Things Robert F. Turner Christians are a separate people with different goals, and rules for attaining those goals that differ from worldly standards. It would be strange indeed if this did not produce different people. But being different is not the goal — it is simply the fruit of our heavenly pursuit, in which the Son of God is our example and guide. There is nothing in the personal life of Jesus that suggests he made a spectacle of himself with bizarre dress or conduct. He attended feasts, ate with sinners, and was at home with the people of his day, yet without sin. Peter says we are a peculiar people (1 Pet. 2:9), but this means we are Gods own possession in a distinctive way — conformed to the divine image. It doesnt mean we are necessarily queer by social standards, nor in appearance. I heard of one fellow who decided he must be different — so he began to part his hair from side-to-side rather than from front-to-back. Others who get religion feel they must carry a bulky Bible with them wherever they go. Men who never wore anything but overalls, now deck-out in a black coat, with pencils and comb in the breast pocket. (This means they are getting ready to preach.) if a man needs a Bible to read, or to teach others, by all means carry one. And if a woman has been dressing immodestly, and painting her self FOR SALE; then, when she becomes a Christian, her attire and grooming will reflect the meek and quiet spirit within. There is something wrong when it reflects a desire to be noticed as that woman with the ascension robe. Jesus said those who pray in the streets have their reward — and the expression was used among the Greeks for receipt — the praise of shallow men is receipt for payment in full. Thats all they are going to get. In this materialistic world the truly spiritual man needs no hippie medallion to stand out. Honesty, is a bonfire in an age of dark dealings, and the Lords servant is conspicuous by his absence from Satans party. Anyhow, we are striving for recognition in heaven — remember!! About the man who parted his hair from ear-to-ear — we hear that fad didnt last long. He got tired of having people whisper in his nose.
  13. Vol.VII No.VI Pg.7 August 1970 Queries And Answers Robert F. Turner In one section we know the question of private vs. walking down the aisle baptism is being rolled about. We were asked to comment. Reply: As regards what is scriptural, surely no Bible student would contend that either had an exclusive claim. Acts 2: pictures no invitation song sort of doings (nor do I know of such in the scriptures) but the baptism of 3,000 people in one day, in Jerusalem, beginning with the preaching of the twelve to the multitude, was certainly no private thing. Nor was that of Acts 3: 4: 1-4. An orderly process, such as the preaching of the Word, and then the exhortation (invitation) to sinners to heed the Lords invitation and obey, is in keeping with the spirit and tenor of the N,T., (1 Cor. 14:40). It violates no teaching known to me. Even the question regarding ones faith, and the public acknowledgement of such faith, is right. (Rom. 10:10) But I say even because traditional procedure has a way of clothing itself with authority — until some brethren seem to think that the apostles preached, sang an invitation song, took the confession, and then retired to the dressing room to don the robes for baptizing. There is nothing in the scriptures to justify this conclusion. On the contrary, Acts 2: indicates an interruption of the sermon when certain ones were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles, Brethren, what shall we do? (v.37) Years ago I had concluded a sermon preached on the bank of a small creek, and was waiting for several to change clothes for baptism, when I heard a loud sob. Before I could turn, a man fell across my shoulder, shaken with emotion, and said, I have rejected Jesus long enough — I want to obey Him now. I started to tell him to wait, and he could be baptized with the others, but he was not waiting. He walked, shoes, watch, wallet and all, right out into the water. I followed, and baptized him into Christ. What doth hinder me to be baptized? If you believe with all your heart, there is not a thing that can rightly hinder; even on a deserted road, with only a traveling party and a preacher present. (See Acts 8: 26-39) Perhaps some have objected to so — called private baptisms, thinking it shows a lack of courage, and faith to stand up and be counted. Some think baptism is a church ordinance needing official sanction. But Baptism is not of the church, it is between the subject and Christ. We are baptized into Christ (Gal. 3:27) not into the local church. If the subject lacks faith in Christ he/she must be taught the word of God more perfectly. The necessary faith will not be supplied by forcing a church tradition upon the subject. A properly taught subject will understand that he now accepts the obligations of service to Christ, and with other saints. He should appreciate their interest, and their desire to share with him this new joy.
  14. Vol.VII No.VI Pg.6 August 1970 Word Study From 104 A.D. Robert F. Turner There is much controversy regarding the word used in the N.T. to designate Gods people, the ekklesia The studious will be interested in this quote from Light From The Ancient East by Deissmann, an authority in his field. (Pp. 112—f.) *********************** The first scattered congregations of Greek-speaking Christians up and down the Roman empire spoke of themselves as a (convened) assembly; at first each single congregation was so called, and afterwards the whole body of Christians everywhere was spoken of collectively as the (convened) assembly. That is the most literal translation of the Greek word ekklesia. This self-bestowed name rested on the certain conviction that God had separated from the world His saints in Christ, and had called or convened them to an assembly, which was Gods assembly, Gods muster, because God was the convener. It is one of the characteristic but little considered facts in the history of the early Christian missions that the Latin-speaking people of the West, to whom Christianity came, did not translate the Greek word ekklesia (as they did many other technical terms) but simply borrowed it. Why was this? There was no lack of words for assembly in Latin, and as a matter of fact contio or comitia was often translated by ekklesia. There must have been some special reason for borrowing the Greek word, and it lay doubtless in the subtle feeling that Latin possessed no word exactly equivalent to the Greek ekklesia. There is evidence of this feeling even in non-Christian usage. Pliny the Younger employs the Latinized word ecclesia in one of his letters to Trajan. Some years ago a bilingual inscription of the year 103-4 A.D. came to light at Ephesus, which furnishes a still more interesting example. It was found in the theatre, the building so familiar to readers of Acts XIX, one of the best preserved ruins in the ancient city. A distinguished Roman official, C. Vibius Salutaris, had presented a silver image of Diana (we are reminded at once of the silver shrines of Diana made by Demetrius, Acts XIX, 24) and other statues that they might be set up in every ekklesia in the theatre upon the pedestals. The parallel Latin text has, ita ut (om)n(i) (e)cclesia supra bases ponerentur. The Greek word was therefore simply transcribed. Here we have a truly classical example (classical in its age and in its origin) of the instinctive feeling of Latin speakers of the West which afterwards showed itself among the Western Christians: ekklesia cannot be translated, it must be taken over. ********************* While we are gasping at this depth we may as well note that Christians at Corinth were called (to be) saints just as Paul was a called Apostle. The thought is NOT that they were designated or given the name saints but that they were set-apart as the result of Gods holy calling. (1 Cor. 1: 1-2) The church is Gods (convened) assembly, Gods muster, fruit of His calling.
  15. Vol.VII No.VI Pg.5 August 1970 Ouija Board Preachers Robert F. Turner During World War II, Gov. Stephenson, of Texas, had something to say about the prophets of old foretelling automobile tire rationing. He, or his ghost writer, should have checked the reference (Isa. 3: 18) with greater care; and two or three verses of context would have helped a lot too. The round tires like the moon of K.J., become crescents in the A. S., with headtires in verse 20. The context would have shown Isaiah spake of the women of Jerusalem, and the pending captivity which would take away the golden ornaments of the people. Some current radio prophet has offered Nahum 2:4 as prophecy concerning our traffic problems with today's automobile. The chariots rage in the streets... etc. Thats it, surely. Unless you read the context and find that Nahum speaks of the destruction of Nineveh throughout all three chapters. One would have to be a dolt to miss it. This Ouija Board treatment of the prophets shows a gross misunderstanding of the prophet and his work. His primary function was NOT to tell the future, but to preach the word of God which was given him by inspiration. As someone has put it, he was more of a forth-teller than a foreteller. Aaron was Moses prophet (Ex. 7 :1), his spokesman -— to set forth what Moses told him to speak. (Ex. 4 :14-f) What the priest was to the Law (ministering at the alter, etc. ), and the wise were to counsel (as Solomon, and the counsel of Proverbs, etc.), the prophet was to the word. (Jer. 18:18) (Verses 5-11 give an excellent case of the function of a prophet.) As Gods spokesman, the prophet set forth His will. Basically, he differed from a preacher only in that his message was inspired — holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Pet. 1:21) Abraham was a prophet; Moses was a prophet; and the name was applied to many who were moved by the Spirit. (Gen. 20:7; Deut. 34:10) But as the nations of Israel and Judah rebelled more and more against God, the messengers (prophets) of God were moved to devote more time to warning the sinners of their punishment. Great sections of their message called for repentance, and foretold (often in detail) the burden or woe that would come upon them. And as the horizons darkened with regard to physical Israel, the hope of the Redeemer was set before them. Thus Isaiah promised salvation to the remnant in the shoot out of the stock of Jesse, and It is too light a thing that the preserved of Israel should be restored; I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles. So the prophets paved the way for the coming of Christ — the golden apex of their great work. Yet the greatest of prophets (Lu. 7:28) and forerunner of Christ was still a preacher of righteousness, who called for repentance. How shallow then, how puerile, how utterly absurd for so-called radio- prophets to play games with bits of the divine message of prophets of old and propose to find there a sort of crystal ball for todays headlines. Automobiles moon-walks indeed!! Such preaching appeals to the sensation seeker, but has not the value of a nickels worth of dog food.
  16. Vol.VII No.VI Pg.4 August 1970 What Are The Issues? Robert F. Turner A little old lady, sincere and innocent, asked, Bro. Turner, what are the issues I hear about now and then? Although these things have been repeatedly stated, I will reprint an analysis of current problems which I wrote in 1961. (1) (a) Shall we continue to teach and practice congregational independence — each local church doing her God-assigned work to the extent of her own ability and under her own control; or (b) shall we change our practice to allow collective activities on the part of a plurality of churches? (Frequently called the sponsoring church plan since one church usually assumes or is designated the controlling church with reference to the project considered, and the rest of the churches are but contributing churches.) (2) (a) Shall we continue to teach and practice the all-sufficiency of the church to do her God-assigned work — the independent local church being the only God-appointed organization responsible for this work; or (b) shall we surrender our own responsibilities to human benevolent, evangelistic, and educational societies? (May inter-church bureaus and societies become the organizational means by which the God-appointed local church functions?) (3) (a) Shall we continue to teach and practice principles relative to the spiritual nature and function of the church — a divine institution primarily concerned with the eternal destiny of the soul; or (b) shall we allow social and temporal welfare activities to dominate our program of work. (This involves determination, by the scriptures, of the God- assigned work of the organized church; and recognition of the distinction between the social, domestic, civil, and other responsibilities of the individual Christian, and their collective activities as an organized body or church.) (1 Tim. 5:1; Col. 3:17-f) (4) (a) Shall we continue to insist upon Bible authority for our practices — inviting and encouraging open investigation and Bible study of any differences which may exist; or (b) shall we accept current brotherhood practices as our authority, and override opposition by majority rule or quarantine tactics? ********************** I have so worded the above as to indicate my acceptance of the principles indicated in a of each issue. Emphasis is given to the word practice because men sometimes allow their practices to contradict the principles they claim to believe. We must determine principles by the Word of God, and fear not to alter practices of the past when they are seen to be in conflict with the Divine Will. Our practices may change from generation to generation — and usually such changes are so gradual we do not at first perceive them — but Gods Word remains steadfast; rebuking and correcting all who will be exercised thereby. (See 2 Tim. 3:16 f; 2 Cor. 10: 12-18; Acts 28: 25-28) The issues may very well be put as ONE ISSUE — acceptance or rejection of the Divine Standard..
  17. WestHardinfan1

    Psalm 13

    Psalm 13 This Psalm divides itself into three sections. The first section reveals a problem David is having. God seems distant in David’s view. Psalm 13: 1 - 2 The second section reveals David’s plea to God. David asks God to please answer him. Psalm 13: 3 - 4 The final section shows us David’s praise. He would trust God based on past experience. Psalm 13: 5 - 6 This Psalm shows us the frustration of someone who, rightly or wrongly, feels disconnected from God. Have you ever felt this way? Have you ever felt that you had lost your connection with God? Most of us have at one time or another. This lesson was shown to us in order to help guide us through these kinds of feelings. The first thing we should realize is that our connection to God is not based on our feelings or emotions. Feelings about God are subjective and unreliable. We may wonder if it is God, Satan, or my own self causing such feelings. Subjective religion leads to uncertainty. Subjectivity leads to doctrinal confusion and chaos. I Corinthians 14: 33 According to John, our connection to God is based on objective truth. I John 2: 3 - 6 This means that we are connected to God through His word, and not through our feelings or our desires. Next, we should know that God is everywhere. He is especially with His children. Many passages of scripture show this to be fact. Psalm 139: 7 - 12 Acts 17: 26 - 28 Romans 8: 28 If God feels distant or if we feel disconnected from Him, the fault is ours, not His. This means it is up to us to keep ourselves near to God. James 4: 8 So if we feel disconnected or far from God, we must ask ourselves who moved? It most certainly wasn’t God. What are some reasons we may feel disconnected from God? Sometimes our disconnect is accidental. We get too busy for God. Luke 12: 15 - 21 At other times our disconnect is intentional. We have chosen to live in sin. Isaiah 59: 1 - 2 In some cases, we disconnect out of anger. This sometimes happens when we lose a loved one to death. These things are the reason we have so many warnings about our priorities. Matthew 6:33 Matthew 10: 37 Matthew 16: 24 Sometimes our disconnection from God comes about from other circumstances. God does not always do what we want. He is not our magic genie, there to give us our every desire. James 4: 13 - 17 Then again, God may do what we want, but not in the way we want it done. We may ask Him to grant us patience, and He gives us trials to build our patience. James 1: 2 - 4 Then we must also remember that God does not always work on our time table. Joseph had to go through years of hardship. Isaiah 40: 31 These things are tests of faith. We must trust that God is always there with us, no matter what happens. In view of these facts, what can we do when we feel disconnected? The first thing we must do is to constantly feed our faith, not our doubts. When we do this, our faith strengthens and our doubts weaken. Unfortunately, it works the other way, too. So we should feed the right one. Next. we should have a strong and vigilant prayer life. This should be done along with studying the scriptures. Philippians 4: 6 - 7 II Timothy 2: 15 We should get connected with other Christians by assembling on a regular basis. Hebrews 10: 25 I Peter 4: 9 Finally, we must get connected to reality by focusing our thoughts. Philippians 4: 8 Pursuing sin is a dead end fantasy. I hope this lesson has helped you to think about what is going on with you during those times you feel disconnected from God. I also hope that it has given you some guidance about your personal obligation to keep yourself connected to God. However, if you are not a Christian, then you haven’t even made a connection to God yet. Why not begin that connection right now, by obeying the gospel of Jesus Christ? Mk.16:15-16
  18. I Samuel 27 By: Jim Crews I Samuel 27: 1 - 4 David decided to escape Saul by going to the Philistines. He took 600 men and went to Gath. When Saul heard that David was in Gath, he stopped hunting for him. I Samuel 27: 5 - 7 David asked Achish, king of Gath, for a city. Achish gave David Ziklag. David lived there for a year and 4 months. I Samuel 27: 8 - 12 David raided the people who had lived in Canaan before Israel came. These were the people Israel had been told to destroy but did not. David would leave no one alive, while taking their livestock and other possessions. He would lie to Achish when asked, and he killed everyone so there would be no witnesses to his lie. Achish trusted David though, thinking David was raiding Israelite settlements instead of the Amalekites and others. We see that David was far from a perfect man.
  19. Vol.VII No.VI Pg.3 August 1970 My Soul Loatheth Fodder Jim R. Everett Today, many churches are turning to entertainment and food in order to get people to come to church. That is like feeding a cow fodder instead of corn. One couple told me that On nights when a certain Baptist Church had its refreshment center open for the young people, they could hardly find a pew; however, on other nights when the center was closed, most of the pews were empty. Baptist are not unique in this. Gone are the days when men sought refreshment for the soul, but crowds can be drawn by offering other morsels. Does this mean that we should change the kind of table we set, or does it mean that we should continue to seek those honest few (Matt. 7:13- 14) who are thirsting for nourishment for the soul? Jesus fed a multitude with five loaves and two fish (Jn. 6: 1-13). He did not feed them to entice them to come to listen to him teach, but rather as a sign of his divine power. After seeing the miracle, they said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world, (v. 14). The next day the crowd sought him again, but they sought him because their stomachs had been filled, not because they hungered for righteousness. When he began to dish-out the true manna, they began to murmur and turned back from walking with him. They could not stomach a diet intended to nourish their souls. It is refreshing to notice that Jesus did not change the menu to draw the crowds. If they wanted to eat from his hand, they had to hunger for the true and enduring grain. A woman gave our Lord a cool drink and he, in turn, offered her living water that could quench her thirst forever (Jn. 4:142). She did not understand what he offered, but when he told her all things which she had ever done, she went to the city to tell others of the Christ. Many from the city came to see Jesus. They sought, not a fountain of youth, but the real, living water which alone could satisfy their souls need for life. Jesus said to his disciples, I have meat to eat that ye know not of, and he explained by saying My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and finish his work, (vv. 32, 34). He says to us. Labor not for the meat that perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, (Jn. 6:27). The wise man said, Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man, (Eccl. 12:13). Fodder does not really satisfy anyway — All is vanity and a striving after wind, (Eccl. 1:14). After eleven years, Margaret has become a good cook. She prepares a variety of nourishing food. She could not entice my salivary glands with fodder, nor would she try, because she knows my stomachs needs — and my soul loatheth fodder. Our Lord always fed men what their souls needed. If we, in order to draw crowds, substitute light bread for heavenly manna, we satisfy the body but put no meat on spiritual bones. Instead, we should seek those whose souls loath fodder and hunger for truth.
  20. Vol.VII No.VI Pg.2 August 1970 The Money Trap Dan S. Shipley Preachers, Satan has set a trap for you, and its effectiveness is attested by the fact that hundreds of your fellow—creatures are already in the bag. We must open our eyes!! Our work is to save souls, including our own. This is justified by faith in divine revelation. But Satan would have us think we meet a professional need, with social justifications only. Right here, in your understanding of your calling, is the crux of the whole matter. Do you serve God, or the the people? Your support is the fellowship of taught with teacher (Gal. 6:6);you live of the gospel, (1 Cor. 9:6-14). But Satan plants the idea of salary for services rendered — so much work for so much pay — no pay, no work. One may play with words here, or fail to see the obligation of mutual agreement, but the basic idea remains. God wants you to work for Him, with support a fruit of your planting; while Satan wants you a hireling of mammon. So Satan baits his trap with money. Neglect your studies, and sell mutual funds! Call on your neighbor, and sell insurance. Use your influence to promote some merchandising scheme. As though Paul went to the synagogue on the Sabbath to meet tent customers. I am nearing the age when one realizes his best days are numbered, and physical break-downs remind us of possibilities our youth rejected. I am trying to hedge against material needs of the future, and I understand the feelings of preachers who see others (including brethren) rake in twice the preachers support, with half the effort, and no more ability. (And for salt in the wound, many of them skip worship to do it.) But the true servant of God hurts more through concern for their spiritual sickness, and works the harder to bring them back to Christ. He doesnt join them in taking Satans bait. And if brethren inadequately support the preacher, they need straight preaching on the subject. They will take it from a God-serving soldier of the cross — and I believe God-serving saints will make it right. Those kind make a God-serving team. Jim Everett, Whose parents live in Burnet, has returned from three years preaching in Australia, and is now working for the Lake Jackson, church. He has agreed to assist in writing for Plain Talk, and he andwill make welcomed additions to the P.T. staff. Jims first contribution is on page 3.
  21. Vol.VII No.VI Pg.1 August 1970 Keep Up With Joses Robert F. Turner And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) ... Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles feet. But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife sold a possession, and kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles feet. — (Acts 4: 36- 5: 1-f.) Ananias was not forced to sell his property — God did not impose a tax on either Joses or Ananias. When Ananias pretended to give all — as if to keep up with Joses — he was a pitifully self-deceived man. With his attitude, he would not have measured up to Joses stature, had he sold twice as much property and given it all. Joses moved in keeping with the great grace that was upon the multitude of the believers, and if Ananias was a part of that mass (4: 32-f) he must have, at one time, had an unselfish regard for possessions. But he allowed Satan to fill his heart. Some have suggested that he coveted the praise (or recognition) given to Joses. Maybe so — but he didnt think enough of it to pay the price — and it may surprise you to learn that I am not thinking of the short-change in money. Ananias was trying to serve two masters. With Satan in his heart, there was no room for the grace that could make even a small gift acceptable. Until he would give himself there was not enough money in Judea to keep up with Joses. Paul used nine different words to describe the assistance which gentile Christians sent their needy Jewish brethren. Grace, fellowship, service, alms, sacrifice, and the like — all saying something of the spirit back of the gift. (Even collection had a religious connotation, as opposed to taxation Robertson, Deissmann, Moulton—Milligan, etc.) Truly, The gift without the giver is bare. Ananias couldnt keep up with Joses because he aimed at externals only. He neither understood the gift nor the giver. Conversely, many try to keep up with the Joneses and never perceive the folly of materialism.
  22. Article I Section 5 Clause 4 Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting. The HOUSE is in violation and should be sued and ordered back to DC...... ...
  23. Vol.VII No.V Pg.8 July 1970 Stuff About Things Robert F. Turner When I was a boy in school, if a pupil said, 2 + 2 = 5 he was corrected, and sent to his desk for further study. Now, he might start a student protest, and argue his right to make his own rules of mathematics. I have no desire to restrict personal freedom, but I do not want him building my house with his ruler. A case in point is a crude mimeographed tract, recently received, in which the writer argues that the use of Oaks—West or even Burnet before Church of Christ denotes ownership of that church, and that this profanes the name. The man is to be pitied. He evidently thinks CHURCH OF CHRIST is THE divinely ordained formal designation for Gods people, and overlooks his own citation of church of God (1 Cor. 1:2). (See household of faith Gal. 6: 10, or most frequent, simply the church. The genitive of denotes possession in the expression church of Christ and could as well be stated, Christs church. (Incidentally, the word church before Christ does not profane the name of Christ.) And churches of the Gentiles (Rom. 16:4) does not mean the churches belong to the Gentiles, but consist of such. In Rom. 16:1 the church which is at Cenchrea (greek has in- dative) simply denotes location. Neither in the Greek nor English does the before or after position denote possession or profaning — but then, we do not expect the writer of the tract to understand that. He is operating by his own private rules of grammar. (?) Reminds us of the fellow who petitioned the court for a divorce, and the judge asked, Do you have any grounds? He replied, Just a few acres in the country. I mean, do you have a grudge? the judge explained. And the man answered, No, I just have a carport. I believe in mans freedom and obligation to think for himself; but this does not free him from the absoluteness of truth. He may become a slave to his own ignorance. And, some learn just enough to get confused. We heard of some hogs that were taught to come for food when the farmer beat on a tree with a stick. Came spring, and a family of woodpeckers moved into the woods, and drove them crazy.
  24. Vol.VII No.V Pg.7 July 1970 Queries And Answers Robert F. Turner Bro. Turner: What is the moral responsibility of the sick alcoholic, homosexual, or the like? Reply: God must answer, with respect to the heart — and He alone knows the true ability by which to measure ones responsibility; but I find no scriptural justification for the current use of sick to excuse sin. Social science studies human behavior and seeks to explain it in purely social cause-effect terms. Its morals are purely social mores — most of its authorities reject God. And some Ph. D. preachers have rejected Gods word to favor such conclusions. Freud and his followers did not make human conduct, they only sought to analyze the mind back of the act. It seems the Freudian philosophy has fathered a new breed of rationalists, whose morals are lowered, and who pragmatically reason that the end justifies any workable means. But even these would agree that social misfits, with frustrations, broken homes and blighted psyche existed long before our day. For example, did the woman taken in adultery (Jn. 8:) have no physio-psycho problems that my have contributed to her profligacy? Who can doubt it? Yet Jesus dealt with her as a sinner, and his compassionate understanding did not change this fact. If history is even partially correct, the Corinthians engaged in forms of erotica that equaled or surpassed our most depraved society. Did they have no feelings of insecurity, no loneliness, no frustrated childhoods, no unfulfilled mother-love to propel them into such searchings for peace? They did, or the whole philosophy of psychology breaks down. Were they sick products of a sick society? I will not deny it. But God says they were unrighteous, and the remedy for their condition was to be washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Cor. 6: 9-11) We are born into a world cursed by sin — its influence is all about us. It enters our homes, affects us physically and emotionally. Some may be born so sick mentally or otherwise as to be incomplete souls, but we have no right to lower morals to fit such cases. God establishes standards of sound doctrine and it does not accept whoremongers and homosexuals. (1 Tim. 1: 9-11) God judges ability. God warns that we may become bond- servants (slaves) of sin (Jn. 8:34) by yielding to sin. (Rom. 6:16-18) When we yield to fleshly desires, again and again, we may weaken our resistance and become sick unto death but we can not escape our moral responsibility before God for allowing such a thing to happen. The antidote — or better, the preventive medicine —is to retain God in our hearts. Without this restraining influence we become victims of our own appetites, we burn in our own acid. (Rom. 1: 28-f) There is no substitute for God now, nor in the non- Freudian world to come.
  25. I Samuel 26 By: Jim Crews I Samuel 26: 1 - 5 The Ziphite told Saul where David was hiding. Saul took 3000 men to go and find David. Saul camped by the road but David remained in the wilderness. David sent spies into Saul’s camp. David went to the camp and found them asleep. I Samuel 26: 6 - 12 David, Ahimelech, and Abishai snuck into Saul’s camp. Abishai wanted them to kill Saul, but David would not. David told them that God would take care of it. They took Saul’s spear and left. I Samuel 26: 13 - 16 David called out to Abner and Saul’s men and was ridiculing their attempt at protecting Saul. He told them they should be killed for dereliction of duty. He then asked them where Saul’s spear was? I Samuel 26: 17 - 20 Saul recognized David’s voice. David asked why he was being pursued. He said if God had sent Saul then David would gladly turn himself in, but if it were men who drove Saul, David would not. I Samuel 26: 21 - 25 Saul confessed his sin. David returned his spear. They went their separate ways after Saul blessed David.
×
×
  • Create New...