Jump to content

Plain Talk


RETIREDFAN1

Recommended Posts

Vol.VI No.III Pg.3
May 1969

The Greatest Tragedy

Robert F. Turner

Some tragedies surpass others. The death of an only son is a tragedy of tragedies, yet it is not the greatest tragedy. I remember sitting with parents whose son shipwrecked his faith and became an atheist. In tears his mother said, I could have buried him easier. I did not doubt it. I could have found more words of comfort at a grave than in such circumstances.

Look at the greater tragedy — the lost soul. There is nothing but a certain fearful looking for of judgement and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. (Heb. 10:27) It means to be banished from Gods presence (2 Thes. 1:7) to a demons hell. Mans most terrible experience describes the anguish. Not one pleasant thing is found there — not even a drop of water for a parched tongue. The degraded and outcasts, the heartless and oppressors, the arrogant and hypocrites are its inhabitants. And there is no escape — no end — no relief. Such thoughts stagger the imagination, but a lost man is NOT the greatest tragedy!

The greatest tragedy is to be lost and content. A man who knows he is lost and is disturbed over his prospects will not stay lost. Jesus died for him. Teach him the truth and such a man will obey. Angels and men will rejoice. It is far different with the lost man who is satisfied.

There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. (Prov.16:25)A man feels he is right — is satisfied with his religion — as he contentedly walks to his own destruction.

For they have healed the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace. peace: when there is no peace. (Jer. 8:11) It is healing like giving a diseased man some tranquilizers and telling him he is fine. He needs to know his condition so he can seek help.

Some brethren cant understand our concern for them, — after all, they are not worried. Come back we cry. but he echoes Judahs words, Wherein shall we return? (Mal. 3: 7) Preacher, what are you talking about? Return? We havent been anywhere. He is perfectly satisfied to he half-hearted though it nauseates the Lord. (Rev. 3:15—) View the greatest tragedy — lost and content.

Others know the truth, know their life is wicked, know the blessings of faithfulness and the wages of sin. What can you say? He knows your pleas before you say them; he has voiced them himself in times past. He tasted the good things and deliberately embraces the world. It is impossible to renew him to repentance (Heb. 6:l) — the greatest tragedy.

I reason with my religious neighbors; they are insulted. You think I am lost. No matter what I think, are you lost? Religious folk can be lost and feel safe (Mt. 7:21—). You may be an admirable person — even a zealous church worker, and yet be lost. Such commendable traits make the tragedy of your being lost the more lamentable. What a shame you should be content to be less than a Christian — that is the greatest tragedy. Joe Fitch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VI No.III Pg.4
May 1969

Worshipful Singing

Robert F. Turner

Two distinct types of "worshipful singing" prevail among "our" brethren and each has its staunch supporters. The matter is difficult to discuss because I have neither right nor desire to impose my judgement upon any congregation; and I know that this article may seem to do just that. I write reluctantly, and only because I believe I detect a degeneration in the quality or class of songs being sung when saints gather for worship. There seems to be an increase in use of the "hop, skip, jump" songs — once known as "convention songs" — with an attendant increase in secular spirit.

But what is worshipful singing? Advocates of the "hoppity-hop" songs say there must be "feeling" in the song — and they do not get the feeling unless the song has after-beat, syncopation, etc. Advocates of the more sedate (they call it "worshipful") songs also seek "feeling" — and find it only in a better class of music. I think both groups may be looking for the wrong kind of "feeling".

God-worship is God-directed. The "feeling" which is legitimate to man, in a God-worship situation, is outgoing — God- ward. Such inward satisfaction as is (and should be) derived from worship must not be confused with sensual pleasure felt in self-satisfying activities.

The "convention-song" advocates cite JOH.4:24 ("spirit and truth") and contend for "spirited" (rapidly moving) songs. The advocates of a more deliberate tempo cite JOH.4:24 as reason for more "spiritual" (aesthetic) singing. Neither use is inherent in JOH.4:24. Here worship is said to "center in the worshiper's own 'spirit' and spirit nature" (Lenski) rather than in external places or forms. Singing "with the spirit" and understanding, (1CO.14:15) refers to use of miraculous spiritual gifts, and the necessity for making all public teaching understandable to hearers.

The "form" of the song neither guarantees nor denies worshipful singing — except as the taste of the singer is repelled, to the point of being unable to concentrate upon divine matters. But I must not allow my taste in music to lead me to conclude that others are not worshiping, simply because they do not sing the type of songs I would choose. However, good taste should prevail in sound, color, and order of things having to do with public meetings, even though there may be those present who have little discrimination in such matters.

The crux of this whole matter is in our purpose — singing to worship God rather than to please ourselves. When either the aesthetic or rhythmic appetites of man dictate and motivate our singing, we cease to worship God. My plea for less "hoppity-hop: is on this basis: I feel the "convention spirit" (singing for personal pleasure and as an exercise of skill) is predominate in such singing.

Just how "hop skip while jump repeat others sing differently altogether" contributes to "teaching and admonishing" or in praising God, I have never been able to see. Surely we need not have hiccups to worship God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VI No.III Pg.5
May 1969

Ignoring Inspiration

Robert F. Turner

Preface to the Revised Standard Version (NT, 1946) says, "We cannot be content with the Versions of 1881 and 1901 for two main reasons. One is that these are mechanically exact, literal, word-for-word translations, which follow the order of the Greek words, so far as this is possible..". "Introduction" to the New English Bible follows suit: "The older translators, on the whole, considered that fidelity to the original demanded that they should reproduce, as far as possible, characteristic features of the language in which it was written...". This is bad???

Are we to understand that the K.J. and A.S. translators did not know how sentence structure differs in various languages, necessitating a restructure of the Greek sentence in order to "make sense" in English? A casual comparison with an interlinear text will show they knew and practiced this.

Then what is this "different theory and practice of translation" which makes these modern versions so superior (?) to others? While discussing the problem of translating idioms of speech, Dr. James Moffatt (one of the RSV translators) "tells it like it is". He says, "But once the translator of the New Testament is freed from the influence of the theory of verbal inspiration, these difficulties cease to be so formidable" (Revision or New Translation, by Allis.).

N.E.B. "Introduction" says "But if paraphrase means taking the liberty of introducing into a passage something which is not there, to elucidate the meaning which is there, it can be said that we have taken this liberty only with extreme caution, and in a very few passages.." (I counted nine changes in 12 verses. rt).

Frenstence (sic) — 1CO.7:14 literally: "has been sanctified for the husband unbelieving by the wife." (Marshall). The K.J. restructures this to read: "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife,- " but the N.E.B. translates (?): "For the heathen husband now belongs to God through his Christian wife, —." The Greek clearly says "a-pistos" not-faith, or unbelieving; why say "heathen" (for which the Greeks used a different word). We readily agree that the wife under consideration is a "Christian" but this is a contextual comment, not translation of something inspired of God. As for "belongs to God" — the N.E.B. has supplied an object for "set apart", and misleads the reader. The marriage is the thing "sanctified" "else were your children unclean; but now are they holy."

It is my contention that neither I nor the N.E.B. translators (?) have the right to place our comment in the text of God's words. If and when we do so, the result is a paraphrase — a type of commentary — and should be labeled as such. The R.S.V., N.E.B., and the American Bible Society's "Today's English Version" are examples of so-called translations by men who are "freed from the influence of the theory of verbal inspiration". We deny the demands of verbal inspiration, and endanger the faith of the unsuspecting, when we encourage people to treat these works as "God's words".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VI No.III Pg.6
May 1969

Why Call Them "Liberal"?

Robert F. Turner

"We are hearing a lot these days about "liberalism" in the institutional churches of Christ. But when is a church "liberal," and when can such a term be justified as applied to an entire congregation?

Vehemently and with an air of aggrieved innocence members of these congregations disavow liberalism and deny that they are liberal. How then can any fair person make such a charge? A quotation from William F. Buckley, Jr. pretty well states the case:

"If one sets out to show that a religious sect is corrupt, it does not suffice to point to a member of that sect who has been caught channeling money from the collection plate to his mistress. He is proved corrupt, but not, yet, the movement. Suppose, then, one approaches the delinquent's co-religionists and asks them for an expression of opinion on the behavior of their brother. If they show a marked indifference to it, if they actively defend him, if they continue to countenance or even move him up the ladder of their hierarchy, more and more one is entitled to generalize...that the organization is corrupt" (Up From Liberalism-Page 8).

Our land is filled with sad examples of the very thing Mr. Buckley was talking about. For years now faithful brethren have been pointing out to their friends many of the "far out" examples of social gospel liberalism in many churches of Christ. And over and over again they have been met with the response, "I don't approve of that; I am opposed to that; I think that is wrong". Then, having thus absolved themselves of all guilt in the matter, having purified their souls by a verbal note of protest, these brethren blithely and cheerily go their way, attending the church which does that which they disavow, giving their money to support that which they say is wrong, lending their time and effort and influence to build up that which they tell us they oppose! Under such circumstances we think that any fair minded person is not only 'entitled to generalize' as to the basic liberalism of such a person, but by the logic of the case is compelled to do so. To say the least, one might be excused for entertaining a bit of skepticism as to the avowals and disavowals of the one who protests that he 'doesn't go along' with what is being done".

The above is a condensed portion of an editorial in the Feb. 6, Gospel Guardian, by Fanning Yater Tant. We heartily recommend the complete text.

How do brethren justify support and furtherance of something they say is contrary to their convictions. Some say they "stay" to try and correct the wrongs. If one could do this without being a party to the wrong we would see merit here — or, if we had some evidence they were really trying to make the correction.

But the alternative looms as big as life, and there is little reason to complain if people see it. Such people have very weak convictions, they will compromise the truth, and that is why they are called "liberal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VI No.III Pg.7
May 1969

Queries And Answers

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

Please elaborate on truth about the Holy Spirit and "indwelling".

Reply:

There are some basic principles or fundamentals that must be laid as a foundation for any study of the Holy Spirit. For want of space, I can only state them here: (1) God is one; (2) The Holy Spirit is God (Deity); (3) Despite distinctive functions of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, one can never be completely separated from the other. This means we must neither limit the Holy Spirit to "influence" nor presumptuously "take Him to us", ignoring His divine nature.

To speak of the Holy Spirit dwelling in man, is to speak of God dwelling in man — and in neither case can we substantiate the presence of "naked omnipotence". There could be no rejection of such power; but man is made a free agent, and can accept or reject the manifestations of Deity.

Deity was manifested in Jesus of Nazareth, God incarnate, (PHI.2:5-f; COL.2:8-9; JOH.14:7-9) and man could accept or reject God as he accepted or rejected Jesus Christ. Ach i the ascension of Christ the Holy Spirit came to "fill" the Apostles and Prophets of the NT (EPH.3:2-6; JOH. 14:25-f.). They gave us the words of God, the means of faith and fellowship with God (JOH.20:31; 1JO.1:1-f). The word thus became the agency and manifestation of the Holy Spirit, which man may accept or reject. Deity is available to all, yet forced upon none. JOH.7:37-39 and like passages refer to the coming of power, with the H.S., upon chosen messengers of Christ, by which they were equipped to send forth "rivers of living water" (full and complete truth) to everyone. There is a sense in which the Holy Spirit did "dwell" in certain ones miraculously. These had the Holy Spirit as a "gift" and in them, representatively, the whole church partakes of the blessings of this "gift". But one may as well claim inspiration today as to claim such "indwelling" as theirs. Today's claims for "direct indwelling" rest upon subjective proof (?) and drift rapidly into the Calvinistic idea of the need for "spirit" glasses in order to "see" the truth of God. The Father "dwells" in the obedient; JOH.14:23; 1JO.4:12-16. Truth "dwells" in us; 2JO.2; EPH.5:18-19; COL.3:16. Christ "dwells" in us — study ROM.8:9-10. He dwells in us by faith; EPH.3:14-19. If we can grasp these things without swinging to some mystical concept, it seems we should be able to understand how the Holy Spirit "dwells" in us (1CO.4:16-17; EPH.2:20-22; 2CO.6:16). I see no difference in the "indwelling" of Father, Son, or Holy Spirit today.

Nothing is changed by slighting remarks about an "inactive" Spirit. I can believe God is "active" in the affairs of nations without thinking He personally "indwells". It is pure assumption to assign "providence" as the special function of the Spirit. The plural Creator can rule in His creation, animate and inanimate, without my knowing His mode of operation. I am content with His revelation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VI No.III Pg.8
May 1969

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

One preacher says, Twenty years ago the brethren studied their Bibles and gave a reason for their hope. They wouldnt put up with the Tomfoolery of our modern day. Another preacher says, fifty years ago, and a third says, one hundred years ago. All of which proves that preachers differ in age. What they really mean is back before my time all was well. In reality, all has never been well, even in the first century.

Writing the article on Worshipful Singing (pp. 4) recalled a conversation I once had with bro. C. R. Nichol about such. We discussed the extremes to which more liberal congregations were going even then; and bro. Nichol said we must not conclude that all past days were good old days.

He told of being at a place for a meeting; and when the song leader announced a certain song he heard much shifting and rustling of feet, and looked back to see people moving about in the auditorium. One lady went to the back, and stood quietly in the corner. A young man came to the front and went out through a dressing room door. Bro. Nichol was disturbed by this movement, and asked a nearby brother for an explanation.

Oh, the song that was called is a special number, he was told. The bass voices, the tenor, and the alto, are getting together to better sing their parts.

But what about the woman at the back? bro. Nichol inquired.

That is sister _____, came the reply. She sings a beautiful contralto part, and goes to the back so that her special section of the song will be distinct.

And the young man that left the auditorium? bro. Nichol asked, with misgivings.

Bro. __________doesnt have a good singing voice, he was told. He is going back there to whistle in the baptistry.

It was a real production! bro. Nichol assured me; and I feel certain it was that — a real production!! HAVE WE LEARNED MUCH IN FIFTY YEARS??

Yes indeed! The electronic P.A. system makes a better resonator for humming (or whistling?) than the baptistry, and parts are already together in a chorus (or choir).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VI No.IV Pg.1
June 1969

The Sacred Groves

Robert F. Turner

God authorizes the assembling of saints (HEB.10:25 1CO.11:18-f.14:23-f) which, in turn, certainly authorizes a place of assembly. I am well aware of the brethren's tendency to stretch this into banquet halls, fishing camps, T.V. and coffee rooms, and of course, the elaborate and costly "sanctuaries" which are more showplaces to satisfy the pride than just a place to assemble and worship God. These gross abuses have led some to remark, "Christians could worship God out under a tree;" and so they could. But only the "gross abuse" of a remedy would lead one to suggest that all meeting places be sold.

Meeting under a tree is not, of itself, a guarantee of true worship. In OT times, groves of trees became places of idolatrous worship. The Asherim was "probably a wooden symbol of a goddess Asherah" (as footnote to EXO.34:13) and DEU.16:21 shows that the growing tree was associated with such pagan worship. Gideon cut down the Asherah, and used the wood to offer burnt offerings to Jehovah (JDG.6:25-27) (see K.J., "sacred groves".). The thinking of many brethren would certainly demand that we have the very finest tree available — carefully trimmed, watered, and decorated. I suppose we could get up a "crash fuss" over what kind of tree was scriptural (Remember the oaks of Mamre, cedars of Lebanon, etc.??).

Elaborate buildings indicate poor, and oftimes sinful judgement on the part of brethren; but meeting under a tree doesn't indicate soundness. Big congregations often get that way by catering to the whims and pride of the people; but a little church may be just as proud of its martyr status and far more "whinny". Although there are right and wrong ways to "build up a church" we must not allow ourselves the luxury of such loose thinking.

These "externals" are evidence of something far more important — the deep-seated attitudes that produce such fruits. If we are filled with "churchanity" instead of Christianity we need a new heart. Moving out under a tree could reveal some "stuffed shirts" but "stuffed heads" would remain to plague us. "Except Jehovah build the house, they labor in vain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VI No.IV Pg.2
June 1969

Variety Rag Out

Robert F. Turner

First—off, my hand has been called for leaving Paducah, Ky. out of the fleeting schedule given last month. We found that bro. Herbert Knight, local preacher, had made thoughtful preparation, and many visitors came to the meeting. On Thursday and Friday evenings I was asked to discuss Things That Divide Us — followed by question and answer sessions. Members of institutional churches indicated, both at public services and in their homes, a willingness to discuss these matters — a welcomed change from the attitude so often found elsewhere.

The church meeting at 1520 Clay St. Paducah, has a tough pull ahead; but there are encouraging signs. Surely some of those alarmed brethren in liberal churches will have the courage to speak up, and act to halt the rapidly increasing digression.

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

From a report of the Battle of Cape Girardeau, Mo. (New York Tribune, May 1, 1863) an example of prejudice: On passing over the battle- ground afterward, I saw one fellow lying with a ghastly wound from a cannon ball in his left breast, cold and stiff, with clenched hands, a horrible expression of ignorance and depravity on his countenance; and near by two fine white horses, lying dead, the latter with far more innocence in their faces than their human companion. The dead soldier was Confederate; can you guess which side the reporter favored?

Reminds me of the Shiloh (Tenn.) guide who referred to a Union memorial as honoring the marksmen of the glorious Confederacy. Also reminds me of the way brethren report debates.

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

When there is nothing else to pick on, we can always become critical of someones public prayer. These are so often filled with trite and borrowed expressions, so unlike the person who is speaking, and so unrealistic. But we who criticize set the stage for much of this. We expect too much; we push men into public prayer who have no preparation for what we expect of them; we are sometimes cruel in our comments about their errors.

I hope I can avoid blunders as I question the practice of telling God we are very humble. Cant we just be humbled in His presence? What do we think of the man who tells us repeatedly, that he is the quiet, deep- thinking type? Or, who assures us, over and over again, that he is not the egotistical type? Anyhow, there is no way to hide what we really ARE, from God who knows our every thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VI No.IV Pg.3
June 1969

Selecting A Preacher

Robert F. Turner

Selecting a preacher is a revealing experience. He meets with brethren and discusses working with them. He is apt to get the third degree. Brethren want to know when he gets up in the morning, arid what color socks he wears. His skeletons are liable to be pulled from the closet and examined by all —bone by bone. I am sure that some of this is just meddling in other peoples business, but it is not all bad. At least it shows the brethren want a man of integrity. In the past, brethren have selected men on the basis of his try-out sermon and looked no further. A church needs not only a good speaker but a good man. The truth and the kingdom has suffered reproach because good speakers turned out to be rascals in honesty and morals. All disciples conduct should be such that the word of God be not blasphemed. (Tit. 2:5)

Brethren feel him out on certain things. What do you preach — or think — about social drinking? You see, we have some prominent brethren who are heavy contributors and they see no harm in an occasional cocktail. How will the prospective preacher answer? Another brother queries, Just before our last preacher decided to move — for his wifes health — he objected to one of our deacons daughter being in the bathing beauty contest. What do you think about that? An ignoramus could not miss that implication! We are promoting the Cows for Korea project. Do you think that is all — right? etc. etc. Quickly you find out if he is a hireling or Gods man. A man of God expects to preach the same truth regardless of conditions — in season, out of season. (2 Tim. 4:) How a man responds to the bait of a big salary in exchange for a compromised message is surely revealing.

Most of all, preacher selection reveals the character and conviction of the church. You can know about the people by observing the life and doctrine of the man they select. lf a man walking in the spirit and falsehood do lie, saying, I will prophesy unto thee of wine and strong drink; he shall even be the prophet of this people. (Micah 2:11)

A preacher noted for scoffing at the miracles of the Bible is selected; what does it say of the people? When the preacher dances with the young folks and drinks with the older folk, what does it say about the ones who choose him? The preacher is known to excuse adultery; what does it say of the people who support him?

People choose a preacher who is versed in philosophy, jokes, and poetry. He never reads from The Book except for a text to use as launching pad for some scheme or philosophy. Every sermon such a man preaches is a commentary on the church that supports him. The people want it that way or it would be changed. The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof? (Jer. 5: 31) The end thereof? They will wax worse and worse. Doubtless, neither Jeremiah nor Paul could have preached there. On the other hand, a dedicated and faithful preacher is like an ornament of fine gold to the ones who choose him. Joe Fitch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VI No.IV Pg.4
June 1969

Abrahams Children

Robert F. Turner

Jehovah repeatedly told the Israelites that they were a chosen people a people for Gods own possession. (Ex. 19:5-6; Deut. 7:6) And these same expressions are applied to the people of God in Christ — spiritual Israel. (1 Pet. 2:9; Titus 2:14) Those who obey the call of the gospel — who come into fellowship with God in Jesus Christ — are Gods people in a special or peculiar sense.

Students of the Bible (or even of secular history) are aware that many of the Jews were lifted in pride by Gods special treatment — that they came to regard their position as superior by virtue of ancestry — and forgot that their race was developed and chosen for a specific purpose; i.e., to bring Christ into the world. (Cf. Gen. 12:3 Gal. 3:16-29) Individual and national responsibility to be faithful to God was smothered by a pride in identity (We have Abraham to our father Matt. 3: 7-f) — an identity which became external only, and lost its inner and true significance.

If the Jews, and those who claim to be spiritual Israelites, will read Deut. 7: 7-f. this significant statement should dampen false pride.

Jehovah did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all peoples: but because Jehovah loveth you, and because he would keep the oath which he sware unto your fathers, hath Jehovah brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, from the hand of Pharoah king of Egypt.

God did not choose you because you were great. Israel, you were the fewest of all peoples; Christians. you were lost in sin, without hope. when Christ died for you. (Rom. 5:8; Eph. 2:1, 11-13) How easily man forgets his dependence upon God. The church grows and we praise the product of Gods mercy instead of the God who made the church possible.

We are chosen because God loved His creatures — so loved them that He gave His Son to die for their sins. (Jn. 3:l6) How often do we use this passage for something other than a rebuttal of faith only error?

It was Gods love for fallen mankind that initiated His covenant and promises to Abraham — that a special nation would be built; and in thy seed (singular — Christ) all nations he blessed. (Gal. 3:8-f) The passage in Deut. 7: tells the Jew that his being chosen was not for glorification of one race, but for the blessing of all peoples, in Christ.

We must endlessly remind Gods people today that they too have been chosen and developed for a specific purpose — to glorify and promote that Christ which the chosen Jews gave to the world. And this nation can lose its spiritual significance; its citizens. lifted with pride in externals, can utterly fail their purpose.

We are the church, someone cries; and I hear the echo. We have Abraham to our father! Will We never learn that being faithful to the party or staying with the building IS NOT THE SAME AS BEING FAITHFUL TO CHRIST.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VI No.IV Pg.5
June 1969

Of Paper Clips & Faith

Robert F. Turner

Jeremiah said, "It is not in man that walketh to direct his steps" (JER.10:23). Not "in man"? Then directions must come from an external source. But the subjectivity of modernism (and of cults which rely upon "feelings") has made rapid strides among supposed fundamentalists. Some of "our brethren" contend that truth is "relative", and in the final analysis depends upon the subject (man) for "reality".

I hold something in my hand — but since you have no means of "knowing" what it is, you can only have your opinion, an educated guess at best. You may say, "I believe it is a pencil," but this "faith" is purely subjective. You look within yourself and your own experiences, for the answer. Now I tell you I hold a paper clip, and my words become external evidence which you may either accept or reject. I am in a position to know — my words come from the source of truth in this matter. Your faith may now become objective: based upon the revelation of truth, resting upon the integrity of my words; or, you may continue to rely upon your "feelings" about the pencil. The fact remains, I hold a paper clip. You may honestly "misunderstand" my words, or misconstrue them in your subconscious effort to justify that hunch about the pencil — but I continue to hold a paper clip.

The "things of God" are known only to God (1CO.2:11-13) and are available to man only through the inspired message. God's word is truth; regardless of man's acceptance or rejection of it (JOH.17:17). The faith that can save is objective faith; honest, submissive acceptance of the evidence which God provides (ROM.10:17)

When man presumes to judge God's revelation, accepting or rejecting as human wisdom or experience dictates, man elevates himself above his Maker. He transgresses "law" (abstractly, article) denying the authority of God to regulate His creatures (JAM. 2:10-f). But we are to speak and do as they who shall be judged by law (vs. 12). The legislative, executive, and judicial branches of divine government are summed in one, even God (JAM. 4:12). Paul insisted that his message was that which God had revealed unto him. He said, "My speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God" (1CO. 2:4). It is not in man, nor from among men, but from a source external of man that divine truths are revealed. This means we either accept a verbally inspired revelation from God, or stand without certainty of any truth. We have faith (true, objective faith) or wallow miserably in the conflicting philosophies of men.

True objective faith is under fire today from "brethren" who make light of verbal inspiration — openly, or by advocating modern "versions" that do not respect God's words. Such faith is smothered by the "relativists" who ridicule the "certainty" of truth. We are taught relative or subjective faith "for the sake of unity" — and how long will "one God" tolerate us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VI No.IV Pg.6
June 1969

Preacher Preparation, 1844

Robert F. Turner

Barton W. Stone, 1772-1844, was a true pioneer in the restoration movement in this country. He broke with the Presbyterians because he could not, in good conscience, accept Calvinistic tenets. In less than one year he had seen the evils of church government that infringed upon congregational independence; and had taken steps to be more like the first century church.

Stones life was spent in preaching and writing back to the Bible principles — urging people to give up denominationalism and to be satisfied with New Testament Christianity. His was a quiet spirit, tender, oft - disturbed, but constantly striving to serve his heavenly master.

We quote from his last article, written to a young would-be preacher, with advice that makes sense today.

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

1. "Retire to your study in your fathers house, and make that room a proseuche, or place of prayer. Take with you there a large polyglot English Bible, with the Septuagint translation, and Griesbachs Greek Testament, with Dr. Parkhursts and Greenfields Lexicons, and Greenfields Greek Concordance. Read the Old Testament regularly from the beginning, with the Septuagint before you, by which you will be better able to understand the writer. Should you find any thing dark or unintelligible, note it down on a small blank book, and take it to your near neighbor, Elder T.M.A., who will gladly assist you to the right understanding of the passage. When you read the New Testament, have Greisbachs Greek Testament open before you. Should difficulties occur, examine the translation by Parkhursts or Greenfields Lexicon, and more especially by the Greek Concordance. This is the safest and most certain method of finding the true meaning of the words. Take short notes of all the important things you may find in your reading. Forget not to mingle prayer to your God for direction into all truth, and that the wisdom from above may be afforded you.

2. In the intervals of your Bible studies, read church history: Moshiem I recommend you to read first; then DAubigne on the Reformation; then Dr. Neander on the first three centuries. Take short notes of all important facts. Forget not meditation and prayer — pray always — pray without ceasing — Keep yourself in the love of God. Vain will be your studied without these.

3. When you have read your Bible through carefully, not hurriedly, turn back and read it again, with the commentary of Henry. and others, lately collated for the Baptist Society. Have by you also Dr. McKnight on the Epistles; and consult these commentaries on all difficult passages. I do not recommend a general reading of them; as this would consume much time to little profit. Commentators generally labor to make the Scriptures bend to their peculiar systems, and to speak the language of Ashdod, or some other barbarous dialect. Hence the danger of becoming too conversant with them. Yet continue in prayer. (To be concluded in our next issue)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VI No.IV Pg.7
June 1969

Queries And Answers

Robert F. Turner

Dear bro. Turner:

Does the church have a name? If so where may I find it?

Reply:

Webster says synonyms for "name" are "designation" "denomination" "appellation" "title" and "style". Name is the general term loosely embracing all the others. God's people are identified by such expressions as "the church of God" (1CO.1:2) and, speaking of a plurality of congregations, "churches of Christ," (ROM.16:16). In these instances, the inspired writer saw fit to relate the "called-out people" (church) to owner or head (I doubt that a deliberate distinction was intended). In a loose and general sense, this gives God's people (collectively) a "name" — more that one name, in fact.

In the same vein, if I mistake not, the people of God are called (named?) "the household of faith" (GAL.6:10). In HEB.12:23 God's people are spoken of as "church of the firstborn" — and "firstborn ones" are under consideration — those who are born-again, NOT Jesus Christ, who was "first born". Here, characteristics of the people are emphasized. But I find, neither in these, nor in those names given in my first paragraph, an official label, or trademark, which Gods people (collectively) must wear.

If there is any lesson here, with respect to "label", it would be that (a) we should describe God's people with accuracy, "calling" them only what they are (not after Luther, John the Baptist, etc.); and (b) God gives no one label for His church.

"There is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" (ACT.4:12). Does this argue that God's people must wear the title, "Church of Christ"? The "name" given here in context (vs. 10) is "Jesus Christ of Nazareth". By what right do we shorten it? The context further shows that it was "power" (or source of power) that was questioned, (vs. 7;9) not some spoken "name". We have nothing here about a church name.

"Do all in the name of the Lord Jesus — " (COL.3:17). Does this label the church? If so it is the "Church of the Lord Jesus". But the context shows this refers to (a) letting the word of Christ dwell in us; (b) singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord; (c) wives, submit to husbands, as it is fit in the Lord; (d) children obey parents, to please the Lord; (e) servants, fear God, and work as to the Lord. This passage does not require a "label" on all we do, but calls upon us to live our whole life, "as unto the Lord" "to His glory".

Communication, especially in this day of "church" confusion, demands some means of identification. I speak of God's people as the church (called-out people) of (belonging to) Christ (the Lord) because I believe this accurately designates these people. "Of God" would be equally scriptural, but to the non-Christian public would be less exact. I do not switch about, using various scriptural designations, for this would be even more confusing to the public (Consider the problems of postal service, advertising a public meeting, etc.). In preaching, I emphasize identity, not some label.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VI No.IV Pg.8
June 1969

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

From Joe Creason, Kentucky columnist for the Louisville Courier—Journal, we glean some prayer stories.

Two nuns who followed their favorite basketball team to the big city, were appalled by the heavy traffic. One said, You drive, and Ill pray.

But the other responded, Whats the matter; dont you trust my praying?

And I liked the one about the old mountain man who prayed, Lord, I dont ask for a faith that would move yonder mountain. I can take enough dynamite and move it if it needs moving. What I pray for, Lord, is enough faith to move me.

Have you noticed that a large percentage of the humorous stories with religious circumstances have to do with prayer, baptism, etc.? I suppose this is because of the incongruity of the situation — something out of place in what should be a sober and serious matter. We may censure the boorish person who, with disrespect, makes fun of sacred things; and yet appreciate the true-to-life incidents that inject a smile into a situation, without being frivolous.

Sometimes we may catch ourselves in the midst of laughter and, with reflection, realize that what is funny to the outsider may be seriously meaningful to the participant. I once heard a farmer pray, Lord, shuck and silk us of our sins! The strange and humorous wording, to a city man, was meaningful and sincere to those who had cleaned many a roasting-ear.

Fortunately, we fully believe that God understands the hearts of both poor and exact grammarians. Consider the petition, God, bless all who are sick of this congregation! Well, the sick need our prayers — and perhaps those sick of this congregation are even more in need of assistance. None are so ill as those who run a fever in their caustic attack upon others.

And theres the story of the nervous woman in an airplane, who, on being caught in a thunderstorm, turned for aid and comfort to a preacher who happened to be sitting in the seat next to hers.

Cant you do something? she demanded forcefully.

Sorry, madam, he replied gently. Im in sales, not management.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VI No.V Pg.1
July 1969

Are You Hungry?

Robert F. Turner

"Righteousness" of God (ROM.1:17) is "the quality of one pronounced "righteous" by the eternal judge according to His norm of right" (Lenski). It describes the state of a man in an acceptable relationship to God; a state made possible by forgiveness, hence dependent upon Jesus Christ. It embraces, then, all that God requires a man to be, and makes possible for him to be, through Christ.

And Jesus says, "Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteous -ness: for they shall be filled" (MAT.5:6). Hunger and thirst are used here to express longing desire. Jesus reverts to the fundamental driving forces in man to describe the urgency, the impelling nature of this craving to be as God wants us to be. Further, the grammarians tell us that these words are "durative present tenses" signifying that the hungering and thirsting continues. Continual longing for an acceptable standing before God — even as we are being "filled" — is required of all who would have the Lord's blessing.

Reread the first column, and give it some careful meditation. If you have an ounce of perception, this should make you shake in your boots.

Are we hungering and thirsting for righteousness?. There is no need to ask the "oncer", the socialite or sportsman who serve God when it is convenient, the traditionalist who is a "Church of Christer" because "all my people were 'Church of Christ'". Don't bother the sleeper; his answer is as loud as his snoring. But the question reaches out to another class of professed Christians.

Many who give freely of their time and energy "hunger and thirst" for a better nursery school, or greater humanitarian services, or a "church image" of which they can be proud. Some give great sums of money, "hungering and thirsting" for a beautiful "sanctuary". Reread, and carefully check the meaning of "righteousness"!!

The digression that prevails among "us" today did not develop among people hungering and thirsting for righteousness. It answers "our" question!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VI No.V Pg.2
July 1969

Turning Again?

Robert F. Turner

Ask those who have experienced a conservative — liberal struggle in a congregation — usually to see the conservative minority put out of the church and property by conscience or by stomping and shouting — to explain how such a thing could happen among supposedly good people. The observant will tell you that (1) there had not been enough PLAIN teaching concerning church organization — teaching that not only established the principles, but made easily recognizable application to Herald of Truth, benevolent institutions, etc.; and (2) otherwise good people, who saw the truth and its application, were moral cowards who had rather accept error than speak up, knowing that this meant carnal persecution at the hands of the liberal majority.

These two reasons for triumph on the part of error are well known. But I either do not know, or can not understand the answer to a follow—up problem. How can brethren, having experienced these things, having been put out, with great difficulty and sacrifice having built anew—— how can they swallow a compromising position, accept lukewarm preaching that refuses to make application in PLAIN and FORCEFUL ways, and thus drift right back into the error from whence they were so recently freed??

Good sound churches are multiplying all over the country; many are growing in number and financial power. More important, there is much spiritual growth. But my enthusiasm is dampened by the knowledge of churches that are turning to their own vomit again. (How else can one put it, and honestly represent the fact. (2 Pet. 2 ) They countenance teaching that makes no specific application; they glory in association with those who teach and practice error — making no effort to teach them truth. (It is right to associate with erring brethren in frank, honest consideration of issues and studied efforts to attain unity in Gods truth.) They have begun to shy away from men of conviction who may embarrass them before their new liberal or compromising friends.

I want no part in establishing sectarian lines of conservatism, trying to hold our party in line so we can combat a liberal party. I firmly believe in the inherent power of truth to fight such battles as must be fought. But truth must have free course. Anything less than unshackled truth, clearly applied to the issue, is something less than truth.

The unapplied principles, and compromising middle-of-the-road attitude will wreck churches AGAIN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VI No.V Pg.3
July 1969

Plain Talk About Pearl

Robert F. Turner

A suave fellow with a confident look flashes on my TV. He proposes some plain talk about Pearl beer.

Plain talk is a new idea in TV commer -cials. It appeals to me. I can not help wondering who Brand X is — nor suspecting it is the markets worst product. I have had my fill of white tornadoes, Fresca blizzards, the growls of angry bowl cleaners, and the dishwashing soap that thinks it is a hand lotion. I feel nauseated every time the man from Glad saves another marriage with a plastic sandwich bag. I dont appreciate having my intelligence insulted. Oh for just a few plain facts about why a product is good! I applaud the few companies who offer plain talk, competitor naming, open comparison commercials.

I like the same procedures in religion. Beating around the bush becomes tiresome. Why not call a spade a spade — specify what doctrine or practice you mean. We need not be obnoxious, but we can be straightforward and frank. People will know what we believe — and why.

I even appreciate — after the pain subsides — folks who bluntly tell me when they disagree or disapprove. I believe you are wrong because. . . is preferable to pouting, frowns, and innuendoes. I feel uncomfortable in the presence of people who are too nice (2) to say what they believe. Plain talk and plain facts have a healthy and honest. appeal.

But back at the ranch — and plain talk about Pearl. It is strange for a brewery to want plain talk about their product, but then I discovered they only intended to discuss which brewer spent the most time and money making beer. I was disappointed; I hoped for some plain talk about beer.

Why not talk plain about beers effect on the mind? A few years ago a beer company had a dispute with their trick drivers because the employees wanted to drink beer during their lunch hour. Plain talk now; do you think Pearl would want a truck driver who drinks on the job? Would Pearls promotion man fly with pilot who is drinking? Would Pearls president use a surgeon who drinks beer before operating? If it does not affect the thinking, judgement, and reflexes, why object?

Lets talk plain about the effects of beer in society. Consider the hungry and homeless children, the wrecked marriages, the people in prison, and those who have become useless bums because of that delicate brew. We put our money where your mouth is, Pearl says. Yes, and then we spend our tax dollars trying to pick up the pieces.

Remember the plain talk about beer and mans spiritual condition. Many will become drunks because of Pearl. And beer influences men to do many immoral things while under its influence. ...be not deceived: neither fornicators,.., nor thieves,.., nor drunkards,... shall inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor. 6:9, 10). Beer will cause many souls to be lost.

Plain talk? I doubt they intended to go this far. Joe Fitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VI No.V Pg.4
July 1969

Worshipfui Music

Robert F. Turner

Recuperating from surgery, I lay bedfast, half-hearing the radio. Suddenly I realized that the instrumental number being played was the very old and beautiful hymn. Near To The Heart of God, and that I was brought into a worshipful attitude as I listened. The shocking aspect of this, to a non- instrumentalist like me, was the realization that pure instrumental music could have such power upon my subconscious mind.

Then, I became aware that I was repeating, to myself, the words of that fine song. There is a place of quiet rest, Near to the heart of God. It was the words of the song that conveyed the message — that brought me such peace. I knew them well, and they flowed without effort at each beat of the familiar music.

As I mused on these things the first song was finished, and with proper transitional chords, the orchestra moved into their second number. It was equally beautiful, well balanced, and appropriately played. I thrilled at the artistry of the music and its execution; but the warmth of my worshipful attitude chilled, and vanished. The reason was obvious — I did not know the words of this song — it was sterile, unproductive.

Speaking to yourselves — Teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs and sing with the understanding — (i.e., so as to edify — understandable). This is the kind of music by which Christians worship God. Worshipful music makes melody in the heart — and this plucking or twanging has to do with intelligible giving and receiving of meaningful messages. (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16; 1 Cor. 14: 5 -15-f)

The music continued, but it contributed nothing to God-directed worship. This is not to say I did not feel and appreciate its power. It spoke (?) to me aesthetically. As the musicians interpreted each composition (none of which called words to my mind) I reveled in this rare beauty. I was pleased, my spirit entertained, but God was not glorified. In the luxury of the experience I relaxed, my whirling thoughts quitened.

And then, it was there again. Deep inside me I was praying, I Need Thee Every Hour, Most Gracious Lord; No Tender Voice Like Thine, Can Peace Afford. No, it wasnt the mechanical excellence of the orchestra that had again awakened my thoughts to God and things spiritual. This music was no more worshipful than previous numbers in the program. But once again familiar strains recalled words to my mind. The worship was not in the melody, but in my heart. The worship was not introduced by the music, per se, but by words — an intelligible message — which the melody served to recall. I carefully considered these things, and I challenge your consideration.

Even singing may degenerate into a musical exercise — pleasing men, but far removed from being worshipful. Authority to sing when saints assemble, embraces far more than man-ward, man-pleasing music making. We must choose words and melody in keeping with a God-ward, God-serving attitude, to have worshipful music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VI No.V Pg.5
July 1969

Life-Food From God

Robert F. Turner

In this series we continue to insist upon the external nature of divine authority, and the necessity for an objective approach to this authority. Look carefully at the lessons in Johns record of Jesus. (Jn. 6:26-f.)

Following the miraculous feeding of the multitude, Jesus accused the people of refusing that which His works proved (i.e., His divinity, the source of the works) and coming to Him for the loaves and fishes. He urged them to seek rather the eternal food which the Son of man shall give unto you; for Him hath God the Father sealed. (Vs. 27) This meant believing on Him whom the Father had sent.

They asked for more bread, as Moses had given; and Jesus replied that the true heavenly bread is He whom God had sent to die for their salvation. (Vs. 31-35) The Father is the source of this blessing since Jesus came to do the Fathers will; so, in this sense, the Father gives people to the Lord (Vs. 37-f) and No man can come... except the Father... draw. (Vs. 44—45) Explanation: they shall all be taught of God. The thought is NOT taught about God — but God must be the source of the teaching. Robertson says this is ablative, and cites 1 Cor. 2:13 as a parallel. Other Greek scholars call it subjective genitive, and both grammar and context agree that the drawing teaching has God, not man, as its source.

Does this argue some direct experience or implantation of knowledge and faith? Jesus answers (next verse) Not that any man hath seen the Father... I am that bread of life.

Then follows the extension of this food figure to include meat (his flesh) and later blood to drink. (Compare living water Jn. 4:10—14) His point is, they must receive Him — His teaching — as being from the Father; and he that hath seen me hath seen the Father. (Jn. 14:9) If some immediate and intuitive fellowship with God was intended, this would render the coming of the Son unnecessary; and invalidate the whole context of Jesus teaching here.

(There is no reference here to the Lords Supper. Jesus said, vs. 57. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. Life (spiritual, eternal) proceeds from the Father, via the Son, and is ours only as we receive, believe, abide in the teaching of Christ — in this way, abide in Christ. See following.)

As some disciples murmured, Jesus made specific application of previous statements. (Vs. 63) — the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. Jesus must be received as the Son of God, and we must do His will, even, as He did the will of the Father. Note Vs. 65; because Jesus knew some did not believe, he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. (emphasis mine, to point up relation established in all of these verses.)

We can study, learn, believe and abide in Christ and His teachings — finding life in His words — or we can say, This is hard (vs. 60) and walk no more with Him. (Vs. 66) (See 67-f)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VI No.V Pg.6
July 1969

Advice To Preachers, From 1844

Robert F. Turner

Last month we quoted a portion of the last article written for publication by the pioneer Barton W. Stone. We conclude that article this month, urging you to read and appreciate the spirit and wisdom of this advice given to a young would-be-preacher, in the year 1844.

The first three articles of advice were: (1) Read carefully the Old and New Testament, comparing the English with recommended Greek tests, consulting the Greek Concordance for comparison readings, and the Lexicons for careful word studies. Re-read, making notes. Mingle all study with prayer.

(2) Read church history: Moshiems, D Aubigne, Neander, etc.; taking note of vital information. Pray.

(3) Now, re-read the Bible, making reference to Commentaries such as Henry, McKnight, etc., on difficult passages. Remember that commentators make the scriptures bend to their peculiar systems and speak the language of Ashdod. Learn to think for yourself. Continue in prayer.

(4.) During your studies, let your seat be always filled in the house of God every Lords day, and other days appointed for divine worship. Pray and exhort publicly among the brethren. This will prepare you for future operations. Many fill their heads with studied divinity, and when they go forth to preach, know not how to speak, and have to supply the lack by reading a discourse written, or committed to memory. Remember, my son, reading is not preaching. (5.) Keep yourself, as much as practicable, from too much company and irrelevant conversation. These too often intrude upon your studies and devotions.

(6.) When you are by your brethren sent forth to preach, confine your ministration to practical subjects. Young preachers are too fond of polemic divinity, and abstruse subjects. Vanity is at the bottom, and will ruin them, if not checked by an humble spirit.

(7.) Let the glory of God and the salvation of souls be your polar star; then will your labors be blest in the world; and a crown of righteousness be given you at the coming of the Lord.

(8) You are blessed with a wealthy, pious father, who is able and willing to support you without the aid of the churches. Go then to the destitute, and build on no mans foundation, taking nothing for your services. Many poor preachers have to confine themselves to the churches, or get no help. You will not be under this necessity. May the Lord go with you, and be to you a father and a helper in every time of trouble. Be humble. B. W. Stone

At the risk of being boresome, we re-emphasize this century-old advice to would-be preachers: FIRST: Study Gods word, letting word-studies be the key to understanding. NEXT: Know the history of the church, falling away, etc. THEN, use other helps; and dedicate yourself fully to Gods work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VI No.V Pg.7
July 1969

Queries And Answers

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

When one church disfellowships an erring member, are all other churches bound to honor the action? PA

Reply:

If the querist means bound by the scriptures, making it their duty as Christians to accept the actions of another church, or its elders, the answer is, NO!

I grew up with a different answer ringing in my ears. Highly respected bro. David Lipscomb wrote, Where a man commits a wrong, he ought to be disciplined or dealt with for that wrong, and all other churches are under solemn obligation to abide by the action of that church. When the church acts as God directs, the decision of the church is the decision of God. (Queries and Answers, 4th. Ed., 1918, pp. 137)

Now God only directs in one way: i.e., through His written words. The decisions of God are, therefore, those things set forth by inspiration through direct command or statements, approved examples, or necessary implications or inference. I readily agree that men, as subjects of the law, are forced to reach conclusions relative to interpreting or applying that law to a given case; but I must flatly deny that human judgements or conclusions become, thereupon, equivalent to a divine mandate.

It is useless to quibble, But we mean in those cases where the decision is exactly the will of God. The only way we can know it is the will of God, is for God to reveal this in His word. If this has been done, the matter was already settled before the church or elders came into the picture. But if the conclusions of the church are human judgements regarding the application of Gods word to a given situation, these judgements are subject to error, and are NOT bound (as revealed faith, Jude 3) on any.

Or, will some argue that elders or the church are infallible interpreters? Surely we are not thinking this thing through to logical consequences.

May elders make decisions? Certainly so. Oversight shepherding or rule necessitates certain decision making (Acts 20:28 1 Pet. 5:2-f) and the congregation accepts certain men as meeting divinely established qualifications, to serve in this capacity. But their oversight is limited to the single church selecting them. Their judgements must have the same scope or limitations, and even there — never be regarded as the voice of God. This is not being disrespectful to elders; it is simply a sincere effort to show the necessary respect for God.

When one church disfellowships a member, who then seeks to be accepted in-good-standing with another group; he should be urged to first make corrections of his errors at his home church. It is a fair assumption that the bishops and members there would be in the best position to reach conclusions concerning his condition. We are not saying their conclusions are infallible, nor are they bound upon us as decisions of God. If the issue is pressed, the second church must act its own decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VI No.V Pg.8
July 1969

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

Some of the best Burnet stories go back to the days before tourists, when local citizens had to make a living off of one-another. A certain filling station operator was not happy to see a neighbor blow a tire in front of his establishment, but he just happened to be taking the right sized tube down from the shelf when the customer walked in.

How much for that tube? the man asked warily.

$2.15, he was told.

The buyer raised his hands in protest. $2.15?? Why, I can get that size tube from Sears and Roebuck for $1.98! !

With an air of resignation the operator said, Well, guess Ill have to let you have it exactly like Sears and Roebuck would. He took the fellows money, put it in the cash drawer; and then, to the mans astonishment, replaced the tube high upon the shelf.

Now just be patient, he said. Like Sears and Roebuck, youll get this tube through the mail in three or four days. Perhaps we never outgrow the childish desire to both have our cake and eat it. We want to spend this life on this life — as though there were no tomorrow — and then have a beautiful life awaiting us in heaven. Something like wanting a big bank account without ever making a deposit (Matt. 6: 19-21) It doesnt work that way. Jesus said, Whosoever would save his life shall lose it: and whosoever shall lose his life for my sake shall find it. (Matt. 16: 25 AS)

Those who want heaven right now, in this life, must ignore the weightier respon -sibilities of preparing for the real thing in eternity, and take such scraps of happiness as this life affords. But they pay, and pay dearly, for each sensation.

And all illustrations and comparisons of material and eternal blessings have their limitations. The tube one gets from Sears (excuse me, Mr. Roebuck) will blow just like the one in the filling station. In this life one pays for convenience, service, and material — all of which are soon to pass away. But the wise man counts the cost, pays the price, (Lu. 14: 26-33) and rides the golden Street on a tube that never blows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VI No.VI Pg.1
August 1969

Sudden Change

Robert F. Turner

I am frequently asked, How does one explain the sudden changes that take place in brethren. A good sound church may, within a few months time, accept liberal preaching and practice completely incompatible with their former position.

A good sound church DOES NOT make such sudden changes, any more than a genuine Christian individual suddenly becomes a vile reprobate. Changes take place beneath the surface, and are extensively developed before the fruit is apparent. They are often so well hidden that even the victims are unaware of their presence — or, detecting changes in conviction, are ashamed to admit them.

Pride is the veil. We refuse to be honest with ourselves, to see our own weakness. But the veil is woven with threads of various hues. We learn by rote the answers to doctrinal questions. Q. What is the church? A. It is the body of Christ — Eph. 1:23. We have answered the question, and given the scripture — but we may have not the slightest understanding concerning the matter, and so be unable to make application to problems that may arise in the future. (Brethren should know the definition of catechism before condemning it. )(Look it up!!)

Another thread in the veil is popular approval. If the majority of Churches of Christ do it, it must be right. This ignores 2 Cor. 10: 12-f. and establishes a party creed by which we measure orthodoxy. Our eyes are further blinded to departure from the doctrine of Christ.

Pride makes us number hungry and money hungry and hungry for a less controversial position in the community. We justify these things as being necessary, to reach souls for Christ— but they dull our senses to our change in loyalty, from Christ to men. We are spiritually sick, but we call our fever growing pains.

And then some upstart crank or anti calls attention to a practice and asks for authority. We cant produce it — we swing rapidly into the camp of liberals who rush to champion our cause (more pride) — AND ANOTHER CHURCH SUDDENLY CHANGES. Hmmm!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VI No.VI Pg.2
August 1969

For His Works Sake

Robert F. Turner

Twice in the same day, from different sources, I heard this comment: I really didnt like some of his ways, but he is the one who pulled this church out of its slump. These are strange words — not because they are so improbable, but because there are so few people who will give credit to one against whom they have some personal criticism.

Ranchers will keep a mean tempered bull, not because they like his disposition, but because he builds the quality of their herd — and that is why they bought him in the first place.

A Research Laboratory will maintain an eccentric scientist, putting up with many strange whims, because that one-track mind of his produces the brain storms which keep that company in the lead.

But churches will fire preachers and expel overseers for doing the very things most needed, and for which they are best qualified to perform. Scores of preachers are dismissed to appease someones meaningless grouch; for every one dismissed because he wouldnt study and work hard at the job he was supposed to accomplish. Why is this so??

Well, the mean tempered bull is supposed to up-grade the herd. His effect is upon cattle, and as long as the rancher can stay out of his way — so the effect is not a maimed horse or rider — the bull is tolerated. The eccentric scientist, or absent-minded professor, who produces the desired effect in lab or class room, and has no adverse effect upon those in control, is allowed to continue. But the preacher, elder, teacher who affects ME had better watch out.

Here is the core of the matter. We do not mind OTHER people being taught or affected — just stay off of MY toes. Do not question MY conclusions, nor ask ME to change. it is so very hard for us to be truly objective, accepting Christ as our standard or mark (Phil. 3:14) and really appreciate what others may do to teach us more about Him, or bring us to follow Him more closely.

All men are imperfect — the scholar has his purple moods; the speaker, his mannerisms; one man is blunt and another is polished to a fault. We must learn to think in terms of GODS WORK IN GODS WAY —- how does this mans work contribute to or hinder the purposes of GOD? Then, we will hear more of this strange commendation of a man for his God service, and we may even learn to like him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VI No.VI Pg.3
August 1969

They Died-We Lived

Robert F. Turner

Something dies to put food on your table. The price of every meal is the life of some plant or animal. Life is sustained by death.

In awe we thumb the pages of history reading of those who confessed Jesus as Christ. They were shackled in dungeons, slaughtered in arenas, and tormented in the most horrible ways. Tradition claims that all the apostles — except John — fell as martyrs in the cause of Christ. It was a price paid so others could live. So then death worketh in us, but life in you. (2 Cor. 4:12).

Another chapter in history tells of dedicated men who labored to translate and print the Bible. They were cruelly persecuted, killed, and their bodies dishonored. All this so men could pick up their Bibles and read. They died; we live.

Recent decades witnessed men who burned themselves out carrying the gospel over this land. Their lamps burned late over open Bibles; dawn found them hard at work. Their pens were worn out writing of what they learned. In volumes in my bookshelf stand the lives of selfless men —Tant, McGarvey, Lipscomb, Campbell.... Life was poured out bringing life to men.

The scheme of redemption demanded Jesus death for mans life. Remember Caiaphas thoughtless comment, ... it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. (Jno. 11:50). Hear the ridicule at the foot of the cross: He saved others; himself he cannot save. (Mt. 27:42). That is it! — exactly! Saving others meant sacrificing self. Jesus prayed, . . if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: (Mt. 26:39). It was not possible to spare him and save man too. He died; we live.

Consider our reaction if decrees against our service to God were issued today. How many Daniels could be found serving God as he did afore- time. (Dan. 6:l0). Doubtless folk who quit when they are called an ugly name or when discipleship costs them something would not long endure with their lives at stake!

We had better prepare for ... all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. (2 Tim. 3:12). He did NOT say all church members, but all who live godly. This is true in any age or country. Dont hunt persecution; do right and the devil will find you. He does not have to worry with the hit-and-miss, now- and-then church member. Such already nauseate the Lord and have no good influence on anyone, but Satan cannot ignore a godly man. He will try to destroy him. Our persecution may be sophisticated (ridicule, financial and social reprisal), but dont discredit its impact. A wound to the wallet or pride may be more deadly than stripes on the back.

The martyrs block may never call us, but we must die if we are to live with God. I am crucified with Christ nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me:... (Gal. 2:20). The martyrs had already given away their lives. Living for Christ, we find courage to die for him. J . Fitch

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...