Jump to content

Plain Talk


RETIREDFAN1

Recommended Posts

Vol.VII No.III Pg.8
May 1970

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

The old man was bedfast, and his wife was fretting about the house, seeking to please. He called his wife to his side, and said, Mandy, out in the barn, behind the feed bin, there is a brown bottle. I want you to get it, crush some ice and fill a glass, sprinkle powdered sugar over the ice, bruise several mint leaves and place them in the ice, then pour contents of that bottle over the whole. Let it set until frost begins to form on the side of the glass — and then, Mandy, I want you to make me drink it!

Im in Kentucky for some meetings, and thats a Kentucky story if I have ever heard one. Dont blame me if I used the wrong recipe — I dont know too much about Mint Juleps — but I can guarantee the spirit of the story. And Kentucky isnt the only place where people like to pretend they are making some great sacrifice, taking some terrible potion, when in reality, they enjoy every bit of it.

JUDO AND KARATE FOR CHRIST

That is the heading of a display ad from a Bowling Green, Ky. newspaper. A Baptist church there is featuring a Black Belt, Judo and Karate Instructor with Live demon- strations including breaking 10 of concrete with his hand and head, and thrusting a nail through 2 of wood with his fist. Of course, this is all done FOR CHRIST!!

If that means what it has meant in past demonstrations of like nature, this Black Belt man will break a few concrete blocks, and then witness for Christ, whatever that may mean. (See Vol. 6, No. ii.)

Some liberal brethren who follow the same tactics — with golf pros, TV and movie stars, or prominent political figures for the star attraction — are sadly out-booked. Who is going to worship (worship??) where a golf pro makes a little speech, when they can go on down the street and see a Karate expert break 10 of concrete with his head and hand? And who — who indeed — is going to give up either of these attractions in order to hear the gospel of Christ proclaimed? Ill tell you who will hear the gospel, and hunger for more. The few who are striving for a heavenly home.

To the heaven-bound, this self- serving piety, the Fun & Frolic worship, is about as useful as a $5. gift certificate from a Funeral Home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.IV Pg.1
June 1970

Paging Nathan

Robert F. Turner

The preacher reads the scriptures, and points out some positive teaching clearly set forth. The hearers nod their understanding and approval. The principle stated is so right, so very true, so obviously scriptural.

Then the preacher makes an application of the accepted truth to some actual situation — some obscure and little known error, so far as the audience is concerned, but an example that demonstrates clearly a violation of the gospel truth. The hearers are shocked that anyone could be so blind to the plain truth, or so calloused as to ignore it.

And then the preacher gives other examples of this same error, with accurate details, that do everything except call the name of the offender. The audience is with him — maturing in their understanding of the scriptural principle as its truth is contrasted with obvious error, and completely sympathetic with the preachers desire to correct the wrong.

So, the preacher calls the name of the offender, or makes specific reference to that which he has correctly described — maybe he says, Baptist or Herald of Truth, or (do you suppose he would dare?) he says, Thou art the man! (2 Sam. 12:7)

The hearers are stunned! They give one another that who does he think he is look, and (almost literally) they hit the ceiling.

What right have you to judge? Why dont you preach the gospel and let other people alone? If you had the right spirit you would LOVE the ones you talk about! Shame on you for being against the care of poor little orphans. Anti — everything, and never want to do anything! Wow!!

What happened to that scriptural principle to which all agreed? Where are those sympathetic Amens! as we were urged to do Bible things in Bible ways? How has the wrong of some faraway or despised sect become so right, now that we see we are guilty?

Are we really listening to what Gods word says; swallowing our pride to become His honest servants???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.IV Pg.3
June 1970

Forbidden Lntegration

Dan S. Shipley

Not all integration is good. In fact, the Bible warns against a kind that is detri- mental and to be avoided; namely, the integration of the Christian with the world. This is not the unavoidable contacts with sinners of the world as mentioned in 1 Cor. 5:10, but it is the willful entangling alliances made with the world that become a hindrance to serving God. God has plainly legislated against the kind of integration in which the Christian yokes himself with these unbelievers and makes himself the friend of the world. (2 Cor. 6:14; Jas. 4:4)

The people of God have always been governed by this fundamental principle of separation. From Sinai the Israelites were warned against making covenants with the inhabitants of idolatrous nations. (Ex. 34: 12-16) Intermarriage was strictly forbidden. (Deut. 7: 3,4) In referring to such pro- hibitions, Paul reminds Christians to Come ye out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord — (2 Cor. 6:17) The Lords church is comprised of those who have been called out of darkness into a segregated state of holiness and sanctification. This being true, What communion hath light with darkness? or what fellowship have righteousness and iniquity? (6:14) In an apparent reference to yoking unclean beasts, Paul shows that such an unequal yoke would exist between believer and unbeliever. Such is the case when one who has been cleansed by the blood of Christ yokes himself with one who refuses such cleansing.

Integrating with the world carries absolutely NO advantages and many dis- advantages for Gods people. The same persuasive influence that yoked the believer with the unbeliever will persist in the yoked relationship — if not intensify — and always to the detriment of the believer. Many believers have erred in thinking that they could convert an unbeliever by sticking their neck in a yoke with them. Judgement will show that many merely exchanged their souls for a yoke. The Israelites practiced forbidden integration with disastrous results. They mingled themselves with the nations and learned their works, and served their idols which became a snare unto them. (Ps. 10:35,36) Even wise and once -faithful Solomon was turned away from God h the influence of his ungodly wives. History proves that indiscriminate mingling of saints and sinners always produces more sinners and fewer saints.

The life of every Christian should be a protest against integrating with the world. Christ and the world are travelers that journey in opposite directions. One may follow Christ or walk with the world, but none can do both. In walking with the world, the Christian counts the blood of Christ wherewith he has been sanctified (segregated) as an unholy thing and trods underfoot the Son of God. (Heb. 10: 29)

If continued, the integration of inequality becomes one of equality in darkness. The believer who was separated to God becomes separated from Him. Integration was never achieved at a greater price!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.IV Pg.4
June 1970

Go, And Sin No More

Robert F. Turner

This is a true story, so far as I can reconstruct it from memory, with specifics changed only to make the account impersonal. It is taking place in one of our large cities, where hippies abound.

A preacher made contact with a young couple, living common-law and enjoying (?) the freedoms (?) of this permissive age. They had no real aim in life, and no guide-lines for self- improvement or the building of character. They saw their friends ever seeking, never finding a meaning for life in drugs and dissipation. There was no hope, for there was no faith for its foundation; and religion had long ago been abandoned as organized irrelevance, shot through with hypocrisy. But they allowed the sky man to talk, out of sheer boredom.

Now this preacher was untrained in social studies. He had little formal education, and had not read up on the psychology of modern youth. He preached for a church which organized no youth Movements, had no social hall, and thought the gospel of Christ, not pop-music parties, was the power of God unto salvation. All this out-of-date preacher knew to do for the hippies was to love them for Jesus sake, and point them to the Lord for the remission of their sins — and he called them sins too!

But something in his sincerity and the obvious rightness of his appeal touched them. He set before them the Bible — authoritative — commending itself by its very message. He showed them the unselfishness of Gods love and pled with them to change their heart, life and state. They obtained a New Testament, and studied it. Soon they admitted their sinful condition, and showed a desire to correct their misspent life. They assured the preacher their love for one-another was genuine, so he urged them to marry. A quiet ceremony followed. A few weeks later they were baptized.

The withdrawal from unkempt hair and beard, extreme make-up, mini-mini skirts, etc., was slow — but members of the church were tactfully patient and understanding. And as former associates of this couple began to see the change in their life — the new hope, and radiant faith — they began to ask questions. How did you do it? and Could we escape too?

While I was there for a meeting the preacher asked me, almost apologetically, if I would be hurt if he missed a service. It seems five or six others, in like circumstances, had asked him to come and talk with them. I said I would be very disappointed if he failed to go.

Several couples have now been converted to Christ, and Their efforts have expanded the contacts for more of the same. There is no publicity given — no spectacular announcements made. There have been, and will continue to be failures. But I will not forget the gratitude of those faithful ones; how they listened to sermons and hungered for more.

I wish more of my brethren were converted hippies, or converted preachers, or converted anything!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.IV Pg.5
June 1970

God In Us, All Or None

Robert F. Turner

When one begins to discuss the nature of Deity — its plurality of functions, each of which is given personality — mans limitations become immediately apparent. But our understanding of God will not be bettered by ignoring what God has said about himself. Nor can we know Him by pitting one facet of deity against another. The Holy Spirit is deity, and we must consider this in our studies of Holy Spirit operations.

GOD (deity) is ONE (Deut. 6:4; Mk. 12: 29-32; 1 Tim. 1:17; 6: 13-16) yet both Son (Jn. 1:1,14) and Spirit were present in creation. (Gen. 1:2, 26) We accept the plural nature of the ONE God, not because we fathom it, but because Gods word declares it.

The Holy Spirit has the characteristics of deity: being Eternal (Heb. 9:14), Omniscient (1 Cor. 2: 10-11), Omnipresent (Psm. 139:7 ), etc. When Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit he lied to God. (Acts 5: 3-4) The Spirit knows (1 Cor. 2:9f) wills (1 Cor. 12:11) speaks (Acts 8:29) grieves (Eph. 4:30) and strives (Gen. 6:3) — is thus given personality in the same way as is the Father and Son. We can not accurately think of the operation of the Spirit in such a way as to ignore this.

God being ONE, there is perfect consistency in all of His operations. His truth is ONE, and His Spirit does not deliver one thing to one, and a contradicting thing to another. (See 1 Cor. 14: 37) God is no respecter of persons (Rom. 2:11). Even those specially endowed messengers, through whom His truth was delivered to the world (Lu. 24: 48-49), were subject to that message just as the rest of us. (Gal. 2:11-14) God revealed Himself to man in an ever- increasing clearness, as He prepared man for the ultimate revelation in His Son ( Heb 1:1-f) and confirmed the message of His Son to man by His Holy Spirit. (Heb. 2:4) The inspired message is now presented to man for his acceptance or rejection.

One can not accept Gods word, and reject Gods Spirit. (Acts 7:51, 52) We can not accept the Son, and reject His words. (Jn. 12:47-f) To reject the Son is to reject the Father. (Jn. 8:42) What we are really saying is that God is ONE — and an acceptable relationship with one facet of deity is such with all. No one has the Spirit or is moved by the Spirit to do or say anything contrary to the will and way of the whole of deity. We are baptized into the realm of the whole of deity — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The Spirit dwells in the temple of God. (1 Cor. 3:16) (Note, we are Gods house, a habitation of God through the Spirit. Eph. 2:22) Jesus said, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we (emph. mine, rt) will come unto him, and make our abode with him. (Jn. 14:23) But a Christian is not God incarnate. God, the very essence of deity, does not dwell in material temples—— neither flesh nor stone. (1 Kng. 8:27- 30; Acts 7:48) Paul says that Christ dwells in our hearts by faith (Eph. 3:16-19) and couples this with Gods Spirit in the inner man, and our being filled with... God.

Spirit-indwelling concepts which divide deity cannot be true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.IV Pg.6
June 1970

Old Bait, New Fish

Robert F. Turner

In the Apr. 14, Firm Foundation Dr. J. D. Thomas reported that Pres. John Stevens (ACC) was advocating a way for churches to become financially involved in a scriptural way in the training of preachers in our accredited schools. He explained, Specifically, churches could hire young men on their staff of preachers and support them while they are in attendance at a Christian college and preparing to preach. The church would not be contributing to the college, but would simply be supporting the preacher during his time of preparation for preaching. This is scriptural, inasmuch as churches now support the local minister while he is preparing to preach next Sunday.

I fail to see how anything can be scriptural inasmuch as — we do so and so. A thing is scriptural when the SCRIPTURES authorize it — and a PhD. should understand that. But the schools want some of that financial blood that is now going to church operated preacher schools.

And should the churches really send support to the preacher — after all the propaganda we have heard to the effect that preachers are dishonest, and money should be sent to some sponsoring church rather than directly? What is wrong with contributing to the college according to We Be Brethren — bro. Thomas book?? Is it not apparent that this is another college try for the church treasury — the same, in fact, as that made by Pres. A. C. Pullias (DLC) a few years past? What possible advantage has accredited BIBLE knowledge over any other, to BIBLE preachers? My memory is none too sharp, but I recall this same plea in the history of earlier efforts to get support for colleges; and it is amazing that men who supposedly keep up with such an important issue would be caught by it now. But bro. Reuel Lemmons. in an editorial of Apr. 21, (F.F.) follows in the same path with bro. Thomas. How long will it take him to see where he is being led?

He thinks, The church has better control over the education its preachers get if it is paying the bill. At the risk of shocking the editor, this preacher would like to announce that he does not belong to (i.e., is not the property of) the church. but is an individual belonging to Christ. I expect brethren (individually and/ or collectively) to support me because I am engaged in the work of the Lord and we have this common interest. I work with my brethren, and enter into agreement with certain ones to function collectively in certain things; but I am not a Church of Christ preacher (in that party sense which is so common these days).

With our preachers, going to our schools, where we control the education our preachers get — (and the once common practice of putting such statements in quotes is now a rarity) how long will it take to convince churches to quit kidding themselves, send the money to the school, and let the college run the show?

I think bro. Lemmons had better read up on the college-in-the-church budget arguments of the past century. I think bro. Thomas already knows!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.IV Pg.7
June 1970

Queries And Answers

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

We have had numerous discussions about the use of the church building for weddings, and most of us think this should not be done because weddings are a social function. Now, some say there should be no visiting among members, and no talking about anything but the worship, when we are at the church building. Will you comment on this? MIF

Reply:

It figures! Visiting in the church building is a social function, so I suppose this had to come.

First, we should (and I think most disciples do) understand that the building is NOT sacred — NOT comparable to the Jewish tabernacle or the temple which Jesus cleansed. Its only authority for existence is that it is (or seems to be) expedient to provide a place for the assembling of saints (Heb. 10:25; Acts 20: 7-8; 1 Cor. 11:18-22) On this basis the church building is a tool, purchased with funds set aside to do the Lords work, and as such is held in trust, to be used for its intended purpose.

The building belongs to the declared purpose and intent (cy pres) of the people who purchased it. although personal identity of the donors has been lost in collective action. The building does not belong to God in any special sense, except as its purchasers put it to use in the service of God. There is, of course, a matter of trust — the moral obligation of subsequent users, to respect the purpose for which the building was constructed. There are incidental uses to which a tool may be put, which would not violate the original purpose nor be an infringement upon its intended use. For example, a company car, intended for business only, may serve a dual purpose if the salesman gives a friend a lift as he goes to work. I see a difference in this and in wear, and expenses, placed upon the company car so that the salesman may take a long rough fishing trip. Obviously. some human judgement is involved.

There are incidental uses, in my judgement, to which the church building may be put — including weddings. funerals, and visiting, — which impose no additional expense upon the church, nor constitute any violation of trust as regards the intended purpose of the facilities. It is easy to see, however, that these same activities could be pressed to the extent that they hindered or even obstructed the originally intended purpose for which the building was obtained. (The company car was not intended as a commuter bus; and if it is marked with the company name or insigne so as to be easily identified, perverse use might cast improper reflections upon the company.)

Right or wrong, a regular place of meeting for the saints, so designated or understood by the public, places an obligation upon us to see that its uses are in keeping with its purpose, or of such an incidental nature as to pose no threat to Bible teaching by word and example.

The church has no authority to build a wedding chapel or social hall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.IV Pg.8
June 1970

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

A wealthy church—member once asked me if he had heard correctly about a local church trouble. these the men involved? he asked, naming four or five hot-heads. When I answered in the affirmative he said, Go home and forget it! I have mortgages on the homes and businesses of those men, and I can shut them up with a phone call. (Or, words to that effect.)

I dont suppose those men will ever believe that I prevailed upon my friend to cease and desist— insisting that this was not the way Christians conduct their affairs. The battle for mens souls is not fought with financial pressure, court-order, name-calling, or any other carnal weapons. No one was ever converted to the Lord with the tools of the Devil.

For many years I used that story as my best example, outside of the Bible, of carnal weapons (2 Cor. 10:3-5) and their misuse. But now I may retire my story in favor of a new one, recently heard, but dating back to World War, II. It seems some woman asked a preacher to assist her in her marital problem; being, in essence, that she felt she could no longer tolerate her husband. The Lords servant, counselor of the distressed, assured the woman that he could help. He then went to the local draft board and managed to have the husband called for active duty. Thats what I call putting real punch into marriage counseling. We sincerely hope he did not have a Bible precedent in mind — that of David and Uriah.

Even the Lords disciples. James and John, thought to wreck a fleshly vengeance on behalf of the Lord, by calling down fire to burn up the opposition (Lu. 9: 53-56): but Jesus said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. (I take this to mean they had the spirit of the Devil in this matter.)

No doubt well-meaning persons today think they can further the Lords cause by whipping the opposition, or beat them at their own game. The result is that both parties join with Satan, and the Lord is forgotten. If we can not capture the heart to the obedience of Christ all else is vain.

The reason many of us use carnal means for seeking our goals, we are trying to satisfy our pride, build up human parties, improve a worldly image, instead of serving the Lord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.V Pg.1
July 1970

God Loves Even Me

Robert F. Turner

It is hard to love an alcoholic. Wives have tried, and cried! The heart longs for tender- ness, and receives a cursing rebuke. Efforts to please go unnoticed; his special dish which was prepared with loving care is cold and uneaten, as he tarries at the bar. Or, a husband finds the mother of his children in a drunken stupor, while the baby sobs pitifully.

The alcoholic sobers, and weeps bitter tears of remorse. He is forgiven, and everyone pledges a new start — and a few hours later we discover that there were cold checks out even while we were seeking to work off the last indebtedness. The savings released to pay those checks is spent on more alcohol instead — and, if we raise our voice in exasperation, we are told that this eternal nagging drives him to drink.

There is no love like mothers love — and I have known mothers to shake with emotion as they pondered the unanswered problem. One mother acknowledged that her only peace was the uneasy rest she experienced while her son was in prison. There, he has food, and a bed, she said, and I know where he is. Still, she sought his release — and was hurt again.

The wife pretends not to hear the neighbors talk about her husbands unfaithfulness, and the husband tries to see his youthful bride in place of the slothful old sot who sprawls on the divan while he straightens the house. Until human endurance reaches its limit! Until love is smothered, and its embers glow only in fitful memories that come to haunt dreams. Yes, it is hard to love an alcoholic!

But God loves alcoholics! While they were yet drinking, He gave His Son to die for them. (Rom. 5:6-10) God does not love their ways, but he does love them, and His unselfish love has prompted many an alcoholic to change his ways and obey the Lord so that his sins may be forgiven. (Acts 2:38)

Im glad God loves alcoholics — and the rest of us sinners who get hung up on pride, fleshly appetite, money, etc., until we act toward God like the alcoholic toward his family. Do you dare make the comparison??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.V Pg.2
July 1970

The Bitter And Sweet

Robert F. Turner

On page 6, we quote John Allen Chalk, preacher for the Highland Church of Christ. Abilene. as he reviews the X - rated movie, Midnight Cowboy. His comments are copied, word for word, from an article by Sam Pendergrast, in the May 22, Abilene Reporter—News, headed Minister Critics Reject Obscenity Label for Cowboy. We take the word of others when we say the chief characters are a homosexual and male prostitute, with explicit scenes of both heterosexual and homosexual relationships.

John Allen Chalk does not commend homosexuality — just the true brotherly love he thinks the characters portrayed. He does not commend the explicit scenes of what God calls vile affection burning lust Unseeming and defiling — for he says they are unnecessary and, therefore, both personally and artistically unacceptable. He sees the movie as a socio-psychological commentary on basic human need — religious need.

I admire bro. Chalk for the courage he displayed in frankly stating his views on such a controversial subject — but there my admiration comes to a screeching halt. His description of the character Ratso as a striking Christ—type figure makes me sick at my stomach. My feelings are not helped by remembering that a hippie school of modernists have tried to cast Jesus in that role.

And if you have read the slick- sheet pictorials and news magazines of the past few years you know that the big defense of pornography and obscene movies and plays is the redemptive qualities these smut-peddlers claim to find in their plots. We are asked to consider the social message or artistic value; just watch the hands — the story is in the hands. The story of what??

Jesus taught true love for vile sinners (Jn. 8: 2-11) without minimizing the sin, or casting the sinner as a Christ -type figure. True gospel preachers today need not go to the sewer for materials or examples by which to preach His message.

To a much happier topic — we call attention to page 3, where we print a third article by bro. Dan S. Shipley. We appreciate your commendations of his articles in two previous issues.

Bro. Shipley, now of Prescott, Ariz., has agreed to assist in writing Plain Talk next year while I am in Australia for meetings, and he is breaking in with some splendid material. Congratulations, Dan!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.V Pg.3
July 1970

Marks Of Jesus

Dan S. Shipley

Henceforth, let no man trouble me; for I bear branded on my body the marks of Jesus. (Gal. 6:17) With these words the apostle Paul concludes his remarks concerning the circumcision which Judaizing teachers were seeking to bind upon Christians. In contrast to this body-mark insisted upon by these Jews as proof of obedience, Paul offers his marks of Jesus as a truer trademark of allegiance. As with warriors of old, these scars were Pauls badges of honor. They were evidence of being on active duty for the King. They proved dedicated involvement for Jesus.

The conflict which scarred the body of Paul continues. Every faithful follower of Christ stands on the same battlefield — one that is stained with the blood of the Savior himself. Loyalty to Christ and His gospel makes opposition unavoidable. Standing for Gods truth means actively opposing error. The soldier of the cross not only abstains from sinful practices, he boldly reproves them as well. (Eph. 5:11) Following Christ means entering the arena of conflict, and to live godly in Him is to suffer persecution. (2 Tim. 3:12)

As the conflict continues, so do the casualties. Those who will stand where Paul stood need not expect to escape unscathed. They too will incur marks of Jesus just as real, if not so apparent, as Pauls. For some, allegiance to Christ has meant a divided family (Matt. 10:34—37). For others it has meant the deep wounds of a severed friendship. None can deny the hurt and injuries inflicted by hostile and vindictive brethren. Scourging or stoning would be easier to bear. Sincere hearts have been cut deeply by slanderous tongues. Such wounds leave invisible scars which abide for a lifetime.

But, not every man who suffers does so as a Christian and not all marks are of Jesus. Even false teachers encounter opposition and conflict which they construe as proof of their faithfulness. Suffering, in itself, is no more a sign of loyalty than circumcision. Error, no doubt, can boast as many martyrs as truth, but in no way does this enhance error or those who may die for it. Much suffering is the result of dissipation and reckless living. Its wounds could be more appropriately termed marks of Satan than of Jesus.

Marks of Jesus are incurred only as the result of faithfulness to Him and His word. Conflict and its fruits need not be sought by Christians for it will surely come in following Christ. The faithful must learn to EXPECT sufferings, persecutions, injustices, social pressures, railings and reprisals from within and without — and in fact should be more surprised when they DONT come than when they do! Christ said, Blessed are they that have been persecuted for righteousness sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye when men shall reproach you and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake. (Matt. 5: 10-11)

The marks we avoid by doing and/or saying nothing, may be marks we need to enter heaven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.V Pg.4
July 1970

Too Busy For God!

Robert F. Turner

Bro. John had made a dozen calls, in a wide territory, trying to sell insurance. The day was hot, traffic was heavy, and he barely made it home in time to take a quick shower, grab a bite to eat, and get to the meeting. He had hoped to have time to check his boat, as he planned to leave the next morning for a vacation, and he was somewhat irked at having to lose that two hours of cool evening time. But he taught the adult mens class, and he just had to make one service of the meeting before leaving town.

Sist. Jane works down-town, and had to ask the boss to let her off a bit early so she could get her hair fixed. She barely got home in time to heat a few T.V. dinners for the children. She took a cup of coffee to her room, and dressed while they were eating. She only saw them briefly — to argue with the boy about the credit card he wanted to use for his date that night, and to have it out with the girl about the weird-o costume she wanted to wear. (The girl got her way.) By now, Jane had a terrific headache, and only went to the meeting because John insisted he should not go alone.

The girl finally got her eyes on and kept her parents waiting in the car while she changed beads five or six times — trying to make up her mind. They had to race to the church building, and the girl pouted all the way about her brother getting the car and not having to go to church, and he was only two years older, etc.

They barely made it in time — were late by the clock, but the song leader was late in starting. He had tarried in the parking lot trying to make a car deal with another member, and had to make his song selections under last-minute pressure. Oh well, he could think the car-deal over more fully after the preaching started.

The local preacher had been out all day selling mutual funds certificates, and was peeved that his wife had forgotten to tell him he was supposed to pick up old sist. Jones. Such failures hurt his public image. But his wife taught school, and had had a parent-teacher meeting that afternoon; and had barely gotten home in time to freshen up a bit and get to the meeting. She had misplaced the hurriedly taken note about sist. Jones — and anyhow, that was in his department, it was not her job.

So, they sang a few songs, and called on someone for prayer; then the local preacher welcomed a few visitors, made the usual apologies for the small percentage of members present — of course, we have had some sickness — and the visiting evangelist took the floor and looked at his targets. 130/150 tired. business—harried people, up-tight and preoccupied with scores of problems — all of them material. He must capture their attention, focus it upon unfamiliar subjects, lead them to reason and draw conclusions that, put into practice, would change their whole lives.

These are not BAD people — they do show some interest by their presence, and a few will listen, meditate, and study — and God will dwell in them. BUT MOST OF US ARE TOO BUSY FOR GOD!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.V Pg.5
July 1970

The Spirit Said That?

Robert F. Turner

The June 25, Gospel Guardian reprinted an article by Pat Boone entitled I Received the Holy Spirit and Tongues! in which Pat says, We dont have to fear that the Holy Spirit will lead us into doctrinal error: how could Gods Spirit contradict Himself? How indeed! It is obviously consistent with this truth that all these Spirit filled ones (including Dean Dennis, former minister, Northside church, Santa Ana; and Ben J. Franklin, San Diego, Calif. preacher) should now be free from any doctrinal error. Their writing should reflect a marvelous purity, wholly consistent with all the Holy Spirit has ever revealed. But is this so??

The same article by Pat Boone uses witnessing in a sectarian sense. He applies Matt. 3: 11 to his own claimed reception of the Spirit; and his speaking (and singing) with tongues is supposedly justified by a gross misuse of Rom. 8:16. He gets Rom. 8:26 turned around; the H. S. (?) Intercession with groanings which cannot be uttered become the words and melody of a song, composed spontaneously by Gods Spirit which were uttered. He seems to accept the Calvinistic doctrine of spiritual discernment of the Word. (This is a citing of cases only, not intended as an examination of them. See articles in Guardian. )

In the same G.G. article by Dennis it is not hard to see the dead formality of his former preaching. He admits he had read the Bible to prove doctrinal points or to get sermon material, and thought he could answer Pats error with a briefcase filled with books. He applies Acts 19: 2, to himself (with no reference to the laying on of Pauls hands); and accepts Thayers doctrinal commentary on 1 Cor. 13: 10 in place of what I had been taught by my Church doctrine. Doesnt sound like much of a choice for a Spirit filled man.

Franklin says, We Have Miracles In Our Own Church of Christ — and apparently it is their own. He writes of something done by nine of the larger congregations of the non-instrumental branch of the Church of Christ, and of his becoming the Minister for one of the larger Church of Christ congregations. (The Holy Spirit never wrote or spoke like that.) He has discovered that the Church of Christ is just another denomination, and that During Jesus ministry on earth, He moved about in various groups, not joining Himself exclusively to any of them; so the Holy Spirit, today, is moving in various groups, yet not belonging exclusively to any of them. How is that for Holy Spirit truth, free from all doctrinal error, coming from one who is now pastoring Christs Center Church of Christ in downtown San Diego.?

Maybe these men never did know the truth concerning the church of the Lord. But if they did, it is obvious that whatever the now have, it is leading them further away from the truth of God — and this, the Holy Spirit of God would not do.

They are not being led into such error by objective consideration and submission to Gods Spirit, but by subjective faith in the human spirit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.V Pg.6
July 1970

Sermon In The Sewer

Robert F. Turner

When men refuse to glorify their maker and recognize their dependence upon Him; when they become fools in their vanity, and worship and serve the creature more than the Creator, God gives them up to their own lusts. (Rom. 1: 21—f) God gives them up unto vile affections, and ~ leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,.., shall inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor. 6:9-10, emph. mine. rt) Effeminate is from malakos which Arndt & Gingrich Lexicon defines as: especially of catamites, men and boys who allow themselves to be misused homosexually.

In 1 Tim. 1:10, among that which is contrary to sound doctrine, is listed them that defile themselves with mankind. (arsenokoites - a male homosexual, pederast, sodomite.)

So men make a movie of this sordid thing, call it Midnight Cowboy, and John Allen Chalk, nationally—known minister of the Highland Church of Christ in Abilene was asked to see and write a review of the film. We quote from The Abilene Reporter—News, May 22, 1970, front page and 2-A.

Midnight Cowboy poignantly describes the classic disease of our materialistic, impersonal era — loneliness. The story reveals the redemptive power in one meaningful, mutually helpful human relationship. Unfortunately, many will view this film as standard entertainment fare rather than as strong, socio-psychological commentary on basic human need — religious need, I might add.

The explicit scenes of both heterosexual and homosexual relationships (not as many as one would see in some R movies) are, in my judgement, unnecessary and, therefore, both personally and artistically unacceptable. But the mature adult who goes knowing that Midnight Cowboy is an X-rated movie can come away with a deep concern for the loneliness in his own life and a greater awareness of the lonely people all around him.

The newspaper article continues: In an interview with this reporter, Mr. Chalk enlarged on his impression of what he called the redemptive quality of the film.

The character Ratso (played by Hoffman) is a striking Christ-type figure, he said, —beaten down and hopeless — but offering the possibility of redemption to the formerly self-center, materialistic Joe Buck (played by Voight.)

Mr. Chalk repeatedly praised the impact and the powerful message of the film, noting that, viewed in the proper spirit, it offers a stronger sermon on true brotherly love than any sermon he has ever delivered as a minister.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.V Pg.7
July 1970

Queries And Answers

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

What is the moral responsibility of the sick alcoholic, homosexual, or the like?

Reply:

God must answer, with respect to the heart — and He alone knows the true ability by which to measure ones responsibility; but I find no scriptural justification for the current use of sick to excuse sin.

Social science studies human behavior and seeks to explain it in purely social cause-effect terms. Its morals are purely social mores — most of its authorities reject God. And some Ph. D. preachers have rejected Gods word to favor such conclusions.

Freud and his followers did not make human conduct, they only sought to analyze the mind back of the act. It seems the Freudian philosophy has fathered a new breed of rationalists, whose morals are lowered, and who pragmatically reason that the end justifies any workable means. But even these would agree that social misfits, with frustrations, broken homes and blighted psyche existed long before our day. For example, did the woman taken in adultery (Jn. 8:) have no physio-psycho problems that my have contributed to her profligacy? Who can doubt it? Yet Jesus dealt with her as a sinner, and his compassionate understanding did not change this fact.

If history is even partially correct, the Corinthians engaged in forms of erotica that equaled or surpassed our most depraved society. Did they have no feelings of insecurity, no loneliness, no frustrated childhoods, no unfulfilled mother-love to propel them into such searchings for peace? They did, or the whole philosophy of psychology breaks down.

Were they sick products of a sick society? I will not deny it. But God says they were unrighteous, and the remedy for their condition was to be washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Cor. 6: 9-11)

We are born into a world cursed by sin — its influence is all about us. It enters our homes, affects us physically and emotionally. Some may be born so sick mentally or otherwise as to be incomplete souls, but we have no right to lower morals to fit such cases. God establishes standards of sound doctrine and it does not accept whoremongers and homosexuals. (1 Tim. 1: 9-11) God judges ability.

God warns that we may become bond- servants (slaves) of sin (Jn. 8:34) by yielding to sin. (Rom. 6:16-18) When we yield to fleshly desires, again and again, we may weaken our resistance and become sick unto death but we can not escape our moral responsibility before God for allowing such a thing to happen.

The antidote — or better, the preventive medicine —is to retain God in our hearts. Without this restraining influence we become victims of our own appetites, we burn in our own acid. (Rom. 1: 28-f) There is no substitute for God now, nor in the non- Freudian world to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.V Pg.8
July 1970

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

When I was a boy in school, if a pupil said, 2 + 2 = 5 he was corrected, and sent to his desk for further study. Now, he might start a student protest, and argue his right to make his own rules of mathematics. I have no desire to restrict personal freedom, but I do not want him building my house with his ruler.

A case in point is a crude mimeographed tract, recently received, in which the writer argues that the use of Oaks—West or even Burnet before Church of Christ denotes ownership of that church, and that this profanes the name. The man is to be pitied. He evidently thinks CHURCH OF CHRIST is THE divinely ordained formal designation for Gods people, and overlooks his own citation of church of God (1 Cor. 1:2). (See household of faith Gal. 6: 10, or most frequent, simply the church.

The genitive of denotes possession in the expression church of Christ and could as well be stated, Christs church. (Incidentally, the word church before Christ does not profane the name of Christ.) And churches of the Gentiles (Rom. 16:4) does not mean the churches belong to the Gentiles, but consist of such. In Rom. 16:1 the church which is at Cenchrea (greek has in- dative) simply denotes location. Neither in the Greek nor English does the before or after position denote possession or profaning — but then, we do not expect the writer of the tract to understand that. He is operating by his own private rules of grammar. (?)

Reminds us of the fellow who petitioned the court for a divorce, and the judge asked, Do you have any grounds? He replied, Just a few acres in the country.

I mean, do you have a grudge? the judge explained.

And the man answered, No, I just have a carport.

I believe in mans freedom and obligation to think for himself; but this does not free him from the absoluteness of truth. He may become a slave to his own ignorance. And, some learn just enough to get confused. We heard of some hogs that were taught to come for food when the farmer beat on a tree with a stick. Came spring, and a family of woodpeckers moved into the woods, and drove them crazy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.VI Pg.1
August 1970

Keep Up With Joses

Robert F. Turner

And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) ... Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles feet. But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife sold a possession, and kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles feet. — (Acts 4: 36- 5: 1-f.)

Ananias was not forced to sell his property — God did not impose a tax on either Joses or Ananias. When Ananias pretended to give all — as if to keep up with Joses — he was a pitifully self-deceived man. With his attitude, he would not have measured up to Joses stature, had he sold twice as much property and given it all.

Joses moved in keeping with the great grace that was upon the multitude of the believers, and if Ananias was a part of that mass (4: 32-f) he must have, at one time, had an unselfish regard for possessions. But he allowed Satan to fill his heart. Some have suggested that he coveted the praise (or recognition) given to Joses. Maybe so — but he didnt think enough of it to pay the price — and it may surprise you to learn that I am not thinking of the short-change in money. Ananias was trying to serve two masters. With Satan in his heart, there was no room for the grace that could make even a small gift acceptable. Until he would give himself there was not enough money in Judea to keep up with Joses.

Paul used nine different words to describe the assistance which gentile Christians sent their needy Jewish brethren. Grace, fellowship, service, alms, sacrifice, and the like — all saying something of the spirit back of the gift. (Even collection had a religious connotation, as opposed to taxation Robertson, Deissmann, Moulton—Milligan, etc.) Truly, The gift without the giver is bare.

Ananias couldnt keep up with Joses because he aimed at externals only. He neither understood the gift nor the giver. Conversely, many try to keep up with the Joneses and never perceive the folly of materialism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.VI Pg.2
August 1970

The Money Trap

Dan S. Shipley

Preachers, Satan has set a trap for you, and its effectiveness is attested by the fact that hundreds of your fellow—creatures are already in the bag. We must open our eyes!!

Our work is to save souls, including our own. This is justified by faith in divine revelation. But Satan would have us think we meet a professional need, with social justifications only. Right here, in your understanding of your calling, is the crux of the whole matter. Do you serve God, or the the people?

Your support is the fellowship of taught with teacher (Gal. 6:6);you live of the gospel, (1 Cor. 9:6-14). But Satan plants the idea of salary for services rendered — so much work for so much pay — no pay, no work. One may play with words here, or fail to see the obligation of mutual agreement, but the basic idea remains. God wants you to work for Him, with support a fruit of your planting; while Satan wants you a hireling of mammon.

So Satan baits his trap with money. Neglect your studies, and sell mutual funds! Call on your neighbor, and sell insurance. Use your influence to promote some merchandising scheme. As though Paul went to the synagogue on the Sabbath to meet tent customers. I am nearing the age when one realizes his best days are numbered, and physical break-downs remind us of possibilities our youth rejected. I am trying to hedge against material needs of the future, and I understand the feelings of preachers who see others (including brethren) rake in twice the preachers support, with half the effort, and no more ability. (And for salt in the wound, many of them skip worship to do it.) But the true servant of God hurts more through concern for their spiritual sickness, and works the harder to bring them back to Christ. He doesnt join them in taking Satans bait.

And if brethren inadequately support the preacher, they need straight preaching on the subject. They will take it from a God-serving soldier of the cross — and I believe God-serving saints will make it right. Those kind make a God-serving team.

Jim Everett, Whose parents live in Burnet, has returned from three years preaching in Australia, and is now working for the Lake Jackson, church. He has agreed to assist in writing for Plain Talk, and he andwill make welcomed additions to the P.T. staff. Jims first contribution is on page 3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.VI Pg.3
August 1970

My Soul Loatheth Fodder

Jim R. Everett

Today, many churches are turning to entertainment and food in order to get people to come to church. That is like feeding a cow fodder instead of corn. One couple told me that On nights when a certain Baptist Church had its refreshment center open for the young people, they could hardly find a pew; however, on other nights when the center was closed, most of the pews were empty. Baptist are not unique in this.

Gone are the days when men sought refreshment for the soul, but crowds can be drawn by offering other morsels. Does this mean that we should change the kind of table we set, or does it mean that we should continue to seek those honest few (Matt. 7:13- 14) who are thirsting for nourishment for the soul?

Jesus fed a multitude with five loaves and two fish (Jn. 6: 1-13). He did not feed them to entice them to come to listen to him teach, but rather as a sign of his divine power. After seeing the miracle, they said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world, (v. 14). The next day the crowd sought him again, but they sought him because their stomachs had been filled, not because they hungered for righteousness. When he began to dish-out the true manna, they began to murmur and turned back from walking with him. They could not stomach a diet intended to nourish their souls. It is refreshing to notice that Jesus did not change the menu to draw the crowds. If they wanted to eat from his hand, they had to hunger for the true and enduring grain. A woman gave our Lord a cool drink and he, in turn, offered her living water that could quench her thirst forever (Jn. 4:142). She did not understand what he offered, but when he told her all things which she had ever done, she went to the city to tell others of the Christ. Many from the city came to see Jesus. They sought, not a fountain of youth, but the real, living water which alone could satisfy their souls need for life.

Jesus said to his disciples, I have meat to eat that ye know not of, and he explained by saying My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and finish his work, (vv. 32, 34). He says to us. Labor not for the meat that perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, (Jn. 6:27). The wise man said, Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man, (Eccl. 12:13). Fodder does not really satisfy anyway — All is vanity and a striving after wind, (Eccl. 1:14).

After eleven years, Margaret has become a good cook. She prepares a variety of nourishing food. She could not entice my salivary glands with fodder, nor would she try, because she knows my stomachs needs — and my soul loatheth fodder. Our Lord always fed men what their souls needed. If we, in order to draw crowds, substitute light bread for heavenly manna, we satisfy the body but put no meat on spiritual bones. Instead, we should seek those whose souls loath fodder and hunger for truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.VI Pg.4
August 1970

What Are The Issues?

Robert F. Turner

A little old lady, sincere and innocent, asked, Bro. Turner, what are the issues I hear about now and then? Although these things have been repeatedly stated, I will reprint an analysis of current problems which I wrote in 1961.

(1) (a) Shall we continue to teach and practice congregational independence — each local church doing her God-assigned work to the extent of her own ability and under her own control; or (b) shall we change our practice to allow collective activities on the part of a plurality of churches? (Frequently called the sponsoring church plan since one church usually assumes or is designated the controlling church with reference to the project considered, and the rest of the churches are but contributing churches.)

(2) (a) Shall we continue to teach and practice the all-sufficiency of the church to do her God-assigned work — the independent local church being the only God-appointed organization responsible for this work; or (b) shall we surrender our own responsibilities to human benevolent, evangelistic, and educational societies? (May inter-church bureaus and societies become the organizational means by which the God-appointed local church functions?)

(3) (a) Shall we continue to teach and practice principles relative to the spiritual nature and function of the church — a divine institution primarily concerned with the eternal destiny of the soul; or (b) shall we allow social and temporal welfare activities to dominate our program of work. (This involves determination, by the scriptures, of the God- assigned work of the organized church; and recognition of the distinction between the social, domestic, civil, and other responsibilities of the individual Christian, and their collective activities as an organized body or church.) (1 Tim. 5:1; Col. 3:17-f)

(4) (a) Shall we continue to insist upon Bible authority for our practices — inviting and encouraging open investigation and Bible study of any differences which may exist; or (b) shall we accept current brotherhood practices as our authority, and override opposition by majority rule or quarantine tactics?

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

I have so worded the above as to indicate my acceptance of the principles indicated in a of each issue. Emphasis is given to the word practice because men sometimes allow their practices to contradict the principles they claim to believe. We must determine principles by the Word of God, and fear not to alter practices of the past when they are seen to be in conflict with the Divine Will. Our practices may change from generation to generation — and usually such changes are so gradual we do not at first perceive them — but Gods Word remains steadfast; rebuking and correcting all who will be exercised thereby. (See 2 Tim. 3:16 f; 2 Cor. 10: 12-18; Acts 28: 25-28)

The issues may very well be put as ONE ISSUE — acceptance or rejection of the Divine Standard..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.VI Pg.5
August 1970

Ouija Board Preachers

Robert F. Turner

During World War II, Gov. Stephenson, of Texas, had something to say about the prophets of old foretelling automobile tire rationing. He, or his ghost writer, should have checked the reference (Isa. 3: 18) with greater care; and two or three verses of context would have helped a lot too. The round tires like the moon of K.J., become crescents in the A. S., with headtires in verse 20. The context would have shown Isaiah spake of the women of Jerusalem, and the pending captivity which would take away the golden ornaments of the people.

Some current radio prophet has offered Nahum 2:4 as prophecy concerning our traffic problems with today's automobile. The chariots rage in the streets... etc. Thats it, surely. Unless you read the context and find that Nahum speaks of the destruction of Nineveh throughout all three chapters. One would have to be a dolt to miss it.

This Ouija Board treatment of the prophets shows a gross misunderstanding of the prophet and his work. His primary function was NOT to tell the future, but to preach the word of God which was given him by inspiration. As someone has put it, he was more of a forth-teller than a foreteller. Aaron was Moses prophet (Ex. 7 :1), his spokesman -— to set forth what Moses told him to speak. (Ex. 4 :14-f) What the priest was to the Law (ministering at the alter, etc. ), and the wise were to counsel (as Solomon, and the counsel of Proverbs, etc.), the prophet was to the word. (Jer. 18:18) (Verses 5-11 give an excellent case of the function of a prophet.)

As Gods spokesman, the prophet set forth His will. Basically, he differed from a preacher only in that his message was inspired — holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Pet. 1:21) Abraham was a prophet; Moses was a prophet; and the name was applied to many who were moved by the Spirit. (Gen. 20:7; Deut. 34:10) But as the nations of Israel and Judah rebelled more and more against God, the messengers (prophets) of God were moved to devote more time to warning the sinners of their punishment. Great sections of their message called for repentance, and foretold (often in detail) the burden or woe that would come upon them.

And as the horizons darkened with regard to physical Israel, the hope of the Redeemer was set before them. Thus Isaiah promised salvation to the remnant in the shoot out of the stock of Jesse, and It is too light a thing that the preserved of Israel should be restored; I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles. So the prophets paved the way for the coming of Christ — the golden apex of their great work. Yet the greatest of prophets (Lu. 7:28) and forerunner of Christ was still a preacher of righteousness, who called for repentance.

How shallow then, how puerile, how utterly absurd for so-called radio- prophets to play games with bits of the divine message of prophets of old and propose to find there a sort of crystal ball for todays headlines. Automobiles moon-walks indeed!! Such preaching appeals to the sensation seeker, but has not the value of a nickels worth of dog food.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.VI Pg.6
August 1970

Word Study From 104 A.D.

Robert F. Turner

There is much controversy regarding the word used in the N.T. to designate Gods people, the ekklesia The studious will be interested in this quote from Light From The Ancient East by Deissmann, an authority in his field. (Pp. 112—f.)

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

The first scattered congregations of Greek-speaking Christians up and down the Roman empire spoke of themselves as a (convened) assembly; at first each single congregation was so called, and afterwards the whole body of Christians everywhere was spoken of collectively as the (convened) assembly. That is the most literal translation of the Greek word ekklesia. This self-bestowed name rested on the certain conviction that God had separated from the world His saints in Christ, and had called or convened them to an assembly, which was Gods assembly, Gods muster, because God was the convener.

It is one of the characteristic but little considered facts in the history of the early Christian missions that the Latin-speaking people of the West, to whom Christianity came, did not translate the Greek word ekklesia (as they did many other technical terms) but simply borrowed it. Why was this? There was no lack of words for assembly in Latin, and as a matter of fact contio or comitia was often translated by ekklesia. There must have been some special reason for borrowing the Greek word, and it lay doubtless in the subtle feeling that Latin possessed no word exactly equivalent to the Greek ekklesia.

There is evidence of this feeling even in non-Christian usage. Pliny the Younger employs the Latinized word ecclesia in one of his letters to Trajan. Some years ago a bilingual inscription of the year 103-4 A.D. came to light at Ephesus, which furnishes a still more interesting example. It was found in the theatre, the building so familiar to readers of Acts XIX, one of the best preserved ruins in the ancient city. A distinguished Roman official, C. Vibius Salutaris, had presented a silver image of Diana (we are reminded at once of the silver shrines of Diana made by Demetrius, Acts XIX, 24) and other statues that they might be set up in every ekklesia in the theatre upon the pedestals. The parallel Latin text has, ita ut (om)n(i) (e)cclesia supra bases ponerentur.

The Greek word was therefore simply transcribed. Here we have a truly classical example (classical in its age and in its origin) of the instinctive feeling of Latin speakers of the West which afterwards showed itself among the Western Christians: ekklesia cannot be translated, it must be taken over.

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

While we are gasping at this depth we may as well note that Christians at Corinth were called (to be) saints just as Paul was a called Apostle. The thought is NOT that they were designated or given the name saints but that they were set-apart as the result of Gods holy calling. (1 Cor. 1: 1-2) The church is Gods (convened) assembly, Gods muster, fruit of His calling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.VI Pg.7
August 1970

Queries And Answers

Robert F. Turner

In one section we know the question of private vs. walking down the aisle baptism is being rolled about. We were asked to comment.

Reply:

As regards what is scriptural, surely no Bible student would contend that either had an exclusive claim. Acts 2: pictures no invitation song sort of doings (nor do I know of such in the scriptures) but the baptism of 3,000 people in one day, in Jerusalem, beginning with the preaching of the twelve to the multitude, was certainly no private thing. Nor was that of Acts 3: 4: 1-4.

An orderly process, such as the preaching of the Word, and then the exhortation (invitation) to sinners to heed the Lords invitation and obey, is in keeping with the spirit and tenor of the N,T., (1 Cor. 14:40). It violates no teaching known to me. Even the question regarding ones faith, and the public acknowledgement of such faith, is right. (Rom. 10:10)

But I say even because traditional procedure has a way of clothing itself with authority — until some brethren seem to think that the apostles preached, sang an invitation song, took the confession, and then retired to the dressing room to don the robes for baptizing. There is nothing in the scriptures to justify this conclusion.

On the contrary, Acts 2: indicates an interruption of the sermon when certain ones were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles, Brethren, what shall we do? (v.37) Years ago I had concluded a sermon preached on the bank of a small creek, and was waiting for several to change clothes for baptism, when I heard a loud sob. Before I could turn, a man fell across my shoulder, shaken with emotion, and said, I have rejected Jesus long enough — I want to obey Him now.

I started to tell him to wait, and he could be baptized with the others, but he was not waiting. He walked, shoes, watch, wallet and all, right out into the water. I followed, and baptized him into Christ. What doth hinder me to be baptized? If you believe with all your heart, there is not a thing that can rightly hinder; even on a deserted road, with only a traveling party and a preacher present. (See Acts 8: 26-39)

Perhaps some have objected to so — called private baptisms, thinking it shows a lack of courage, and faith to stand up and be counted. Some think baptism is a church ordinance needing official sanction. But Baptism is not of the church, it is between the subject and Christ. We are baptized into Christ (Gal. 3:27) not into the local church. If the subject lacks faith in Christ he/she must be taught the word of God more perfectly. The necessary faith will not be supplied by forcing a church tradition upon the subject.

A properly taught subject will understand that he now accepts the obligations of service to Christ, and with other saints. He should appreciate their interest, and their desire to share with him this new joy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.VI Pg.8
August 1970

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

Christians are a separate people with different goals, and rules for attaining those goals that differ from worldly standards. It would be strange indeed if this did not produce different people.

But being different is not the goal — it is simply the fruit of our heavenly pursuit, in which the Son of God is our example and guide. There is nothing in the personal life of Jesus that suggests he made a spectacle of himself with bizarre dress or conduct. He attended feasts, ate with sinners, and was at home with the people of his day, yet without sin.

Peter says we are a peculiar people (1 Pet. 2:9), but this means we are Gods own possession in a distinctive way — conformed to the divine image. It doesnt mean we are necessarily queer by social standards, nor in appearance.

I heard of one fellow who decided he must be different — so he began to part his hair from side-to-side rather than from front-to-back. Others who get religion feel they must carry a bulky Bible with them wherever they go. Men who never wore anything but overalls, now deck-out in a black coat, with pencils and comb in the breast pocket. (This means they are getting ready to preach.) if a man needs a Bible to read, or to teach others, by all means carry one. And if a woman has been dressing immodestly, and painting her self FOR SALE; then, when she becomes a Christian, her attire and grooming will reflect the meek and quiet spirit within. There is something wrong when it reflects a desire to be noticed as that woman with the ascension robe.

Jesus said those who pray in the streets have their reward — and the expression was used among the Greeks for receipt — the praise of shallow men is receipt for payment in full. Thats all they are going to get.

In this materialistic world the truly spiritual man needs no hippie medallion to stand out. Honesty, is a bonfire in an age of dark dealings, and the Lords servant is conspicuous by his absence from Satans party. Anyhow, we are striving for recognition in heaven — remember!!

About the man who parted his hair from ear-to-ear — we hear that fad didnt last long. He got tired of having people whisper in his nose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.VII Pg.1
September 1970

Study To Be Quiet

Robert F. Turner

Paul wrote the Thessalonians that they should study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your hands —. (1 Thes. 4:11) We feel this is much needed advice now.

Study is from a word meaning be ambitious, used Rom. 15:20 (strived making it my aim) and 2 Cor. 5:9 (labour). This quietness is not a negative at ease in Zion attitude of unconcern. It is something set as a goal, something that requires positive planning and execution.

The Thessalonians had reacted to preaching about the second coming of Christ by ceasing daily ordinary activities, and engaging in hysterical, useless waiting — becoming a deadweight upon society and brethren. Our generation has their counterpart. The text says break it up. Quietness is a worthy ambition; work for it.

Lenski thinks to be quiet is, namely: to attend to your own business and to work with your hands even as, etc. It is the tranquility found in meaningful occupation; its counterpart being some that walk among you disorderly, that work not at all, but are busybodies. (2 Thes. 3:11) Luke uses the word four times: for rested (Lu. 23:56), and three times to indicate inward control, self-imposed peace. (Lu, 14:4; Acts 11:18; 21: 14) If we will grasp the self-imposed aspect of the word, we can see why Paul made it an ambition.

Christians need not expect a life free from trials (1 Pet. 4:12-f), nor void of struggle (1 Tim. 6:12). We pray for kings, etc., that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life, but this is not an indolent, self—indulgent life. We seek greater opportunity for service to God, conditions conductive to the spread of His word.

Our peace is that of the soldier who fights vigorously, with conviction that his cause is right and just. Our quietness is that of faith; the steadying influence, lest we beat the air. (1 Cor. 9:25-27)

Our problems will not be solved by youthful bluster or aged compromise.

We Need Men Who Study To Be Quiet.

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...