Plain Talk

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IV No.XI Pg.5

January 1968

Don't Be A Hypocrite

Robert F. Turner

The word "hypocrite" comes from a Greek word meaning "to answer" "then, play-acting, as the actors spoke in dialogue." Vine says, "it was a custom for Greek and Roman actors to speak in large masks with mechanical devices for augmenting the force of the voice;" so hypocrisy is "putting on a show" of something we are not. It is a particularly ugly word, for even the hypocrites do not like hypocrites, although many seek shelter behind them-- blaming them for their own lack of faithfulness.

Hypocrisy is defined in the N.T. by such phrases as "outwardly appear righteous ....but within.... iniquity;" "honor with lips ...heart far from." (Matt. 23:28; Mk.7:6) Even more pointed are the examples of hypocrisy in the N.T.; for in them we may see ourselves, and make application we might otherwise ignore.

In Lu. 12:54-f. Jesus upbraided the people who could fathom weather signs (predicting showers, or heat) yet the obvious signs of divinity in their midst they could not (?) or would not see. Do you know people today who are quick to see everything except that which they do not Haat to see? Jesus called such people "hypocrites."

Jesus shamed the people who pretended great concern for the Sabbath, objecting to His healing a woman on this day; but saw nothing wrong with caring for their stock on the Sabbath. (Lu. 13:11-17) Do we freely criticize others with rules we would not think of applying to ourselves? Jesus said this is hypocrisy. Blinded by a beam, we search for the other fellow's mote. Even Peter "dissembled". (Gal. 2:1121) and this is from the same root word as "hypocrisy". He would not associate with gentile Christians in Antioch, pretending loyalty to the Law of Moses; when in reality he feared the scorn of prominent Judaizers. Other Jews, including Barnabas, were led astray by this dissimulation; even as today many weak people may be adversely affected by well-known people who sacrifice conviction for popular approval. Hypocrisy is devilish.

And even if no other parties are involved, hypocrisy does something to the hypocrite that is devilish. Folk "depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron." (1 Tim. 4:1-2) The "lies" one tells in hypocrisy (by word and deed) have a poisonous effect upon the "actor"-- so that he comes to believe his own false face, and his former moral conscience is so seared that it no longer can be pricked. Now he sees only the make-believe mask he has painted for himself-- with angelic smile and shining halo-- and it is difficult (if not impossible, 2 Pet. 2:18-f) to renew him again to repentance. He has become a victim of his own lies, and may go to Hell proclaiming his righteousness.

Now let us not confuse weakness, spiritual immaturity, or lack of knowledge with hypocrisy. There are no absolutely perfect Christians in the world -- all are subject to error in faith and practice. But all can and must be honest with themselves, with others, and with God.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IV No.XI Pg.6

January 1968

Fresh Quote On Old Problem

Robert F. Turner

We herewith quote our Bro. Tom Shiflett, Springfield, Mo., 1967. It _is refreshing to know one well qualified academically yet holds to the distinctively peculiar power of FAITH.

In an exchange recorded in the October, 1967, RESTORATION REVIEW between Doctors James Bales and Pat Hardeman, the latter poses a question designed to take to task "the generally two-fold practice of (1) excluding human tradition when you debate with Roman Catholics, and (2) instantly relying on traditions-- Church Fathers, archeological testimony, etc.-- when you are defending the canonicity of the 27 books of the New Testament."

When a person comes to examine this contradiction in attitude he is well able to see that there is an inconsistency. Almost everyone would agree that such an inconsistency is quite undesirable and that one should quit one or the other of these practices. One gathers that Dr. Hardeman would have it that relieving the strain from the Roman Catholics would be the logical choice, but he is human, and this procedure could well be attributed to the wisdom of man.

Paul counted it a crucial matter that the faith of the Corinthians not stand in the wisdom of man, but rather that it should stand in the power of God. (1 Cor.2:1-5) It would appear that the proper thing to do is to cease this "instantly relying on tradition-Church Fathers, archeological testimony, etc.-- when defending the canonicity of the 27 books of the New Testament." For that matter, just about how much time does the Christian have to spend "defending the canonicity of the 27 books of the New Testament?" Did not Paul also teach that "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God?" (Rom. 10:17) There have been untold thousands who have come to obedience and salvation by the simple expedient of hearing God's word who never knew of the existence of Eusebius or Justin or Origen, let alone made any attempt to defend "the canonicity of the 27 books of the New Testament."

Of course, there are many who would label this kind of thinking as antiintellectual, and properly so. But, to borrow an expression from the moderns, that's the name of the game. If one is to believe the Bible, there is nothing whatsoever in intellectualism that will bring a person one whit closer to God. If people would spend more time studying 1 Cor. 1: and 2: and less time worrying about "defending the canonicity of the 27 books of the New Testament" they might well meet with much more disfavor from the wise, the scribes, and the disputers of this world, but they could well be among those saved by believing.

Jesus taught in Luke 8 that all it takes is the word and an honest and good heart which keeps it to bring forth fruit with patience. Those who criticize such a conclusion as is reached here may use many adjectives. They may call it naive, call it blind, call it unreasoning, even call it Stupid, but whatever adjective is used, it is still faith."

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IV No.XI Pg.7

January 1968

Queries And Answers

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

Who is my "brother"? Have we not placed too narrow a concept upon this word? When the ruler asked the question it seems Christ placed a very wide definition before him.

Reply:

The ruler asked, "Who is my neighbor?" -- in an attempt to justify himself (LUK.10:29). We should use great care lest, in an effort to justify some of our own loose concepts, we broaden or lose "where God has not loosed".

"Brother" is, strictly speaking, "a male considered in his relation to another having the same parents". The word then has many figurative uses, but the idea of close "family type" relation persists, even when no actual blood relations exists. Ananias called Saul "brother" (ACT.9:17) referring to Jewish relation. This explains some more general uses of the word by Jesus in His personal ministry. Even when we mean only "brother in Adam" i.e., our "fellow-man", or speak of "brother love"; the idea expressed is that of closeness.

When "brother" is used to designate a fellow-Christian, the family figure is strong, and clearly distinguishes those "born of water and the Spirit" from those outside the body of Christ. A man of the world may be a fornicator, and a "brother" may be a fornicator -- but 1CO.5:9-11 makes a distinction between them. We may have to "note...and have no company with" a fellow-saint who errs; but Paul says "count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother". Common parentage ("born of God") makes for a relation closer and different from the broad "brother in Adam" concept (2TH.3:11-15). A Christian is to "do good unto all" but "especially unto them who are of the household of faith" (GAL.6:10). A man (or woman) is not my brother in Christ until he or she -- and I -- have received the will of God in honest hearts, are thus begotten with the same "seed" (JAM.1:18) and born into the same family, the body of Christ, His church (1CO.12:12-13; EPH.1:22-23, 2:13,16,19; 3:14-15). My "brethren" are more than "truth seekers" -- although such seeking must continue to characterize their attitude; they have become "truth finders" and "truth obeyers" in those things necessary to bring us into Christ.

The "brotherhood" (1PE.2:17) is as broad as the family of God, and no broader. It is made up of all who have known Christ in the forgiveness of sins -- who have believed in Him, repented of their past sins, and have been baptized into Christ for the remission of sins (ACT.2:36-41). It is true that "we" sometimes sectarianize "our" brotherhood; limiting it by metes and bounds of our own making. "We" may require one of "our" preachers do the baptizing, or "treat as an enemy" a brother with whom we disagree. "We" may turn "brotherhood" into "churchhood" -- supposing it to be some organization of churches. But my errors, or "our" errors, do not alter the NT definition of "brother" in Christ -- making it neither broader nor more narrow than the Lord made it.

Let God be true, but every man a liar.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IV No.XI Pg.8

January 1968

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

Here's a new look at ulcers: For years my doctors have been telling me to "slow down" "mustn't let things bother you" "those problems will be here when you are gone" "take more vacations" etc. I think I got my ulcers over an internal battle with my conscience, brought on by too much relaxing. But I could always say I was following doctor's orders-- until some smart aleck up at Scott-White Clinic said he thought the world had benefited most by the concerned ' the "got to do something about it" guys; and where would we be if somebody did not have back trouble, break-downs or ulcers in the effort to change the course of human events.

The good doctor might just have something there. Suppose everyone decided to "take it easy". It's hard enough now to find a place to hunt that is not full of red-shirted relaxers.

A student once reported to the professor (I believe it was Agassiz) that he did not have his theme prepared because he had not felt well. The Swiss naturalist replied that few great things would ever be accomplished if they could be done only by those who "felt well". People who do great things, do them against odds.

They can't sleep for thinking about the needs, and ways of overcoming the problems. They give themselves, maybe they "burn out", but their kind have a tremendous effect upon the world.

We are not put in this world to "relax"; we are here to accomplish, to serve as faithful stewards, to glorify God. As the editor of the Gospel Guardian, in a splendid editorial 12-14-67 said, "It is certainly true that, expressed or unexpressed, realized or unrealized, the 'sense of mission' dominates every life that is worth the living." Again, "Life is a trust, a stewardship, a sacred committment. Man is not free "to live his own life," for his life is not his own; he has been "bought with a price."

An exaggerated sense of importance may turn a man's head; and pride is so prevalent we must wave a warning. But genuine "total committment" and a "sense of mission" do not produce selfish, egocentric pride, nor is one's "mission" served by such. It is only by forgetting one's self that we can begin to sense a real purpose here; and trade the harsh competitive struggle for a "place among people" for the more meaningful battle against error, and a place with God.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IV No.XII Pg.1

February 1968

Discussing Differences

Robert F. Turner

January 29, thru February 1, 1968, twenty-nine brethren met in Arlington, Texas to discuss their differences. Each came as an individual, representing no "party" or church, but presenting two basically different views of the "issues" which divide brethren today. No blood was shed; no bruises!

Five major topics were discussed, in the order given: How to Establish Bible Authority; Difference in Church and Individual Action; The Work of the Church; Cooperation of Churches; Attaining and Maintaining Fellowship. Ten men, one on either "side" of each subject, were asked to prepare forty-five minute papers for initial presentation, and be prepared to offer a fifteen minute rebuttal to the opposite view presented; but none knew who would be his opposite. The major speakers, paired in the order of appearance, were: Bros. Roy E. Cogdill, J. D. Thomas; Johnny Ramsey, Floyd Thompson; W. L. Wharton, Gus Nichols; Roy H. Lanier, Sr., Robert F. Turner; Bryan Vinson, Sr., Jimmy Allen.

Following each major discussion three men from each "side" presented talks of fifteen minutes each, either offering new material they felt important, or reviewing old material. This gave opportunity to broaden the subject or offer further rebuttal. Following each major topic, with its minor follow-up, the moderators allowed anyone present to comment, present questions, etc.; allotting five minutes to each speaker. The complete procedure was tape-recorded; and the major and minor addresses are to be published in a book. The five-minute cross-examinations will not be published.

Men present, other than those already named, were: James Adams, Melvin Curry, Buster Dobbs, Harold Fite, Lewis Hale, Clinton Hamilton, Alan Highers, Bill Humble, Hulen Jackson, Alvin Jennings, Reuel Lemmons, Stanley Lovett, Hardeman Nichols, Paul W. Phillips, Harry Pickup, Jr., Franklin Puckett, Dudley Ross Spears, Norman Starling, and Eldred Stephens. Error or omission in above is unintentional.

This Writer Believes The Very Fact Of Such A Meeting Is Encouraging.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IV No.XII Pg.2

February 1968

Re. Readin' And Ritin'

Robert F. Turner

A sincere friend of mine thinks I misrepresented someone in last month's editorial. I have never knowingly done this in my life, and I have no intentions of beginning now.

He thinks I assigned mydefinition of "realm of Faith" to someone. More careful reading will show I question the other brother's definition, saying that if elders' "decision" re. an interpretation of scripture is not binding, this puts it back in the realm of judgement where we had said it was all along. The gist of my comments were, not that I charged this editor with the consequence of his statements, but that I could not believe he held such consequences, and hence felt his was an "irresponsible analysis of the subject."

The need for careful use of terms is always demonstrated in discussions of differences. If possible, terminology common to both "sides" should be used to avoid misunderstandings. It is not wrong to use a word not found in the Bible, but that word must describe accurately the idea that isfound there if we are to call it a "scriptural" matter.

For example: "cooperation" is not found in "standard" versions. Current dictionaries show this word may apply to "concurrent independent action" or to "collective action." Dictionaries also show clearly that collective action is "different" "opposed" to independent action. Now if I wish to say the Bible teaches churches should "cooperate" I am obligated to clearly define the specific use I am making of "cooperate" -- and I am obligated to prove THAT use by the scriptures. All writers, especially, have weighty obligations to strive for clarity. I'll TRY HARD to make myself clear. Please TRY HARD to read charitably. Thanks! ---

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IV No.XII Pg.3

February 1968

The Local "Framework"

Robert F. Turner

What is the "framework of the local church"? Is it not the organizational structure God has authorized whereby a plurality of His people may work as one?

The scriptures authorize overseers for the saints, but only on the "local level", i.e., these overseers may function only with respect to a single "local church" or "the flock of God which is among you." (1 Pet. 5:2) Elders are intended "in every church" (Acts 14:23) which puts each church on an equality with respect to oversight. The "framework" of organization is therefore "local" -- no larger and no smaller. There are other ways to prove this, but the above should suffice. This doesn't seem like such a terribly hard thing to grasp.

But gradually the role of local (what else?) elders has changed. An Evangelistic, Benevolent, Advertising, or Something Else Society may be set up, proposing to do these works for a "brotherhood" of churches; or perhaps the representatives (delegates?) of a number of churches in an "area" may assemble, and decide upon some project -- obviously inter-church -- which they proceed to assign to some willing group of elders BECAUSE WE MUST DO THINGS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE LOCAL CHURCH.

The scriptural principles which make elders "local" in the first place, are forgotten. The unit of organization is extended to "area" or larger, and a "project" treasury is established -- far larger than could ever be considered the "local church" treasury -- and these elders are asked to oversee this project, controlling and spending this fund on behalf of many churches -- yet this is called "within the framework of the local church." It is hard to believe that brethren could so delude themselves. If a county sheriff was given control over our Armed Forces, directing their activities and spending tax monies gathered on a national scale, would we say we had no national army? Is this a local police force because the commander is still called Sheriff? How utterly ridiculous can we get? We would know that we were simply retaining county office names for a federal function. "Local framework" indeed!!

The Sheriff might continue to look after local county affairs, and in these activities still function as a county Sheriff; likewise, elders of a sponsoring church may continue to act as local elders with respect to many things---but they are "area-wide" or "churchhood" elders in that work they serve as such.

The "framework" which God gave His people is like "single-harness"---designed to work on a single local church. He designed no "double-harness"---He made no provisions for "direction and guidance" whereby a "team" of churches could be worked together, and this is sufficient evidence to those who want to do "God's Work in God's Way" that He did not intend such activities.

God's plan calls for each independent, autonomous church to function according to its ability. Within this "framework" alone, we have assurance of divine approval.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IV No.XII Pg.4

February 1968

Story Of The Text12

Robert F. Turner

Sir Walter Scott, upon his deathbed, asked his attendant to bring him "the book." When asked, "What book?" he replied, "The Book, the Bible! There is only one Book." This, from a man of letters, poses the question: If the Bible is "the only Book" by which to die, is it not truly the one Book by which to live?

My mother taught me respect for God's book, long before I knew much of its content, or critical details. Early teachers, such as N.B. Hardeman and L.L. Brigance, enriched that respect with analytical information, organized and interrelated. The challenges of skeptics in a state university forced me to examine evidences for its canonicity, integrity and credibility; and hunger for the purest truth led me to long hours of study in Greek, the language of the text. BUT YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN THE USE OF GOD'S WORD IN MY LIFE have taught me its greatest lessons, and its value.

We close this series on the text with this anonymous eulogy of the Bible, kept in our notes since 1934. ----------------------

"Many years ago I entered the wonderful temple of God's revelation. I entered the portico of Genesis, and walked down through the Old Testament Art Gallery where the pictures of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David and Daniel hung on the wall.

I entered the Music Room of the Psalms where the Spirit swept the keyboard of inspiration and brought forth the dirge-like wail of the weeping prophet, Jeremiah; to the grand, impassioned strains of Isaiah; until it seemed that every reed and harp in God's organ of nature responded to the tuneful touch of David, the sweet singer of Israel. I entered the chapel of Ecclesiastes where the voice of the Preacher was heard; and passed into the conservatory of Sharon where the lily of the valley's sweet-scented spices filled and perfumed my life. I entered the business room of the Proverbs, and passed into the observatory room of the Prophets where I saw many telescopes of various sizes, some pointing to far off events, but all concentrated upon the Bright Morning Star, which was soon to rise over the moon-lit hills of Judea, for our salvation.

I entered the audience room of the King of Kings and was enlightened from the standpoint of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; entered the Acts of the Apostles where the Holy Spirit was doing His office work in the forming of the church; passed into the Correspondence Room where sat Paul, Peter, James, Jude and John penning their epistles. I stepped into the Throne of Revelation, where all towered into glittering peaks. I got a vision of the King seated upon His throne in all His glory, and I cried:

"All Hail the power of Jesus' Name

Let angels prostrate fall;

Bring forth the royal diadem

And crown Him Lord of All."

 

Truly, THERE IS ONLY ONE BOOK!!

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IV No.XII Pg.5

February 1968

Know Thyself, And Me

Robert F. Turner

While telling some brethren about the Arlington meeting, where brethren who differed came together to discuss "the issues" (see front page) I was interrupted with the question, "Why couldn't those brethren see the truth -- what were they thinking??" I tried to answer honestly: "They may have been thinking, '"Why can't those brethren see the truth -- what are they thinking??'"

I recently received a very complimentary letter regarding PLAIN TALK -- which I would just love to quote in full -- but I'll bite my tongue, and give you the last section only.

"Your last bulletin brought home teaching that we seem to have overlooked: God is love, and while he was on this earth He had to teach the thickest bunch of selfish Jews He could have possibly picked; and yet He persevered, and told us.."the servant is not greater than the Lord." Maybe we are not so all fired smart and loving and full of the sincere milk of the word as we thought we were. Because whatever the word of God is, it iseffective. If there is no increase, it is not the fault of the seed nor of the one who gives the increase. It has to be the sower and tender."

Putting ourselves in the other fellow's place -- seeing our own failures -- putting the "blame" where it belongs -- these are tough chews; but they are absolutely necessary if we are to practice the "golden rule".

The difference in peoplemay account for more conflict than what we have supposed to be difference in our understanding of the scriptures. One man is emotional, moody; and reads by the light of his feelings. When the Bible says, "God is love" "love one another" he gets a mushy, warm-molasses feeling, and would swallow foul digression rather than spit it out. He is emotionally incapable of understanding how another could be sickened by such "weakness"; and how this man fights digression, real or suspect, because he too loves the Lord and His Church.

What we must realize is that the second man is also emotional -- and he too must be made to see this. We can not separate emotions from the two, but must seek to control and balance with factual information, and careful study of Bible principles involved.

People differ in background. One has been an elder whose sound judgement and scriptural position has been trampled underfoot by mob rule. The other has been mistreated and "fired" by capricious and arbitrary rule of elders. These men may have a basic understanding of the scriptural rule of elders that is very similar; but it "comes out" differently when they preach on the subject, because of the difference in their backgrounds. Pure objectivity is very difficult to practice, even when we try hard.

But divine authority IS EXTERNAL -- from without man -- and we must not conclude that because we see things differently, that TRUTH differs in keeping with the subjects. Honest efforts to trust God for His truth will make us ONE in the faith.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IV No.XII Pg.6

February 1968

"That They May Be One"

Robert F. Turner

Barton W. Stone and Alexander Campbell first met in 1824. "When they compared views, it seemed that there were irreconcilable differences between them. Stone thought Campbell was heterodox on the Holy Spirit, and Campbell suspected Stone's soundness on the divinity of Christ." But by 1832, following careful investigation, these differences were found to be more imaginary than real. At a meeting of brethren in Lexington, Ky., on January lst, "Racoon" John Smith and Barton W. Stone were key speakers in an effort that brought great numbers of brethren together. "This union of the Christians and Reformers was not a surrender of one party to the other; it was an agreement of such as already recognized and loved each other as brethren to work and worship together." (The Church, Falling, Restoration; by J. W. Shepherd; P. 251-f.)

----------------------

In March 1827, five or six couples formed "a society for the investigation of Scripture subjects." They were Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, and non-communicants.

They explain, "We assumed that the Christian religion, in its fulness and perfectness, was recorded in the N.T., and what could not be found there... was no part of Christianity. We also assumed that this was an intelligible document, for, if not adapted to the common intelligence of mankind, it could not be received as a revelation from God to man."

For more than one year these folk met regularly, discussing all points of difference and questions of mutual concern, until finally they were united in practice as well as in spirit, and formed a local church. Notice the attitude and faith expressed in the following. "We had but two alternatives between which to choose; either to transmit religious partyism, with all its bitter fruits, to our rising families, and live and die in that state of doubt and uncertainty, vascillating between hope and fear, the inevitable result of a mixed profession; or to find relief by going back to the old record, to 'look up the old paths and walk therein."' (History of Disciples on Western Reserve; by A. S. Hayden; p. 317-f.)

-------------------------

How often, in your experience, have brethren shown this spirit in our day? I know of several examples of non-members having a sincere desire for truth, and allowing open Bible study -- which almost always led to some being converted to the truth. I even know of one case where a whole church came together regularly for nearly one year, studying the "issues" of the day. If I remember correctly, one family dropped out after a few months, but the others decided to operate as a completely independent church, sending no support to interchurch projects. BUT I KNOW OF MANY CASES WHERE PERSONAL BITTERNESS, REFUSAL TO HEAR BOTH SIDES, AND "MAJORITY RULE" QUARANTINE TACTICS HAVE MADE MOCKERY OF CHRIST'S CAUSE.

Party union is not our goal, but genuine unity upon God's truth. This is our justification for PLAIN TALK.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IV No.XII Pg.7

February 1968

Queries And Answers

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

Should out-of-duty members be used for public prayer? Should we call on members who are Masons, or who are trouble makers, to lead in prayer? CP

Reply:

The problem is solidly based upon the fact that we may appear to sanction and lend support to that which we recognize publicly. The "out-of-duty" member may consider our public use of him as our way of saying we do not consider him "out-of-duty" before the Lord, nor in our own judgement. The "trouble-maker" may gain followers and social stature by such use, and be encouraged to seek further gains, promoting personal ends.

But there is more to the problem than this. We may have lost sight of the true purpose of prayer, and other functions of saints assembled for the worship of God; and we may have made the "service" (?) into a program of public appearances. We need no performers at all -- neither "faithful" nor "out-of-duty"; and if the leader is really going to pray, his honest outpouring of heart to God will be no handicap to others who want to pray.

Further, we may be putting our God-given obligation to discipline -- to instruct, train, correct -- into the hands of who-ever appoints those who function publicly. Instead of going to the man who is out-of-duty, to "restore such a one in the spirit of meekness" (Gal. 6:1) we may be using "public appearance" or the lack of it, as a club over his head. The men who select those who are to take some public part in the worship may thus by-pass God's plan for edifying and strengthening brethren. Is the weak member (and I believe the member who actively participates and supports the pagan religion of various "secret orders" is weak) your brother? Then treat him as a brother! Give him the needed assistance to become stronger -- to see the all-sufficiency of God in Christ. (Col.2:6-f) Work and pray with the trouble-maker, to correct his divisive ways. If it becomes necessary to sever fellowship do so according to divine instructions (Rom. 16:17; 2 Thes. 3:14 etc.) But don't turn, or allow the elders to turn this over to some one who "calls on" various ones for prayer.

Bro. Turner:

Does "assembling" (Heb. 10:25) refer to Lord's Day meetings only? GD

Reply:

Note the word is "assembling"; NOT "the assembly". It is an ACTwhich we must not cease to perform, not a place or group we must frequent. The word literally means "together-gathering", and embraced all "togetherness" essential to faithfulness to Christ.

"They continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house--" "And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ." "But prayer was made without ceasing of the church unto God for him" (Acts 2:46;; 5:42;;12:5f). Early Christians worked and prayed together. Only when the Hebrews began to drift away did they "forsake assembling" and needed to be called back.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IV No.XII Pg.8

February 1968

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

This little article is entitled, "How to Give, And Not Even Notice It, -- Much -- Hardly." It's easy, almost.

It came to me when I noticed how much more shoes cost at $ 25. than a rifle scope did at $ 33. That set me to thinking -- and there's no telling what will come next.

If I could just love the Lord, and the work He wants done, as I loved that rifle scope -- or somewhere close to that much, not to be a fanatic -- I could give $ 20, or maybe even $ 25. for His cause, and wouldn't hardly even notice it -- much.

Or take house payments as an example. Each month I dutifully write out a check -- making certain "that much" is in there to cover it -- and put it in the mail. I don't even count that money as mine -- it has to go, no matter what else I need or want -- so if I am saving for a new rifle the house money doesn't enter the picture. Now suppose, just suppose, I planned my support of the Lord's work that way? When I determine what my income will be, I set aside a certain amount for the Lord's work -- as something that has to go, no matter what else I have to do. I would then plan the rest of my expenditures accordingly: buying or renting in a bracket I could afford with what was left. Soon my life would fit into this mold, and I would squeeze the new riflescope out of thisbudget. (Maybe I could cut down some on the wife's shoes.)

This thing has amazing possibilities. Suppose all wage earners in a local church would adopt my plan. 0l' Bill loves his fishing tackle almost as much as I love my rifles. And Joe takes his fancy boat payment out of his income before he gives Pam any grocery money. Even Aunt Kit cuts her snuff money out of the social security check before she does anything else. Wonder what we could do if all of us loved the Lord and His work more than anything else in the world?

Do you suppose this is what the Lord had in mind when he said, "Seek ye first the Kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. Take no thought (be not anxious) for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof."

(Matt. 6:33-34)

Rise And Sing, "Oh, How I Love Jesus!"

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.V No.I Pg.1

March 1968

Mister "X"

Robert F. Turner

Many congregations (or businesses, schools, etc.) have a "Mister X" —- so called because for a time he (or she) may be unknown -- or known, but with insufficient evidence to "pin down."

Mr. X is disgruntled, dissatisfied; often with an "itch" that no one, including himself, could scratch. Maybe he wants to be in a more prominent position. Or, not wanting the responsibility of leadership, he may want to appear the wise old owl on the sideline, sagely "advising" others without putting his advice before the public where it can be analyzed and reviewed. Maybe he is just an "Objector" — or embittered with personal failures, he "takes it out" on others. Whatever the cause, he is dangerous.

He puts the worst possible interpretation on everything. (No telling what he will say about this article.) He plants seeds of discord in others. If a molehill appears in Bible class on Wednesday, he will visit you on Thursday to talk about how BAD things are. He makes mountains for all who will listen. He urges "Something must be done!" meaning — you take the ball now, and GO with it." He will back you — from a way back, safe position of course.

He finds the weak, and compliments them. "'You should have a raise — you should have that prominent position." Then, if it suits his purposes, he may suggest to the boss that "some of them are dissatisfied — too bad." He may offer to help the situation by "talking to them when time is right."

It is difficult to maintain a proper attitude toward Mr. X. If you are kind, trying to be understanding of his weakness, and strengthening him, he may take this as weakness on your part. He is a self-deceived hypocrite, desperately in need of help; but one you must "save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh." (Jude 23) "Restore such a one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself lest thou also be tempted." (Gal. 6: 1)

It may be necessary to "deliver such a one unto Satan" (I Cor. 5: 51) to spare the innocent, and maybe save the soul of poor despicable Mr. X.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.V No.I Pg.2

March 1968

More "Arlington Meetings"

Robert F. Turner

Last month we reportedthe Arlington meeting, where brethren discussed their differences and studied scriptures on various issues. We made no effort to review or draw conclusions, nor do we think this is wise. Let the records speak for themselves! Material is being prepared for publication so the public can read and evaluate.

But interest in such meetings in general warrants some statements relative to them. If other "Arlington Meetings" follow, and I hope they do, certain principles are necessary lest we jump "out of the frying pan into the fire."

First, no "conference of delegates" existed; and had we so presumed, no scriptural grounds for such could be found. No "big shots" or "little," can "decide" anything for anyone else.

Scriptural unity is not the amalgamation of "parties" but the acceptance of divine truth by individuals. Hence, those who participate in "Arlington Meetings" can only present what they believe to be the truth set forth in scriptures, and let the test of untrammeled investigation reveal the merit of their faith and practice. Churches did not divide (or shouldnot have) by party decree, but by the failure of individuals to study and act as Christians. The process must be reversed -- on an individual basis. What was done in Arlington can help the church in Burnet, only as brethren in Burnet do what was done in Arlington. If it was good for brethren who differed to meet in Arlington, and frankly' discuss the scriptures as they pertain to the organization and work of the church, it is good for Burnet brethren to do the same. Of course this is the procedure we have advocated from the first.

Although I "blame" those who teach and practice things for which there is no Bible authority -- I hasten to add that there is little hope for peace or unity in looking back, reviewing past actions or words, or assigning blame.

Far more appropriate to correction of any wrong is the NOW attitude. Who is NOW holding up the works?

What NOW prevents us from sitting down together with open Bibles, fairly defining the issues between us, and seeking to find the scriptural solution? God will not hold blameless those who seek to have their way through majority rule, quarantine, public "hush-hush" and private name-calling.

The honest fact is -- such people do not really want scriptural unity!

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.V No.I Pg.3

March 1968

What Is Relevant?

Robert F. Turner

When the Pharisees continued to doubt the divinity of Christ despite obvious proof, the man who had been blind said, "Why herein is a marvelous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes." (Jn. 9:30)

Somehow these words came to mind recently when I was told that the church, baptism, Lord's Supper, etc., were no longer "relevant." And what is "relevant"? "Just be a follower of Christ, worship and obey Him."

Why herein is a marvelous thing!! The church one reads about in the N. T. consists of those who follow the Lord. The "called out" "set apart" people (1 Pet. 2:9) who have been separated from the world by virtue of this very distinction -- that they are followers of Christ. And how did they become followers of Him? They obeyed the call of His gospel. (2 Thes. 2:14, Acts 2:37-41) These are 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)

When someone answers, "I mean, just practice the sermon on the mount" I simply turn and read some of that sermon (Matt. 5:6:7:) and find out immediately that the excuse maker doesn't like that any better than he likes baptism, or other things Christ asks His followers to practice.

"Worship and obey Christ" are very empty words in the mouth of one who really means, "worship your self, and obey your own inclinations." How can one obey Christ without giving heed to the things Christ commands? This means we have an externalauthority -- something outside our own feelings on a given subject. We must turn to the words of Christ, the revelation of His will, and become subject thereto.

What "worship" is this that consists of things that tickle MY ears, and please MY feelings? The Lord says to partake of the bread and fruit of the vine "in remembrance of me." (I Cor. 11:23-f.) So -- we ignore the memorial He requested, and set about establishing some sort of "Easter" festival -- "because we love Him so much, and wish to worship Him." To worship -- whom??

The Pharisees could not see the truth because they did not want to seeanything contrary to their selfish hypocritical ways. Following some pointed remarks by our Lord on this subject, they asked, "Are we blind also?" (Jn. 9:40-41) And Jesus replied, "If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth."

It is an ultra-conservative modernist (?) who makes "follow Christ" relevant today, meaning only to reduce Christ's teachings to what he thinks important. His more modern brothers have long since dropped the idea of divine authority, and proclaim "God is Dead!"

(Bro. Keeble said, "That's strange; I was just talking to Him this morning, and He wasn't even sick!")

Better give attention to His word that will judge us. THAT'S RELEVANT!

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.V No.I Pg.4

March 1968

Christians In "Other Churches"

Robert F. Turner

In years past one of "our" preachers would take this as a subject, and "tear the hide off'n" denominationalism. He would point out that "the church" is the body of Christ, Eph. 1:22-23; the bride of Christ, 2 Cor. 11:1-2; the kingdom of Christ, Col. 1:13, Matt. 16:18-19; etc.; and that Christ has but one body, bride, kingdom. He would point out that the way into Christ -- "putting on" Christ -- is the way into the body, etc., (Gal. 3:26-27; 1 Cor. 12:12-13; Rom. 6:3-4) hence, only those who walk this way are "in Christ" and all who walk this way are added to the same body, family, kingdom, etc. That leaves no place for Christians in "other churches"!!

You know -- I think he was right about it!! That's the way it is!! But there were false conclusions drawn in the early days, even as now. Some missed the figurative nature of the above expressions; tending to equate Christ's church with some imperfect "party" -- and truth with the party practices; and perhaps even elevate the "plan" and the "Church of Christ" party above the Lord Himself. The preachers were not wholly to be blamed. Simple points were made for simple people, some of whom refusing to grow up. It happens today.

Today we have liberal thinkers who say there are Christians in "other churches." They discount plain Bible teaching re. baptism, the worship, etc., and glorify the so-called "pure heart" of subjective thinkers. These liberals see sectarianism among the saints (expressed in paragraph above) as justification for concluding that no "true" or "sound" church of the Lord exists today. They ridicule the idea of a "sound" functioning church. Others, bowing to popular demands, say there are Christians in "other churches." Hidden in the fine print is the explanation that these are the once faithful saints who have gone astray; and they fail to stress what God says about those who deny the Lord that bought them. (2 Pet. 2:1-f) The liberals grasp this "middle" (?) position as sop of encouragement.

It does seem we could learn something by all of this. Faithful gospel preachers can not cease to proclaim the points made in first paragraph because someone understands them in a sectarian way. It is their obligation to instruct -- enlighten. The scriptures dosay there is one body. (Eph. 4:4; 1 Cor. 12:12-13) Now if hearers color this with sectarian conceptions it becomes our duty to erase the color -- not throw out the basic teaching.

If brethren have "institutionalized" the church, and "sectarianized" the church of Christ; we must attack the error -- distinguish between so-called "Church of Christ" doctrine and objective scriptural teaching. We gravely blunder when we leave the impression that the subjective philosophy, social gospel, emotion pricked sectarian is a "Christian" in the true sense of the word, and heaven bound. The Bible doesn't teach it.

Honest, truth-seeking pilgrims in and out of Christ's church are hungry for the bread of life, and welcome humble efforts to save their souls.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.V No.I Pg.5

March 1968

"Academic Convictions"

Robert F. Turner

FAITH is inward conviction, trust, complete confidence. When the scriptures say, "With the heart man believeth unto righteousness;" -- and we know "heart" refers to the center of thought, emotions, and will -- we may rightly conclude that FAITH involves the intellect. Philip called upon the eunuch to believe "with all thine heart" (Rom. 10:10; Acts 8:37)

What hypocrisy is this that allows one to "believe" (?) in God and His ways with one side of the heart, but to hold "mental reservations" or some "academic convictions" with the other side of the heart?

Returning praise for praise, the editor of ACTION says, "____ ____ is another of our brilliant young gospel preachers with degrees. He has his "academic convictions" but stands foursquare with the great Shaw Street church in _______ where men of God guide it on to higher ground." His "academic convictions" are here contrasted with ("but") the church. Now if that church is true to God's Word, we have a dangerous contrast indeed.

In the same issue, the editor says a solution has been reached to some church division back east; and tells his part in the action thusly: " __________ and I spent almost all night in my room at the DuPont Hotel with the brilliant young preacher who had much to do with this division. We were unable to restrain his academic convictions.

Each of us may have similar convictions which conflict with present procedures but all the improvements which might be made, the church as we know it is generally on mighty solid ground and care should be taken of intellectuals who may introduce too drastic changes. There must always be thinking ahead but there is also a danger in running too fast."

In both of these cases "academic conviction" seems to be something different from the "old paths" -- something to be held in check until there is a more opportune time. Current practices of "our denomination" seem to be the norm, against which "drastic changes" must not be introduced -- but this is for policy, not for conviction's sake. These "men of God" go right on with their "academic convictions" which differ from their current practices. And this is the voice which cries for greater faith in God, and more of the spirit of Christ, and more personal dedication to the Lord!

We have experienced the conflict of "academic conviction" and faith in God's word -- but we never entertained the thought that they could continue to live side by side. We are thankful to God that the difference could be resolved, and faith in God could take the place of the doubts raised while under the spell of university professors. We appreciate the need for understanding, and a willingness to assist; but make no mistake about it; when "academic convictions" differ with God's revealed will, faith has suffered. Conversely, if one has come to know a truth of God not known or practiced by his brethren, it needs to be placed in the open so others may profit thereby.

Let us reconsider 1 Cor. 1:18-f.!!

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.V No.I Pg.6

March 1968

Is The "Thing" Scripturai?

Robert F. Turner

"The cause of most of our discomfort is three little insects, about like mites, bedbugs, and cockroaches. Of course our religious pests have different names. I call them binders, bolters, and beggars -- these three, and the greatest nuisance of these is beggars. The binders are the Judaizers who seek to bind where God has not bound. The bolters are those who are too quick to divide the local congregation over matters of personal conduct and difference. The beggars are those professional seekers for funds for institutional enterprises, violating the autonomy of the local churches and bringing us into religious slavery

The denominations have built so many lean-tos, sleeping porches, annexes, and servant houses around it that you can scarcely see the church. We have not done that. You can still see the church -- yes, but, confidentially, have you noticed the back yard recently? It is all cluttered up with dog houses, chicken coops, goods-boxes, and enough second-hand lumber to kindle fires the rest of our natural lives --, that is, if all that junk in the back yard is for kindling. Or, did we intend to do some building ourselves? The premises look suspicious. Whatever the purpose of all these materials, a little spring cleaning is needed.

Some say that all of this does not touch us. We have no organization except the church. Are we quite sure of that? I know that we have been preaching about organizations larger than the local congregation. We have dwelt so much on it that we have almost run some of these poor insects to death. They have been running in circles, and this is about the path they have followed: First, they have taken refuge under a chip somewhere and said: "We are a business institution, a private enterprise. You cannot bother us." But that sort of plea does not stimulate contributions. People are inclined to take the attitude that if they are a business institution they can just go ahead and attend to their business. So when they have seen the donations falling off, they have come out in the open and said: "We are a church institution, and the churches should support us." Then somebody would begin spraying a little more scriptural shoo-fly about the organizations larger than the local church, and the dodging would begin all over. Finally, they find shelter behind the kitchen sink and say: "We are a religious institution, but we are under the direction of the elders of a local congregation; so the churches should support us through the elders of the church in charge."

There is scarcely an institution or enterprise that has not at some time sought the friendly shelter of a local church. We seem to have gotten the idea that local congregations are cities of refuge. If we can just get to a local church before somebody severs an artery with the sword of the Spirit, we will be safe. We have seemingly overlooked the fact that it is not a question merely of who is promoting the thing, but is the thing itself scriptural?" (emph. mine,)

----------

From Article By W.E. Brightwell, Publ. In Gospel Advocate, 1934. (1-68 Torch)

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.V No.I Pg.7

March 1968

Queries And Answers

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

Will you please comment on the practice of all men of a local church meeting with the elders in regular "business meetings."

Reply:

Brethren who work together (collectively) must have some means of establishing a "common mind," and a "meeting to facilitate business" usually involves discussion, proposals, and decisions regarding this business. (We are here concerned only with matters of human judgement, since "the faith" has been "once delivered" by inspiration.)

It is my conviction that God intended these decisions should be made by mature men, strong in the faith, respected, and accepted by the congregation as qualified to oversee. (Heb. 13:17; 1 Tim. 3:1-f. Titus 1:5-f) You need not tell me they can not "rule arbitrarily" "as do the Gentiles" or "make laws that become the will of God," for I know that. (1 Pet. 5:1-4) Nor can you rightly say they have no more right to deal with material matters than do other members. (Acts 11:30) It is equally foolish to declare "decision making" is wrong, for such decisions as we have under consideration must be made; and it is only a question as to whether the elders, some "Diotrephes," or "majority rule" make them.

I am also aware that God has something more for elders to do than decide on the time of services, or what color to paint the building. They are to "watch for our souls" -- a sacred trust indeed -- but one which does not alter their responsibility in the field we have under study.

Now, should the men of the church meet regularly with the elders? To do what? To make decisions? To allow the novice and least qualified men of the church to have equal place and "vote" with the qualified elders in this phase of their work? If so, I can see no sense in searching out and appointing qualified men to this work.

But should not the elders consult with, and appraise all members of the congregation of their collective progress and problems? Certainly so -- as this is THEIR progress and problems. Periodically the whole church should be called together for this very purpose; and men of the church may be asked to meet with the elders as the nature of the "business" demands. But I am dealing with the idea that elder meetings are also "all men" meetings; and brethren, I do not believe it.

I am fully aware that sometimes the elders overstep their place, and act as though they thought their word was law and gospel in all things. But qualified elders are far less likely to do this than are politicking members who will talk up a case, get a "majority" of unlearned men to back them, and "take over" the "business meetings" for their own purpose. Any how, we are discussing a principle of church business, not abuses in it. And preachers who deny that there is a "church" with "business" seem to manage very well in running the business of the church, once they over-power and eject the elders. BEWARE!!

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.V No.I Pg.8

March 1968

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

Written on the walls of a large university building:

"ON THE PLAINS OF HESITATION LIE THE BLEACHENED BONES OF COUNTLESS MILLIONS WHO, AT THE DAWN OF VICTORY, SAT DOWN TO REST, AND RESTING, DIED!"

 

When God gave the Syrian king, Benhadad, into the hands of Ahab, king of Israel, a major victory had been won. But Ahab, pleased by flattery and lulled by complacency, gave away through compromise the victory won in hard combat. (1 Kings 20:1-f) God sent a prophet to make Ahab aware of his blunder.

The prophet represented himself as having been charged with the safe keeping of a prisoner, but said, "as thy servant was busy here and there he was gone." Smith-Goodspeed says, "was turning to look here and there." The obvious point is that the man charged with a serious task (keeping the prisoner) was "fooling around" or "busy about nothing" and allowed the prisoner to go free.

Ahab got the point. He "went to his house heavy and displeased." Will we sit down to rest and resting die?

When a non-Christian tells me that some members of the church curse "like a sailor"; and others are habitual cold-check writers; and others will not pay their debts --- what do I say?

Well, I can tell them that I have not heard the cursing, that I have no first-hand knowledge of their badcheck ways, that they owe me nothing. But do I dare challenge them to produce their proof?

-------------------------

A little boy asked his dad, "Dad, what is a " Christian?"

The father replied, "A Christian is a person who loves and obeys God. He loves his friends and neighbors, and even his enemies. He prays often, and blesses God's Holy Name. He is kind and considerate, gentle and holy, and is more interested in going to heaven than in all earthly riches. Now that is a Christian!"

To which the child responded, "Dad, have I ever seen one?"

--------------------------

Instead of "The church was united" a careless typist wrote, "The church was untied. "Now think this one over carefully: the "I" was out of place.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.V No.II Pg.1

April 1968

"Resist The Beginnings"

Robert F. Turner

The Latins had a proverb or adage; an "Ol' Edderd's Sayin'" that could serve well today. "Obsta Principlis" - "Resist the Beginnings!" It is not a popular philosophy, and I suppose someone in the objective mood and the kickative case could use it to slow or stop genuine progress. But ignoring its warning has produced chaos.

Sometime in the middle 40-s I was planning a "lecture" program for the Westside church, Phoenix; and called on Foy E. Wallace, Jr. to take part. He refused, saying that such meetings served as a "beginning" for preacher conclaves, that produced much harm. I felt, then and now, that this was an unwarranted conclusion, but this cautious "looking ahead" impressed me.

No man, no church is free of error. The "early" errors of individuals and churches are usually "small" with little indication of their potential power and trouble. With zeal to "do some good" "help the young people" "increase attendance" etc., we have an "area-wide rally", support some "benevolent project" or serve a few doughnuts and coffee. In the beginning we certainly do not intend to organize an inter-church executive committee, build a brotherhood benevolent society, or promote a social gospel.

It is understandable that we might disagree with some who warn that we violated Bible principles. Experience, depth of understanding, even historic knowledge make for differing powers of evaluation.

But ATTITUDE is the most valuable, and dangerous element of all. If we look to "brotherhood practices" for our authority, or allow self-justification to sway us; these "beginnings" take root, and become so "status quo" that we look upon those who reject our digressions as "Anti's" who have "left the church."

Nothing is scriptural because "we do something like it", or "it is no worse than" something else. A thing is scriptural only if authorized in God's word, specifically or in principle. We need not expect the beginning to appear a glaring sin, but unless we RESIST THE BEGINNINGS that are questionable, the glare will come.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.V No.II Pg.2

April 1968

Go Thou, Do Likewise!

Robert F. Turner

Response to the announcement of the Arlington meeting has shown the variety of natures in humanity. Many have been "so happy " something was done; a few have expected immediate results; a few have felt the meeting "unwise" or "feared it would compromise truth." All these show an erroneous conception -- as though chosen "representatives" met to settle something for the brotherhood. And nowhere did sectarian concept show more clearly than in those who took some individual's report (Spears, Highers, or any other) as though this or that "party" is now committed to some supposed "position".

Some praised the meeting, who have for years refused to sit down and make a like study with others. And a few, who have considered the unwillingness of "promoters" to discuss our differences a thing to be scorned, now scorn those who did meet to study together. It is a little confusing, and makes one wonder if they would have liked it better if they had been asked to speak.

The fact that the discussion was to some extent private -- although the proposed publication of material will open the doors to the public -- seemed to "bug" one or two . I wonder if they have never gone to a home for quiet Bible study, in an atmosphere conducive to candor? For those who cite Acts 26:26 I cite Gal. 2:2 -- as if either passage had any bearing on the matter. What fools we mortals be!

I went to Arlington because brethren with whom I differed agreed to discuss those differences openly, freely, frankly. That's reason enough. I made special preparation, writing a 45-minute paper on one subject, because I was told this material would be published -- making the study available to the public. Arlington had no likeness to the Plains of Ono; for I did not cease my labors to talk - I continued and enlarged my labors for the Lord there. I came away with a better impression of some of my brethren than I had before; and with a worse impression of some than I had before. Nothing unusual about that.

If any of my brethren who differ with me on Bible matters would like to study with me, privately, publicly, orally, in correspondence, or in any other way that may help us reach a better and more scriptural understanding of the issues between us, I welcome the opportunity. How else can we claim to be acting as Christians in these matters. Gal. 6:1; Acts 17:11 20:20; 2 Tim. 4:2. I advise all brethren to seriously consider, "Come, let us reason together!"

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.V No.II Pg.3

April 1968

Baptism And Conscience

Robert F. Turner

I have never had a fellow tell me this, but if one could honestly contend that to be baptized would violate his conscience toward God -- that he believed God would consider him a sinner for doing such a thing -- then I certainly would not insist that he be baptized. I would insist that he restudy God's word on the subject, for his conscience needs resetting.

It is possible that to be baptized would violate someone's conscience toward man. Parental ties and religious background may be such as to make one feel such action would be against his mother's wishes, etc. But Jesus warned that we must be prepared to "love him more" than parents. (see Matt. 10:34-39)

We need to understand that our conscience is a valuable moral governor; a bell that rings, a light that flashes, in keeping with our understanding of what is right and wrong. But it is not the thing that determines -- it is not the standard -- of truth. If we have an erroneous understanding of any matter, the "set" of our conscience on that subject will be inaccurate. We will be pricked, or the conscience will allow, uncoordinated with the truth of the matter.

In 1 Pet. 3:15 the NAS reads, "But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. For it is better, if God should will it so, that you suffer for doing what is right rather than for doing what is wrong."

Good behavior must be "in Christ." It is God's will that determines the right course, and a "good conscience" toward God, the real goal.

Now, in 1 Pet. 3:21 we read "And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you -- not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience -- through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,--" The act of baptism, per se, does not save. Christ is our Saviour! But Christ is Saviour of those who put their trust in Him -- who believe in Him so fully that they set their conscience, and act, in keeping with His will -- "unto all them that obey Him." (Heb. 5:9)

All who give serious consideration to Christ's will, know that He commands baptism. (Mk. 16:16; Acts 10:48) Knowing this, one can not have a good conscience toward God while refusing to do His bidding. It is that simple.

Then baptism is not a "church doctrine" -- it is not "for conscience toward the church" that men should be baptized. It is not a "church ordinance" as is so often asserted. It is a thing done in response to a divine mandate, and for those purposes which the Lord has determined. (Acts 2:38) It pictures death to sin, burial with Christ, resurrection to a new life. (Rom. 6:3-f) It is not so surprising that such a thing as this should mark one's becoming a Christian, and entrance into the kingdom. (Jn. 3:3, 5)

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.V No.II Pg.4

April 1968

Pattern And Apostasy?

Robert F. Turner

When a fellow is particularly interested in a subject (and current circumstances have given me a special interest in this) he may overemphasize the importance of his "pet"; so read this with caution -- but read it!

Few students of church history deny the devastating effect of changes in church government. All know that the acceptance of diocesan elders -- oversight on a scale larger than that of a single local church -- marked the beginning of ecclesiastical hierarchy and its attendant curses. But our own brethren, who support multi-church projects, deny that such super-elders are being made by their arrangements. They stillcall the overseers of current church-hood projects "elders", and these men still serve as overseers of a single church, so they can not see a violation of principle.

But a team of horses can not be worked with a single harness. The size or scope of oversight, the scope of the organizational structure, must equal the size of scope of the overseen. When two or more churches are linked together in any project (act collectively) the elders who direct the project must act as double or multiple harness with respect to that project. Calling them "local elders", as indeed they may be in one capacity, does not alter what they are doing in their role as overseers of the larger working unit. Nor have we changed what they are doing by giving them this position "voluntarily."

So we have changed God's plan for government or polity. We have made diocesan elders -- rudimentary, it is true, but still diocesan elders. And when we assert our right to alter God's plan of oversight -- from strictly local (the flock among you, 1 Pet. 5:2) to something larger (some collective project of two or more churches, no scripture) we establish the clime for asserting our right to make other doctrinal changes as well.

And those changes will be made, if not in this generation, in the next. Our own history, and that of many others, clearly testify to this.

The outward "form" of the new idea may not be accepted for some time -- and the unashamed acknowledgement and new name for the change will come last of all (A look at any handbook of denominations will show that much full-fledged denominational machinery still wears the name of former practices.) But our children's children will have lost our reluctance to call a missionary society a "missionary society." They won't even know why their parents objected to the terms.

All of which suggests to me that apostasy starts with the well-intentioned doing of something for which we have no authority. When our action is recognized for what it is, and is called to our attention, then pride and sectarian attitudes prevent our reversing the action; and precedent is established for more changes.

Brethren do not "go to do" wrongly; they simply do not see proper applications of principle to actual cases. But WHAT THEY DO is there, to be denied or warned against; and to divide.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.V No.II Pg.5

April 1968

The Need For Patience

Robert F. Turner

Jesus told His disciples, "In your patience possess ye your souls." Is there something here for me? (Lu. 21:19)

To "possess" here means to "gain" or to "win"; and refers to the preservation or saving of the soul. In the immediate context it may have reference to escaping alive out of the destruction of Jerusalem, for that was under direct consideration. But careful study of the word "patience" will convince us that this is essential to the building of character and eventual salvation of the soul in eternity.

"Patience" gives many the idea of repose; calmly, even phlegmatically waiting for the traffic light to turn green. But this is not its real meaning. Coming from a word meaning "to abide under" it more nearly corresponds to "steadfastness" or "endurance"; or our coined word "stickability." In the larger sense, we can save our souls only by being faithful to the death. (Rev. 2:10)

Patience is a virtue, added to our character as we grow spiritually. (2 Pet. 1:5-11) It must be developed, built up and strengthened; and this requires exercise. Our physical muscles will not develop properly unless pitted against opposition. We improve flabby muscles by lifting weights, knowing that as we overcome an opposing force we prepare to meet greater future obstacles. Patience needs much the same sort of exercise.

"Consider it a joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials; knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance.

And let endurance have its perfect result, that you may be perfect (mature) and complete, lacking in nothing." (Jas. 1:2-4, NAS) These verses refer not to the temptations that are due to man's own lust but to external trials that discourage, dismay and buffet us. And they affect not a fixed, unchanging truss, that bears a weight or is broken under it, with character unaltered; but these trials affect a living, pulsing, vital faith; that is made stronger, more mature in nature and character, as its sinews flex to meet the challenges of life.

Patience is not the brute strength to "take" punishment, nor a "thick skin" that may indicate only an insensitive nature. "For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye take it patiently? But if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God." (1 Pet. 2:20)

When our sense of justice is outraged; when we are reviled, and our instinct leaps to fight a carnal battle, then patience is taxed. Remember, "hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that we should follow his steps." (1 Pet. 2:21-25)

By "patient continuance in well doing" we shall find eternal life. We must "hear the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience." It is with patience we must "run -- the race that is set before us." (Rom. 2:7; Lu. 8:15; Heb. 12:1)

How challenging the words, "IN YOUR PATIENCE POSSESS YE YOUR SOULS."