Jump to content

Plain Talk


RETIREDFAN1

Recommended Posts

Vol.V No.VIII Pg.8
October 1968

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

The song-leader wore the long hair and dress of this hippy generation, and when he announced The Old Rugged Cross he commented, You know Jesus had a thing about the cross.

That turns my stomach, just to tell it; so I can understand why it caused one family to leave a liberal church in the California bay area and cast their lot with a more conservative group. If one must accept That cat Jesus and God, a Living Doll in order to keep in step with the times, then Stop the World, I want to get off.

When putting the gospel in the language of the man-on-the-street — means gross sacrilege, the purpose is defeated. To what end is a gospel that does not lift the hearer to faith in Almighty God and respect for things holy? It is one thing to feel a close, intimate, yet respectful relationship with the Father in Heaven (Matt. 6:6); and quite another to encourage a familiarity that breeds contempt. Deity is not humanity — not even some Super-man. When man ceases to look up to God, humbled in His awe-inspiring presence, man ceases to believe in the true, real God of Heaven. A hippy church, is not of Christ.

On the credit side of our observations, we commend the Southside church, Springfield, Mo., for supporting all day preaching. (Dinner was neither on the ground nor a church banquet but at a public cafeteria at individual expense.)

Twice in previous years I have had part in Intensive Studies here, as four or five preachers were asked to present detailed studies on Authority, Holy Spirit, The Church, etc., in morning, afternoon and night sessions that continued for four or five days. Bro. Harry Pickup, Jr. was largely responsible for these Bible-enriched periods. But this year, on Saturday, Oct. 12, eight preachers presented as many sermons in one day. Four spoke thirty minutes each, in the morning; and four in the afternoon. That night I continued my part of a gospel meeting which had been in progress for the week.

Now for the credit!! The part that really did my heart good was the support given such an effort by the local church members in attendance. Business, golf, and trips were put aside, by men and women, and the day wholly given to spiritual matters.

And Not An Ounce Of Cheap Ballyhoo!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.V No.IX Pg.1
November 1968

Carnal Weapons

Robert F. Turner

In a fit of anger, being highly provoked, Joe lashed out with his fist. The blow had scarcely fallen when Joe regained control of himself, was shocked that he had so reacted, and apologized for his rashness. Considering the public nature of the deed, Joe publicly acknowledged his sin at the first opportunity, and asked both man and God for forgiveness. He now endeavors to live a quiet, godly life, "forgetting those things which are behind" (PHI.3:13).

But Joe had struck with his fist, and that is a "carnal weapon" — so Bill spreads the news. The Bible says, "the weapons of our warfare are not carnal" (2CO.10:4). and Bill can quote it word for word. He "uses" the incident time after time to discredit Joe. He "uses" it to cast reflections upon the church of which Joe is a member. He "uses" it in place of scriptural authority for his own faith and practice. "Just look what Joe did!"

And it never occurs to Bill that the incident has become his carnal weapon. He is blind to the fact that he wields, day after day, deliberately and maliciously, a weapon every bit as carnal as the one Joe used in an unguarded moment. If Joe was in error — and he certainly was — Bill is in error, and compounds the error day by day.

Carnal weapons are not limited to guns and clubs. In fact, the "war after the flesh" which provoked Paul's statement in 2CO.10: was one waged by his spiritual enemies; the false teachers who made light of Paul's bodily presence and questioned his authority (vs. 7-18)

It is sectarian and carnal to ridicule, quarantine, or by other like methods seek to overcome those who differ with us religiously. "Party" battles may be fought with prejudice-producing labels, but one does not "fight the good fight of faith" with such weapons. And this applies as much to conservative brethren as to the more liberal. Will we never learn?

One error can not justify another. I am not a big man physically or spiritually, because I call — or even prove — another to be small.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.V No.IX Pg.2
November 1968

Monument To Conviction

Robert F. Turner

With this issue (p.6) we begin publication of a historic document written in 1808, by Thomas Campbell. It is taken from Memoirs of Thomas Campbell by Alexander Campbell, 1861.

Newly arrived in this country in 1807, Thomas Campbell presented his credentials and was assigned to duty by the North American Synod of the Seceder (Scotch) Presbyterian Church. Deep faith, and respect for the Divine will, possessed this quiet man; and soon he found his honest convictions concerning the teaching of the word of God, at variance with the creedalism of his church. The protectors of orthodoxy brought charges against him, and on Feb. 11, 08, he was suspended from the ministry by the Chartiers Presbytery.

May 20, 1808, he appealed his case before The Associate Synod of north America, met in Philadelphia, and presented the paper quoted here. His appeal was only partially successful as he was censured for his answers to certain questions. In September, 1808, he denounced the authority of the Presbytery, the Synod, and all their courts (Search for Ancient Order, by Earl West; Vol. 1, p. 46) and began his work for the Lord, free from ecclesiastical domination.

Thomas Campbells Appeal and his more lengthy Declaration and Address (Sept. 7, 09) have been called Magna Charta's of the restoration movement; but we would not give either the so-called movement nor any of its papers such a status. We do not consider any movement the object of loyalty; nor Campbell, Stone, or others the Fathers or authors of any thing to which we owe allegiance. We do appreciate the fine, non-sectarian spirit manifested in Thomas Campbell appeal, and many of the principles here stated.

But perhaps the greatest benefit to be derived from this study— for those who WILL see — is the parallel between Campbells fight against the party in his day, and the same so of battle that must be fought by who would stand honestly upon their convictions today, and always.

Ironically, many praise the pioneer preachers and their great work without a discerning thought for the dedication to principle it represents. There seems to be little awareness of the fact that Anti quarantine, and the acceptance of Church of Christ doctrine — regardless of pattern Bible authority — is the very attitude that drove Thomas Campbell to protest, declare, and appeal. HOW GREAT THE INJUSTICE — indeed!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.V No.IX Pg.3
November 1968

You Aint Got Me Yet!

Robert F. Turner

Many years ago, — it seems like a former dispensation by todays standards; a very young preacher baptized twenty — one people in the cold, clear waters of a Kentucky creek. As he climbed the narrow trail out of the hollow — wet, tired, but Oh, so happy — a local rowdy fell in step with the boy and boasted, well, Preacher, you aint got me yet!

As I remember it — and this gets better every time I tell it — I said, Mr. ____, what makes you think that I want you? I dont want you — it is the Lord that wants you — although I find it difficult to understand why. But He wants you, and died to save you. You just turn your face up to heaven and tell the Lord —Lord, you aint got me yet! !

Whatever I said (it was something like that) the heckler grew silent, and soon we were parted. But the memory lingers, and has become an illustration in many sermons.

The invitation to salvation from sin is not a church invitation; it is the invitation of the Lord. The Spirit and the Bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. (Rev. 22:17) But it is Come — to the Lord. Christ invites — Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. (Mat. 11:28) He alone is the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him. (Heb. 5:9)

The church does not save, it is the saved. People being people, some will compass sea and land to make one proselyte — to swell the church roll, for prestige, higher collections, or, knowing no better, out of loyalty to the party. At the worst, this may make the convert twofold more the child of hell than yourselves (Matt. 23:15) and at the best, to be charitable, it can do no more than make another party member. It can never make a true Christian, for this calls for freewill acceptance of the cost of discipleship, and full dedication to Jesus Christ.

In Antioch preachers preached the Lord Jesus. A great number believed, and turned unto the Lord. Barnabas exhorted them to cleave unto the Lord. And others were added unto the Lord. (Acts 11:20 -24) These people were the church in Antioch, and I certainly have no objection to so speak of them. (Vs. 26) But they were the church of Christ (belonging to the Lord) because it was the Lord who bought them, and called them. They came to the Lord in the primary sense and to other brethren only in a secondary sense. (2 Tim. 1:8 -12) We commit ourselves unto the care and keeping of the Lord.

I believe much of our preaching fails for want of proper emphasis. Men need Christ, and Christ invites!! When men truly come to Christ, they become a part of His church.

And what happened to the rowdy who said, You aint got me yet? Well, ten or twelve years later I was passing through Kentucky, and stopped for worship in a certain country community. Can you guess who was leading the singing? Thats right! The Lord finally got him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.V No.IX Pg.4
November 1968

On "Church" Loyalty

Robert F. Turner

We have given considerable space of late to articles emphasizing the individual's obligation to Christ and warning about "party" or "church" loyalty that makes Christ second fiddle. This continues to be a current problem and warrants further attention.

But there is no solace here for those who would set the church aside as being of no importance. "Partyism" increases the need for more accurate definition of "church" and a better understanding of the obligations imposed by our association with other saints in the local church. One can not be a faithful follower of Christ, and ignore what the NT says about Christ's church.

Christ is "head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all" (EPH.1:22-23). God is glorified "in the church by Christ Jesus, throughout all ages world without end. Amen!" (EPH.3:21) "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;" (EPH.5:25) "the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood" (ACT.20:28). These verses treat of the church in its universal sense — all saints, world-wide — that great "brotherhood" which we are to love and respect (1PE.2:17).

I preached a sermon in Louisville, on Congregational Independence, and a Christian Church visitor commented, "Don't go too far with that, so that churches will have nothing to do with one another". I acknowledged the appropriateness of "love" and "fellowship" — and the possibility of a "separateness" that could endanger such — but told him true "brotherhood" does not mean nor necessitate organic ties among churches. There is even a form of "cooperation" among brethren that does not involve local church action (see GAL.6:6; HEB.13:1-3; ROM.12:15).

Loyalty, first and always, to the Lord, does not negate the obligations of membership in a local church. When brethren function collectively (and even those who ridicule local church "membership" seem to agree they are authorized to so function) or "member of the team" the need to do his part (1CO.16:1-2; 1CO.5:4-5, 14:27-33). Here, loyalty to one-another, and to the common goal achieved in collective action, is within the framework of loyalty to Christ, and not a supplanting of it.

The Corinthians purposed (willed) a year in advance, to supply a gift for the needy saints in Jerusalem (2CO.8:10-11, 9:2-4). Each saint was thereby obligated "as God hath prospered him" (1CO.16:1-2). In the same way, when a church today plans and approves a program of work for the furtherance of the gospel etc., each member of that church accepts an obligation in "team-work" that is wholly in keeping with loyalty to the Lord each saint serves (We must here assume, of course, that the "work" is in keeping with the Lord's will and direction.). One can not be a faithful Christian and, having opportunity, ignore fellow-Christians — another way of saying, "the church" (HEB.10:24-25).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.V No.IX Pg.5
November 1968

The Skeptic's Question

Robert F. Turner

A preacher told me of a question he had been asked — one somewhat on the "zany" side, but asked in apparent sincerity — and how he spent many hours trying to find a direct and scriptural reply. When he finally went to the querist with the answer, the material was brushed aside with little or no notice, and another question was asked.

About par for the course, I would say. A fool can ask more questions in an hour than a wise man can answer in a day. One is under no obligation to devote time and attention to a querist who will not meet the responsibilities of his position. If he has no position — simply seeks information — let him maintain the role of an appreciative disciple. But the man who can not teach, and will not learn, is not worth the salt it would take to "cure" him (PRO.23:9, 29:9).

Paul said, "Foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes" (2TI.2:23). Of "unlearned" Vincent's Word Studies says, "undisciplined — questions of an untrained mind, carried away with novelties; questions which do not proceed from any trained habit of thinking."

Many of the questions asked by skeptics or unbelievers are unworthy of consideration, being asked solely to discredit or "stump" the believer, and have no constructive purpose. Does the querist honestly seek the answer? If asked to reveal weakness on the part of the believer, to what end? Is the querist genuinely interested in the ultimate well-being of the person questioned? What has he to offer of a constructive or positive nature? Is there reason to believe (from past "fruits") that the querist would accept the consequence of, and be motivated by the answer to his question, correctly given? It is right to consider such questions before attempting a serious answer.

We should realize, and freely acknowledge, that many questions about God, and the things of God find answer only in the realm of faith, God has revealed, by His Spirit, things which "the wisdom of this world" can not encompass (Read carefully 1CO.2:1-13). The very nature of God makes revelation a necessity — to think that deity could be subject to man is to demote God go the level of his creatures. Questions about such matters can, therefore, be answered only with a "thus saith the Lord".

Understandably, the unbeliever is not willing to accept such answers — but this only proves that the question is out of order. The existence of God can be seen in "things made" (ROM.1:20); The nature and identity of God are seen in His manifestations of Himself (EXO.3:1-f, etc.); but in NT in Jesus Christ, JOH.14:7-10; and "signs, wonders, divers miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost" confirm the divine source of the words spoken by chosen messengers (HEB.2:3-4). Until these things are accepted by the skeptic, there is no reason to deal seriously with questions about the content of the revelation.

And we have a right to expect some answers from the unbeliever. Let him "puzzle" awhile about the beginning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.V No.IX Pg.6
November 1968

Thomas Campbells Appeal

Robert F. Turner

Honored Brethren:

Before you come to a final issue in the present business, let me entreat you to pause a moment, and seriously to consider the following things: to refuse any one his just privilege, is it not to oppress and injure? In proportion to the magnitude and importance of the privilege withheld, is not the injustice done in withholding it to be estimated? If so, how great the injustice, how highly aggravated the injury will appear, to thrust out from communion a Christian brother, a fellow-minister, for saying and doing none other things than those which our Divine Lord and his holy apostles have taught and enjoined to be spoken and done by his ministering servants, and to be received and observed by all his people. Or have I, in any instance, proposed to say or to do otherwise? If I have, I shall be heartily thankful to any brother that shall point it out, and upon his so doing, shall as heartily and thankfully relinquish it.

Let none think that, by so saying, I entertain the vain presumption of being infallible. So far am I from this, that I dare not venture to trust my own understanding so far as to take upon me to teach anything as a matter of faith or duty but what is already expressly taught and enjoined by Divine authority; and I hope it is no presumption to believe that in saying and doing the very same things that are said and done before our eyes on the sacred page, is infallibly right, as well as all-sufficient for the edification of the Church, whose duty and perfection it is to be in all things conformed to the original standard. It is, therefore, because I have no confidence, either in my own infallibility or in that of others, that I absolutely refuse, as inadmissible and schismatic, the introduction of human opinions and human inventions into the faith and worship of the Church.

Is it, therefore, because I plead the cause of the Scriptural and apostolic worship of the Church, in opposition to the various errors and schisms which have so awfully corrupted and divided it, that the brethren of the Union should feel it difficult to admit me as their fellow-laborer in the blessed work? I sincerely rejoice with them in what they have done in that way; but still, all is not yet done; and surely they can have no just objection to go farther.

Translated into Plain Talk:

Wait, brethren! Do not beat me for following the Lord. Let us help one-another to be faithful to him. Let us accept as the standard of the faith, not human opinions and inventions, but the expressly revealed Word of God. This alone is infallibly right, and all-sufficient.

As explained on page 2, this is the first installment of our reprint of Thomas Campbells appeal to a board of his fellow-presbyters, who would censure him for teaching and practice contrary to the usages of the Presbyterian church of his day. We urge you to read the whole reprint carefully. The fight between honest convictions and the sectarian spirit continues today, as in 1808.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.V No.IX Pg.7
November 1968

Queries And Answers

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

We have brethren who feel their women must wear a head covering in assembly; that they must not ask questions in Bible class, even while showing a humble submissive spirit; that one container only, is scriptural for the Lord's Supper; etc. These brethren say that if we "let down" for one such matter, we open the gate to all "innovations"; i.e. they think the use of multiple containers is a disregard for Bible authority, that will eventually lead to disrespect for divine will in other matters. Please comment on the disregard for Bible authority in such little matters.

Reply:

There are no little matters in which God's authority may be disregarded. If God's word teaches we must use one container, to disregard this is presumptuous sin -- a serious thing indeed. To judge (selecting portions of) God's law, is to elevate the subject of law above the giver (JAM.4:10-12; NUM.15:30-36).

I do not teach women that God commands them to wear hats, that God imposes total silence upon them because I do not believe the scriptures teach this (see Vol. 1, No. 6, "Women Keep Silence"). I have repeatedly restudied these and like matters, when seemingly sincere brethren "pressed" them, because I am concerned lest I adopt an attitude toward God's word, or toward God's people, that is "highhanded" or presumptuous.

We act in "good conscience toward God" by honestly facing a subject, determining as best we can what God says about it, and act accordingly. I try to do this, and expect brethren (whom I may regard as being in error) to do likewise. Many of the differences that exist among brethren will allow for individual treatment (one woman will wear a hat, for conscience sake; another will not) and there is no need for hard feelings or division (Read ROM.14: carefully, for a lesson on respect for the conscience of another.). And even when differences exist in collective activities, so that all participants are involved in the responsibility, and all conscientious objectors must abstain; the willingness to openly study the matter must remain, on the part of both "sides".

But too often, even when differences are discussed, one "side" gives no honest attention to what the other is saying — makes no effort to understand why they have come to such conclusions. Many arguments (?) on the subjects mentioned are the result of prejudices and customs of long standing. An honest effort to understand, even this, will promote better feelings and teaching opportunity. If "foolish questions" must be ignored, do so out of respect for peace, (2TI.2:23) having compassion and long - suffering.

It is too much to expect that all people, out of differing backgrounds, educations, current environments, will reach the same conclusions about everything. But it is not too much to expect them to try, and this can only be done when all have a deep respect for Divine authority. If "unity" efforts must fail, let them fail here where Almighty God draws the line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.V No.IX Pg.8
November 1968

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

AS it became obvious that the witness was stretching the truth, the judge warned. Do you realize what the penalty will I be if you keep lying like this?

Moved by shame, the man on the stand dropped his head. I reckon Ill go to hell, he said.

Yes, certainly that, said the Judge. But what else?

The witness raised his head, and with a wondering look asked, Aint that enough??

Im in Kentucky again, for meetings in Louisville and Scottsville. The homey philosophies of my native state are music to my ears, and I must share a few with you. The dean of early—day journalist, in this section, called himself Josh Billings.

Josh Billings Square Man

The square man mezzures the same each way and haint got any winny edge nor cheap lumber in him. He is free from knots and sap, and wont warp. He is klear stuff, and I dont care what you work him up into, he wont swell and he wont shrink.

He is amongst men what good kiln-dried boards are among carpenters; he wont season crack. It doesnt make any difference which side ov him yu come up to, he is the same bigness each way. and the only way to get at him ennyhow iz to face him. He knows he is square and he never spends any time trying to prove it.

Josh Billings On Hens

The best time tew sett a hen iz when the hen iz ready.... I kant tell eqqsactly how to pick out a good hen, but as a general thing the long-eared ones, I know, are the least apt to skretch up the garden.

Needless to say, the long-eared kind of hens are hard to find. In the same vein, a farmer-preacher informed me that he had concluded that liberal brethren who really understood sound scriptural reasons for congregational independence, were the easiest ones to turn from the error of institutionalism. When pressed for hard evidence that this was so, he admitted he had not yet found such a person, but felt the theory was sound. Well, I agree.

Like setting a hen, the best time to teach a man iz when he iz ready.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.V No.X Pg.1
December 1968

Grow Up, Kids!

Robert F. Turner

Immaturity is one of the five deadly factors which the presiding judge of a California Domestic Relations Court has listed as most likely to destroy teenage marriages. The writer of a Readers Digest article (Nov. 68) which quotes the judge, defines immaturity as self centeredness, inability to compromise, to rise above hurt feelings, to postpone immediate pleasures in favor of future benefits, or to do unpleasant chores when they need to be done, etc.

Immaturity ranks high as a deadly actor in spiritual divorce too, as experience clearly shows. The spats of brethren are often practically identical with those of a bunch of kids — calling names at one another over the back yard fence. And when the mud is exhausted they run home to dad — the devil. (Jn. 8:44)

Re-read the characteristics of immaturity. all closely related to self - centeredness: inability to compromise. Raise an eyebrow? Well simmer down child, and let it be said that marriages do not work well on the compromise of principle either. But all together work demands the ability to give in to one-another — submitting Paul calls it. (Eph. 5:21) If you havent learned that, you will not remain married to Christ for long.

Have your feelings been hurt? They have if you have feelings — and dont expect sympathy from a preacher. But you are self-centered indeed if you think others are not having to control the feeling you have hurt. They may even now be biting their tongue to keep from telling you off about your childishness. (Ouch!)

So you'll just quit— just like a kid. It is not uncommon to hear of brethren Ieaving a sound church and supporting by presence and means a church they acknowledge to be in error, because so-and-so is a hypocrite. Somehow it never dawns on them that their own action is hypocritical.

Marriage, to Christ or to one-another — in the home or in the church, is a sixty-sixty proposition. Learn— to live in that over-lap is the key to success as a Christian — and that demands maturity. (Eph. 4:12-16)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.V No.X Pg.2
December 1968

Does It Really Say That?

Robert F. Turner

There are lots or tall tales about ignorant and absurd use of scriptures and their sometimes humorous outcome. Like the fellow that thought Job was a very smart baby, because he could talk — he cursed — the day he was born. Its a good joke; but have you thought about the problem one would have explaining the real meaning of the passage to a man who was ignorant enough to make the mistake in the first place? Well, it aint easy.

Grammatically, curse is transitive in the scripture, having an object. He cursed the day — not cursed, on the day he was born. But I can imagine the glassy stare I would get from the man in the first paragraph, as I explained the difference in a transitive and intransitive verb.

Then there are more serious abuses of words. For years I have heard the atonement explained as at-one-ment It sounds good, and we are made at-one with God in the process. But the word translated atonement means reconciliation (See R.V.) and at-one-ment is, as Vine puts it, entirely fanciful.

In similar vein, godliness is often explained as God-like-ness. It is an easy natural sort of comment; but godliness is, in reality, an attitude toward God. Translated from a combine of terms meaning well plus devout, it denotes that piety which, characterized by a Godward attitude, does that which is well-pleasing to Him. (Vine)

Then, there is the innocent but incorrect use of a word according to English idiom, but not in keeping with the more formal English of the text. I frequently hear Jn. 3:l6 explained, whosoever believeth in him should (ought) not perish — but will unless he is baptized, etc. Nice try, and the conclusion is correct, but it doesnt come from this passage.

In Jn. 3:16 should is part of the translation of the tense of the verb, apollumi, to destroy, kill, bring to nought. It does not refer to moral obligation, a meaning it may have in English, especially when stressed. We have words in the Greek meaning, it needs, or should be — dei: Matt. 18:33; Acts 27:21. In 1 Cor. 9:10 opheilo means to owe and is rendered ought to (RV) or should (KJ). but no such words are found in Jn. 3:l6, and we are forcing the passage to so use it. Better to emphasize all that is embraced in believeth.

Of course this sort of study could just ruin that favorite passage whar dey loafs and fishes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.V No.X Pg.3
December 1968

Something Is Haywire

Robert F. Turner

A fellow turns red in the face, his eyes dilate, his fists are clinched, and his voice rises to a shout as he avows, A Christian does not get angry!!

A man reasons, disputes. and finally hotly contends that it is wrong to argue.

A lady whispers a warning to the newcomer, of a neighbor who is a whisperer.

A fellow violently advocates the non-violence of Christianity.

And Peace may be the text of the man who makes war, In fact ,a conqueror is always a great lover of peace. He prefers to have his own way unopposed. There have always been peace- talking war- making preachers Thus saith the Lord concerning the prophets that make my people err, that bite with their teeth, and cry. Peace: and he that putteth not into their mouths, they even prepare war against him. (Micah 3: 5) That sounds like some folk I have known.

A tear-laden lament for unity may be heard from brethren who have pressed their scripturally unsupported schemes and doctrines to the division of brethren. They ask for unity but will not give up the things that caused division.

The preachers text may he the slogan. We speak where the Bible speaks and are silent where the Bible is silent; we call Bible things by Bible names and do Bible things in Bible ways! yet his sermon may end with pleas for things unmentioned in the Bible, described in terms from a theology book, and supported by schemes unknown to The Book.

Yes, something is haywire when a fellows talk and walk are that contrary. Admittedly. it is easier to talk a good fight than it is to actually walk in the Spirit (Gal. 5: 25) but we ought to he found trying to live up to our profession as a Christian. When our walk and talk are opposite, one of two things must be so. We must he (1 ) ignorant of the difference in our walk and talk, or (2) honesty is not all that it should be.

It is hard to think people can he that blind (ignorant), yet we hate to think they are dishonest. Of course, it is easier to see the other fellows inconsistency than it is my own. And it never has been easy to be completely honest.

Beginning with this issue, we plan to publish each month an article or two from the pen of our co-worker. bro. Joe Fitch. The above is his first in this series.

Bro. Fitch preaches for the Oaks- West church of Christ, Burnet, on a full-time basis. He is fully supported by the Burnet church, doing the work I tried to do before entering into my present full-time schedule of gospel meetings.

He is a capable preacher of the word of God, and is well-liked by the brethren in Burnet. If you are up our way, visit and worship with us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.V No.X Pg.4
December 1968

What

Robert F. Turner

Church Divides?

 

On page 375, of some church history (I failed to jot down the book) I read While many of the congregations divided., the church did not divide. (The book is unimportant, as this is an erroneous conception of church that is repeated every day by conservative and liberal brethren.) We persist in making the church some kind of corporate body of churches, functional or otherwise. which can remain united (?) or divide.

This is a purely denominational concept, without Bible precedent; and encourages further errors, such as churchhood organization and work.

Re-read the quotation in the first paragraph. and ask yourself, Which or what church did not divide? The universal body of Christ — the church which is his bride, and for which He died, is made up of all saints, it is a brother-hood, not a church-hood; i.e., the units or parts of this one body are individuals, not congregations. (1 Cor. 12:12-f. Jn .15:1-6) If one person leaves the truth, denies the faith, he separates himself from the faithful, and in this sense the church divided.

If one is thinking of the one universal church splitting into two or more parts, each equally acceptable before God as a church, I can only say this is completely contrary to Bible teaching concerning the ONE CHURCH. As illustrated by the human body, 1 Cor. 12:20, Now are they many members (individuals, rft) yet but one body. Great segments of members may cease to walk in the light, but the so-called mystical body of the Lord remains ONE— consisting of all those who faithfully follow the Master, whether great or few in number. In what building they worship, or with whom they sever or retain social ties, has nothing to do (per se) with their being His church.

We have often said (I plead guilty) the church divided over missionary societies, and instrumental music, to form the Church of Christ and the Christian church, Such statements are poorly framed. There have been times when great issues arose among brethren, and wholesale numbers left the truth, enamored with the ways of the world. Congregations divided — what was once a single team, with members agreed to work and worship as one; became two or more teams, each now an independent group. But there existed no churchhood amalgamation in the first place, with divine right, hence there could be no church (in this larger sense) division.

A Church of Christ denomination and a Christian Church denomination may result from some sort of party division; but the church that belongs to Jesus Christ has never, and will never come into existence in that way.

The non-denominational concept of the Lords church is not an easy thing to maintain. Even with a clear understanding of the matter, one lives in an environment that constantly threatens this pure truth. Add to this the fact that thousands of folk neither understand, nor are seriously concerned, and it is little wonder we have divisions. My hope is in the Lord, not in our party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.V No.X Pg.5
December 1968

Anything Goes---Where?

Robert F. Turner

In a college speech class, working on oral interpretations, a meek mousy student fumbled through a rather robust passage, killing the sense of the lines. The instructor blew her top. Jumping up from her seat, she climbed atop her desk, threw her arms wide, and shouted at the top of her voice. She scared the wits out of all of us, but I suppose she made her point — no inhibitions!!

Turn loose, let go, open up!! That was the teacher's favorite theme; and perhaps it had its place in dramatic work. At that time I thought it somewhat radical, but I could see that a certain freedom from inhibitions was necessary in order to give free flow to feelings in the interpretation of dramatic parts. Such teaching may have encouraged my more casual approach in preaching — to get next to people, right where they live.

But this philosophy has gone far beyond interpretive reading. It became a part of child psychology, and fostered the idea that parents must not restrict their little darlings. Let them write on the walls, kick the visitors, break the windows. But do not scold or punish; do not say "No!" You may curtail their free expression of themselves, and develop those nasty old inhibitions. Tsk, Tsk!!

It has become the justification(?) for the "new morality" with "freedom" the pseudonym for obscenity. Will Durant, the Historian, wrote: "Our ancestors played this sexual impulse down, knowing that it was strong enough without encouragement; we have blown it up with a thousand forms of incitation, advertisement, emphasis and display, and have armed it with the doctrine that inhibition is dangerous. Whereas inhibition — the control of impulse — is the first principle of civilization.

Inhibition, "the control of impulse", is not only essential to civilization, it is an essential part of Christianity. Respect for authority external to man, calls for control of one's impulses, subject to the divine will. Such control, developed to the point that it practically becomes a part of one's character, is little different from a conscience that is properly adjusted (See 2PE.1:4-f).

"Reveling" (GAL. 5:21; 1PE. 4:3) is the removal of restraints, and is a work of the flesh. It is associated with and encouraged by wasteful, luxurious living (See LUK. 15:13). We have so often "translated" the word into "dancing" (and it will include that) that we may have lost sight of many other things covered by "reveling". Look up "revel" "riot" "delicately" "wanton" and other like words, in Vine's Expository Dictionary of NT Words — and then decide the importance of inhibitions in the Christian life.

There are, of course, unjustified restraints, urged in the name of religion. Fear of Hell may be developed out of proportion to "the peace that passeth understanding;" sex may be taken out of its God-approved place and made "dirty"; and such unwarranted "inhibitions" may adversely affect one's life. But the "anything goes" philosophy will damn our souls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.V No.X Pg.6
December 1968

Campbell's Offense

Robert F. Turner

We continue our quotation of Thomas Campbells Appeal to the Presbyterian Synod, 1808 (See Vol. 5, No. 9) Campbell had not wholly broken with denominational concepts at this time, but the just principles and appeal to Divine authority set forth in this paper could not long live in a sectarian clime.

******************************

Nor do I presume to dictate to them or to others as to how they should proceed for the glorious purpose of promoting the unity and purity of the Church; but only beg leave, for my own part, to walk upon such sure and peaceable ground, that I may have nothing to do with human controversy, about the right or wrong side of any opinion whatsoever, by simply acquiescing in what is written, as quite sufficient for every purpose of faith and duty: and thereby to influence as many as possible to depart from human controversy, to betake themselves to the Scriptures, and, in so doing, to the study and practice of faith, holiness, and love.

And all this without any intention on my part, to judge or despise my Christian brethren who may not see with my eyes in those things, which, to me, appear indispensably necessary to promote and secure the unity. peace, and purity of the Church.

Say, brethren, what is my offense, that I should be thrust out from the heritage of the Lord, or from serving him in that good work to which he has been graciously pleased to call me? For what error or immorality ought I to be rejected, except it be that I refuse to acknowledge as obligatory upon myself, or to impose upon others, anything as of Divine obligation, for which I can not produce a Thus saith the Lord? This, I am sure, I can do, while I keep by his own word; but not quite so sure when I substitute my own meaning or opinion, or that of others instead thereof. And if I should be somewhat timorous upon a subject of such infinitely nice and critical importance, you might well bear with my timidity, considering that awful denunciation (Deut. xviii: 20) The prophet which shall presume to speak a word in my name which I have not commanded him to speak, even that prophet shall die, compared with Prov. xxx:6: Add thou not to his words, lest he reprove thee. and thou be found a liar.

Plain Talk Translation:

I do not presume to dictate how you can best promote unity and purity of the church; but beg leave to trust in the completeness and sufficiency of the holy scriptures. I want no part in arguments over opinions or human judgements; nor would I judge or despise those who see things differently. Should I be rejected because I accept as binding only those things for which there is Bible authority: things taught, not by interpolation or opinion, but in Gods own words? This is the only sure course.

Is it not true that brethren today have been rejected, their right to preach denied, because they have insisted upon exercising the privileges Thomas Campbell sought? Church peace and unity are sacrificed to human institutions and purely social affairs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.V No.X Pg.7
December 1968

Queries And Answers

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

Please explain "the sign of the Son of man" MAT.24:30, "the day of visitation" 1PE.2:12, and "times of restitution" ACT. 3:21.

Reply:

I'll try to answer these questions if you will try to be a charitable reader. The destruction of Jerusalem is the theme of MAT.24: and I believe the "coming" of the Son of man refers to his coming in vengeance -- not to his personal return at the end of time. Some think the destruction of Jerusalem is under consideration throughout the chapter, but it seems to me the coming through vs. 34, is predictable, with exact "signs" by which saints are warned to flee to the mountains; and after vs. 34, the parables are given which teach there will be no warning — hence, refer to the final coming and judgement, from which none can flee.

On this basis of interpretation, the "sign of the Son of man" must be some clear indication of divine power that made the wicked Jews realize, albeit too late, the folly of their ways; and which unified and encouraged the "elect". I know of no clues by which to hazard a guess as to the particulars (see MAR.13:26; LUK.21:27).

The "day of visitation" is the time that puts to test our previous conduct. A like expression is used by the Lord (LUK.19:44) with reference to the destruction of Jerusalem. That was their "time of visitation". Note its use in ISA.10:3. In 1PE.2:12 it simply says that right will out, and there will come times when the good works of the Christians will have an effect upon those who observe them. This is similar to Christ's words, "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven". This is not limited to one particular day; it may come often.

I believe "the times of restitution" of ACT.3:21 refers to this Christian dispensation, when "whosoever will" may receive the blessings that were promised through Moses, and other prophets of old. The "remnant" of Israel may now be redeemed, and the Gentile may also be saved (see ISA.49:5-6-f.).

The wording "restitution" may seem strange to us, but if you will read the history of Israel, and then the promises of Messiah, this becomes what we know as the blessings of this Christian age (ISA.1:9, 9:1-7,11).

A few words about such passages in general. Often expressions that seem strange to us, are understood by use of a good concordance, and effort to keep the whole picture of context before our minds. If we select a part of a verse, or an isolated phrase, and then begin to speculate as to its meaning, there is no telling what we will conclude.

Comparative reading of the American Standard, or other standard versions may open new lights for us. Our own speech is filled with figurative and idiomatic expressions — so that of the Bible. Study, and pray.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.V No.X Pg.8
December 1968

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

After about eight months of preaching, every night and many, many days, someone suggested I go out to the barn and cuss awhile — just to level things out. Instead, a fellow — preacher (Dan Shipley) and I drove a pickup into the south Texas brush country, made camp, and hunted quail.

Birds were plentiful, but wild, wild. We bucked tassajilla, catclaw, prickly-pear and divers chaparral to flush them out and collect our limits of birds, scratches and ticks. And in sheer exuberance, when we found an old bottle, I asked Dan to toss it up so I could break it with my pistol. Dan tossed, and I missed

Early one morning while studying a coyote playground, ( they serenaded us early and late) we came upon huge cougar tracks. A shotgun butt would fit into the depression. either way; and with allowance for the spread in soft earth. that is some cat. Then we found another bottle which Dan tossed — and I missed.

On the second day out I was crawling through a tangle of cactus, half hung-up, when a number of fleeting, scurrying black objects began tearing up the brush around me, and I heard a familiar Humph! ! — the danger signal of javelina (wild pig). I untangled fast enough to pour two shots into a young boar. Then Dan helped me field-dress and skin it, and we hung the meat in the shade to be retrieved later. And we found another brown bottle — which I missed.

We didnt hunt deer, but I wanted to limber up my 7 Magnum, so spent some time walking an open meadow looking for jack rabbits. Hit two — both running — one at 70 yards, and one at 160. Would like to brag a little more about my shooting — except — I missed another bottle, three times straight.

All in all, what with the stink of javelina, cleaning two days limits of quail, no shaving, no bathing, sorry cooking, etc., — it was a wonderful, wonderful trip. No telephone, no problems with brethren, no schedules, no nothing but wide Marlboro country without the cough and cancer. I am resigned to the fact that a few (?) readers will see absolutely nothing in this to get excited about.

But maybe all will enjoy my point. Ready?? One may have a great time without hitting the bottle!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.V No.XI Pg.1
January 1969

Ready To Give Answer

Robert F. Turner

By the time you receive this issue another confrontation of differing brethren will have taken place — a meeting similar to that last January in Arlington, Tex. It is my understanding that bro. Frank Dunn asked bro. Stanley Lovett if he would invite twelve brethren who opposed current institutionalism, to meet face to face with twelve who favored it, and study the issues in the light of the word of God.

Bro. Lovett asked me, and he asked bro. Joe Fitch, and we accepted. I do not know all of the others with whom I am in agreement who will be there, but have been told that bros. James Adams, Robert Farrish, W.L. Wharton, and Elmer Moore are among the number. We are to meet, at our own expense, in the H.E.B. camp near Leakey, Tex. The same topics, and general rules as were used in Arlington, will prevail. This is not some sort of program or public campaign (the participants will be the only audience) and it warrants attention here only because it promises to be another example of the kind of frank facing-of- issues and genuine Bible searching we have long recommended to all who differ in their understanding of the Bible. Subjects for discussion will be:

(1) How to Establish Bible Authority; (2) Distinction Between Church and Individual Action; (3) How churches may Scripturally Cooperate; (4) What is the Work of the Church, and (5) How Fellowship May Be Attained and Maintained.

It is heart-breaking to think of divisions that have taken place all over the country because brethren would not consent to make careful Bible studies of these subjects in the past years. In fact, I pled with some of these opposing brethren who are to speak at Leakey, for some such study as this, to no avail. I do not know what has changed their minds, but I am thankful for it. I do not understand why they refused to study with me in years past — any more than I understand why some of my non-institutional brethren refuse now to engage in such studies.

This is debate in its finest form, giving opportunity and effort to accurately understand issues between us and to deliberately consider Gods word on these subjects.

Between us means the participants — for we represent no one else. Arlington and Leakey meetings can not settle anything for the brotherhood. This is no conference of delegates. Liberal brethren may try to use it for propaganda advantage, as they did the Arlington meeting; and conservative brethren may cavil, and show an equally sectarian concept of our party — but Gods work must continue.

I know that God wants His children to he ONE, and to this end has given them ONE Lord. ONE faith, etc. (Eph. 4) The way of unity, our only hope for unity, is finding that ONE faith, and abiding in it. This must be done on an individual basis — one by one we learn truth and accept it. THERE ARE NO PARTY DOCTRINES from a scriptural viewpoint; hence there can be no adjusting or compromise of positions to bring about Bible unity.

But I am not infallible, nor is my brother. When we differ it is due to differing attitudes toward the word of God, or failure to understand its teaching. This calls for discussion, under the most favorable circumstance for unbiased consideration. It could be done before an audience (Acts 28:23-f) or it could be done in a more private manner. (Acts 18:26) BUT IT MUST BE DONE! If we fail to make the Leakey meeting what it ought to be, may God help us to try again!!

Who thinks for me, acts for me; for words and deeds are but the results, the fruits of my heart. (Matt. 15: 18—20 12:34—35) Since I will be judged eternally by my words and my deeds (Matt. 12:36-f. Rom. 2:6-f) when I relinquish freedom of thought, I put my eternal destiny in anothers hands. Nor can I excuse myself by saying He is more capable — etc. God made me a free-agent — and I have refused a God-given responsibility. It is sinful to submit to any power but that of God — i.e., to allow any other to be first. I can keep God first in my heart only when I draw my own conclusions regarding His will. (Rom. 14: 4-5, 12; 1 Cor. 6:12)

We all learn from one another. The experienced, the trained student, the technical teacher are all needed. But my faith must not stand in the wisdom of men. (1 Cor. 2:1-5) Men may guide me, but the conclusions must be my own, believed and acted upon because I have concluded that God, not man, said so. THINK ON THESE THINGS!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.V No.XI Pg.3
January 1969

Ill Get Even!

Robert F. Turner

A few years ago, I listened while some preachers recounted their experiences with the brethren. Some had been cheated; some lied about. One had been run out of town. Others had been sadly abused in many ways. They told some pitiful stories.

Of course, a board has two sides, and one might become suspicious of a preacher who always (or never) has trouble with the brethren. The brethren might have an interesting story to tell also. In fact, there are one or two contrary preachers even I have trouble getting along with — as good natured as I am!

Unbiased history testifies that many good men have been mistreated. From the righteous prophets of old to the heroes of recent times, all have borne the scars of truths battles. No surprise; soldiers expect to be wounded. It is the wounds on their back —- inflicted by critical and worldly brethren — that hurt. They pierce to the heart.

I began to brood over my own experiences. The more I thought, the more determined I was to get even with the brethren for the way they treated me. I laid my plans, and I could hardly wait! There were some with whom I had a special score to settle. I watched every occasion. Now and then I would think my day had come and I would get even. No such luck! Foiled again! I never knew brethren could be so elusive.

The years have taught me patience. Few occasions have come to get even but I can wait. I surely will not forget. I must admit, however, it gets discouraging — waiting so long. But one of these days my chance will come; I will be ready and waiting.

I will treat them as they have treated me. I will even every score. Boy, will I enjoy it! Then I will lift up the hands which hang down (Heb. 12:12) and speak words of comfort and encouragement as they have done for me. I will provide for them as they have so long and so generously supported me. I will freely sacrifice of my time and energy for them as they have for me. I will be as helpful as they have been to me. Yes, I will even the score. Who says my revenge will not be sweet?

But I begin to wonder — yes, even doubt. Can I ever get even? There are so many people and deeds on the ledger — and the list is growing all the time.

Until my day comes, I will, as I have opportunity, do good to all men and especially to the household of faith (Gal. 6:10). I shall pray Above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in good health, even as thy soul prospereth. (3 Jn. 2).

I will watch my opportunities to get even, but if my chance doesnt come, my Lord will even the score for me. For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labor of love, which ye have showed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister. (Heb. 6:10). He will see that you get what is coming to you. For this assurance I am thankful. Joe Fitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.V No.XI Pg.4
January 1969

Church Punch Bowl

Robert F. Turner

In a certain community a group of neighbors got together for a purely social event, Someone went across town and borrowed a large punch bowl from which to serve a cooling pink lemonade. Later, when a daughter became a bride, the punch bowl was again borrowed, for the reception. A few more parties — with the borrow, take home problems — and some one hit upon the idea of chipping in for a community punch bowl, property of all.

The church had nothing to do with the matter, but since many of the social group were members of the same congregation some one suggested the punch bowl be left at the church building, accessible to any and all. An out-of-the-way storage spot in the basement was found, and for years the bowl was carried in and out, serving well its innocent place in the social affairs of the neighborhood.

No one knows who first called it the church punch bowl, but such a natural was bound to come. Of course many knew better, and repeated corrections were made, but the error persisted. Even church members, who had not been in on the original purchase, thought the bowl was part of the church property (as the chairs, song books, and communion service). Some approved the idea, others doubted the wisdom of such a course, and a few made a mental note of this proof of digression which they would hurl against the elders when the right moment arrived.

It is not hard for me to believe that the time could come when some would charge the elders with social drinking because of this church punch bowl in the basement. That would be no problem for those who can make a sleep in out of the Arlington Bible study of current issues. It is equally possible that, when the elders realized the misunderstandings that were arising, and requested the removal of the punch bowl from the church building, some would charge them with believing the building was holy or sacred.

Hind-sight tells us the bowl should never have been left in the church building in the first place. Foresight is not always so clear. Many who think they have such marvelous foresight today (they would never allow a punch bowl in the building) are actually using accumulated hindsight that comes from our current social-gospel problems. They may be actively engaged in a practice now, that twenty years from now will appear extremely dangerous.

The most obvious lessons from this church punch bowl illustration are (a) the importance of little things Obsta Principiis — resist the beginnings. The little foxes that spoil the vineyards. (S.of S. 2:l5) We should also learn (b) that announcing This is NOT a church affair does not greatly weaken the impact of association. Plan a social event in the business meeting, announce it from the pulpit or in the bulletin, have it on the church property. and spend twenty minutes telling the people it IS NOT a church affair. You will not get it across to some now — and your explanation will weaken with time. We are children; Father help us grow up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.V No.XI Pg.5
January 1969

Christianity Isnt? Fair!

Robert F. Turner

It isnt fair! the indignant lady protested; and as I paused to hear her story I had to agree. For several years now, the same women had faithfully prepared lessons and taught the childrens classes. Others, equally capable of the job, had accepted no responsibilities, made no effort to assist in this demanding effort; and when their aid was solicited they had dozens of ready-made excuses.

Somehow, it didnt register that the teachers also had headaches, were nervous, had household problems, week-end guests, working husbands and demanding children. It isnt fair!! that some take all of the time-consuming, often exasperating, thankless work, while others go scot-free. We could reasonably expect an equitable sharing of the load.

For that matter, it isnt fair that the same few do all or most of the visiting. It isnt fair that the same ones are continually called upon to furnish rides for the aged and infirm. It isnt fair that the same ones feed the visiting preacher, clean the church building, furnish the bulk of the contribution, put out the bulletin, care for the sick. But thirty-four years of preaching and working with congregations has taught me that a few usually do these jobs.

Christianity isnt a fair religion!! Does that shock you? Well, give it some thought before rejecting it.

Was it fair that the most godly, pure, compassionate, self-less man to walk the face of the earth was crucified upon Calvary? What was fair in the beheading of John, or the stoning of Stephen? If like circum- stances prevailed today, would you speak up loud and strong, even though it meant that you, from among the many saints, had to suffer death? Or would you argue that it isnt fair that one should die (especially this one) while others are unmolested?

Is it fair that Christians regularly meet for worship, while others have that day for fishing, hunting, or just resting? Christians have to support the work of the Lord, while others to spend that money on new golf clubs. Is that the way you feel about it? If so, I predict that you will soon buy a new set of clubs — at the Lords expense.

For Christianity IS UNFAIR by all worldly standards of fairness. One of its first rules is, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. (Matt. 16:24) Ye are not your own... you are bought with a price. (1 Cor. 6:19-20)

The teacher who continually gives, and gives, and gives does so because he, or she, has first given self to the Lord. If that teacher, or worker in any portion of the Lords vineyard begins to operate on a fair basis — doing only what everyone else does — usefulness to the Lord will cease.

If they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. (Heb. 11:13-16) Read all verses, study awhile, and then tell us if you think it is fair!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.V No.XI Pg.6
January 1969

Quest For Freedom

Robert F. Turner

As we continue our quotation of Thomas Campbells Appeal to the Presbyterian Synod (See last two issues); he asks WHY he should be rejected and refused the right to preach from their pulpits.

Is it for refusing a Scriptural profession of our faith and obedience, or even a printed exhibition of what may be judged immediately necessary for that purpose? Surely not; the former I hold absolutely-necessary, and to the latter I have no manner of objection, if justly executed. Is it for objecting to human standards? Had they been necessary, says Dr. Doddridge, the sacred oracles would have presented them, or, at least, have given directions for composing and enforcing them.

As to the expediency of such, I leave every man to his own judgement, while I claim the same privilege for myself. This, I presume, I may justly do about a matter on which, according to the learned doctor, the Scriptures are silent. But when the having or wanting the approbation or disapprobation of such is magnified into the unjust importance of being made a positive article of sin or duty, or a term of communion — in which cases I dare neither acquiesce nor be silent — allegiance to Christ and fidelity to his cause and people constrain me to protest against making sins and duties which his word has nowhere pointed out.

And if, in the mean time, my brethren should reject me, and cast out my name as evil for so doing, referring my case to the Divine tribunal, I would say: By what authority do ye these things, and who gave you this authority? As to human authority in matters of religion, I absolutely reject it — as that grievous yoke of antichristian bondage which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear.

************************

Thomas Campbell sought freedom from the bondage of party creeds, and freedom for objective study of the Scriptures and conscientious pursuit of the religion there revealed. There are many indications that he did not yet fully grasp the full importance and application of his silence of the Scriptures arguments, but his sincere desire to base his hope upon the all-sufficient and complete word of God can not be denied.

In the absence of divine will (expressed in the Scriptures) — matters truly expedient — he claimed the freedom to reject, what others accepted, on that same basis. And he strongly opposed either binding or loosing anything for which there was no divine authority.

We believe the scriptures are NOT silent, but speak clearly regarding congregational independence and music in the worship. When Gods word puts elders in every church (Acts 14:23) and limits their oversight to the local flock (1 Pet. 5:1-f) it is absurd to argue inter-church oversight as an expedient justified by silence. Since God authorizes sing (1Cor. 14:15; Heb. 2:l2 etc.) the absence of a thou shalt not play justifies nothing. Campbells spirit is needed now!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.V No.XI Pg.7
January 1969

Queries And Answers

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

Will you please comment on "this is that" of ACT.2:16.

Reply:

The obvious point, of course, is the contrast of Peter's truth, with the Jewish mocking. This (miraculous speaking, so that all understood in his native language) is not the result of alcohol-befuddled minds, but is the result of an out-pouring of the Holy Spirit, as promised by Joel.

But the extended quotation from JOE.2:28-32 and the use which Peter made of this language in his address, convinces me that there is something more than the single out-pouring of the Holy Spirit (per se) in this.

First, consider "that" which Joel spoke. (1) It is Jewish redemption or restoration prophecy, one among many scattered throughout the works of Old Testament prophets. It calls the time of vindication (enemy overthrown, and Israel triumphant) the "day of the Lord" and depicts this as a heaven-shaking event. (See JOE.2:10-11; ZEP.1:14f) (2) A "remnant" of Israel, (who will "call on the Lord") will be saved. (ISA.1:9, 4:2f, 10:20f) and (3) With the "remnant" the Gentiles shall also be saved. (ISA.49:5f) See AMO.9:8-12, which James clearly relates to salvation in Christ, to all nations. (ACT.15:13-18)

The "that" spoken by Joel was a prophecy of the coming of the Christian dispensation; and it was signaled by the out-pouring of the Spirit. (see ISA.32:14-15, 44:1-5 for other prophecies that make this same relation of Spirit to new dispensation.)

Peter connects all these points of Joel's prophecy to salvation in Jesus Christ. He says Christ is on David's Throne; the promise is to "all that are afar off" or "whosoever" will. I conclude, therefore, that Peter's "this" has a wider reference than to the single out-pouring is but the beginning of a dispensation in which "daughters" and "handmaiden" will also prophesy (See ACT.21:9) and the Spirit shall be poured upon Gentiles. (ACT.10:44f)

The out-pouring of the Holy Spirit signaled the beginning of the Christian dispensation, and "accompanied" the believers. (MAR.16:17) This does not mean that every believer would work miracles. But every believer was blessed by the fact that the Spirit of God was manifested among them. The confirming signs wrought by the Apostles and New Testament Prophets, are our proof as well as theirs. (JOH.20:29-31)

Although this goes somewhat afield from the original question, I suggest that "he that believeth" in JOH.7:38f has the same limited application as I have indicated above for MAR.16:17. These passages refer to the Apostles, (inspired men) from whom the truth would go forth (rivers of living water) to the whole world. All "believers" (the "church") would benefit by such blessings — great "power" would be in the church — although this does not mean that every member would have some miraculous measure of the Spirit. (1CO. 12:1f) The Christian age is the age of the Spirit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.V No.XI Pg.8
January 1969
Stuff About Things
Robert F. Turner

Whats in a name? Well, dont sell one short just because you do not understand whats in it. While in a meeting in Kentucky, we had visitors from Bear Wallow, Mud Lick, Dry Fork, Cyclone, Lamb, Free Will, Flipin, and many others. Each of these likely had some appropriateness in the time and circumstance of its beginning. (You Texans from Cut And Shoot may laugh at my home state, if you have the gall.)

According to Joe Creason (Courier — Journal) one old timer was really put out with the Highway Dept. when he saw a new sign: Litter Barrel, 1/4 Mile. Why that community has been called Kellytown ever since I can remember, he fumed.

A good honest name like Mud Lick (and I knew it in the Ante-Pavement days) faces up to facts. There is no effort to hide the truth, nor to glamorize the failing, to attract these Americana-mad tourists. If you like it, come and sit a spell; if not, move on to Dry Fork, or Eighty Eight.

Seems to me this sophisticated age has unduly complicated the name game. What became of Cloverine Salve? It is replaced by Suiphathiozol; or Chymar, containing Neomycin Palmitate, Hydrocortamate Hydrochloride with 10,000 units of Proteolytic activity. Thats good for a sore, maybe.

Oh well, I suppose accurate labeling demands such detail. If the plainness of Mud Lick, and the accuracy of Cyclopentanoper- hydrophenanthrene were applied to church-goers, we might come up with some names that really have something in them.

For example, No-interest-comes-to- please-his-wife Charlie, Do-it-my-way or Ill quit Robinson, and Gives-a- Dollar Dan. On the brighter side but short of the mark, would be See-my-new-hat Susy, Always-gone-a- visiting Joe, and Sermon-sleeper Sam.

Or we could take a second look at the name God has given His followers, and realize that it also has something in it. The disciples were called Christians. (Acts 11:26) Is this as meaningless as popular usage makes it, or does A-follower-of- Christ mean A follower of Christ?? (Read 1 Pet. 4: 12-16)

With half the honesty of Mud Lick settlers, we wouldnt call ourselves christians, and act like the devil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.V No.XII Pg.1
February 1969

Town-Fool Worship

Robert F. Turner

We have heard of a man who says he would attend church services Sunday morning, even if the town fool should preach. He thinks it disgraceful that some are "preacher-crazy" and attend or stay home, depending upon who occupies the pulpit. Before you commend the man, read the next line.

He is equally provoked when some one urges him to be present on Wednesday night for Bible Study, for he says the scriptures do not command the Wednesday night assembly.

Seems to me the poor fellow is wrong on both counts; i.e., he misses the point concerning assembling with the saints, Sunday or Wednesday. It is true, we should not be wed to the preacher; but it is equally true that we should not be wed to a certain "assembly". We must be wed to Christ (2CO.11:1-f). The "assembly" is not an end within itself — just "being there" or "doing five items" will accomplish little. One should not "go to church" because he wants to "go to church" but because he wants to study God's word, praise God in song, in prayer, and in every way in keeping with His will. He loves his brethren and is anxious to join with them in the worship and work of the Lord. He eagerly, joyfully, freely gives of his means — joining hands with his brethren — to further the Lord's work. The Lord's Supper, on the Lord's Day, is a memorial gratefully shared with all the saints. A person with such an attitude seeks more opportunities to continue what he truly wants to do. He does not measure out worship (?) grudgingly, watching the clock.

HEB.10:25 says, "not forsaking the assembling" — read it carefully. Not "the assembly" but the act of coming together. This passage does not urge all to be present at a certain convocation, but exhorts us to recognize the importance of assembling with the saints. This applies to Wednesday as well as to Sunday; whether "the day approaching" be the destruction of Jerusalem or Judgement Day. ACT.20:7 authorized the Lord's Supper upon the Lord's Day; no other day is so designated. But the "oncer" heeds something worse than the "town-fool preacher". He has fooled himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...