Jump to content

Plain Talk


RETIREDFAN1

Recommended Posts

Vol.VII No.VII Pg.2
September 1970

Ruts For Rules

Robert F. Turner

Out west, near Kingman, Ariz., time has preserved a segment of the old Santa Fe trail — ruts from wagon wheels, and pits where horses placed their hoofs, as they made a path over a rocky saddle. These ruts are cut in solid rock, evidence that this particular path was used over and over. We suppose there came a time when drivers followed the route because others had done so, with little thought that a better way might be found.

And the same is true with reference to our methods for doing things in the worship and work of the church. (1 refer to true expedients — things having generic authority, but for which there is no single means specified.) There is authority to sing, to teach and admonish in song, (Col. 3:16; 1 Cor. 14:15). There is authority to invite (Rev. 22:17). But there is no specific demand that we have preaching, then stand and sing an invitation song so people can walk down the aisle, confess their faith in the Lord, and be baptized.

But is it wrong to do it this way? As already stated, such comes within divine authority — it is NOT wrong — it is right. Nor is it too surprising that the other circumstances of a public preaching service should lead someone to adopt such a plan, and that others should follow the rut.

It is not wrong to follow a rut. Sometimes we become so averse to ruts that we would send each wagon helter-skelter over the terrain, each to cut its own way, rather than allow a path to be followed which would give the driver something to contemplate other than inventing new arrangements. But our story is not finished.

If the early Santa Fe drivers had allowed the ruts to become rules — so that future drivers were forbidden to seek new paths — the more direct and better grade of todays Santa Fe trail would never have been found. And in worship a far more vital aspect must be considered. When we follow ruts in worship, we tend to slog along, content with the form, and forgetting the real reason for coming this way in the first place. Soon, our rut becomes a rule that we regard as though it were divine.

It is not the rut that is wrong; it is our party spirit and love for our own traditions that blinds us to the human source of the rules we impose. It is our unwillingness to prove all things by Gods word and refuse to bind anything but that which God has bound — to loose anything but that which God has loosed.

Ruts For Rules Make Sectarians!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.VII Pg.3
September 1970

The Family Record

Jim R. Everett

A person believes that those who claim to be his parents are such. He does not know it. He bases his belief upon records and his confidence in those who love him. The records could have been falsified, his confidence could be blind faith — his faith will not change the actual fact. Many conscientious, sincere people have a blind faith with reference to their spiritual parentage. They do not, and will not, investigate the written record for they believe that God must surely be their Father, if they believe it strongly enough.

There is a record that each can examine to learn of his true sonship. Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ, (Gal. 3:26-27). Being sons of God is descriptive of our being in covenant relationship with Him who is our Father. Being in Christ, being saved, having the remission of sins and being in the body of Christ, all describe our relationship with God as His sons. Certainly, there are no sons who are not saved, and there are none saved who are not also sons.

Jesus said, For if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins, (Jn. 8:24); therefore, he commissioned his apostles to go and tell the world, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned, ( Mk. 16: 15—16). One who refuses to believe and be baptized can never be a child of God. Every man who denies Christ and blasphemes that holy name, has rejected the only means of being adopted by God — Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved, (Acts 4: 12). The record so states — who can deny it?

Peter was carrying out Christs commission when he said, repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost (Acts 2: 38). He later said, The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (1 Pet. 3:21). Repentance involves a change of heart and mind and, like all other commands of God, baptism must be done from the heart, (Rom. 6:17-18). This is not a ritual or a ceremony that has saving power within itself!

A person who obeys the truth has his soul purified and is born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever, (1 Pet. 1:22-23). This record has not been perverted by passing time.

The enduring truth that purifies says that one must believe in Christ, repent of sin, be baptized to wash away sin. Man does the obeying; God does the washing and adopting. No one should imagine that he is a son contrary to the record of God. Let no one beat his chest and boast of his sonship until his life conforms to what the Father has said. It is written! I CAN KNOW!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.VII Pg.4
September 1970

Is Emphasis Important?

Robert F. Turner

The preacher, hoping to reform an habitual thief, asked him to read Eph. 4:28. As the story goes, the man read, Let him that stole, steal! No more work! If you will check the passage you will see he misplaced the emphasis.

When we were children we used to play a game with our reading lesson — changing the stress or emphasis so that we read the (sentence) but made the sentence say something very different from that intended. It was great fun — coupled with the distress it brought our teachers. Today, when Gods word is so mistreated, the consequences are too serious to be fun.

But such abuse of scripture is not common, and would fool only the most ignorant. We regard as far more serious the subtle changes in emphasis of subject matter, which indicate a failure to understand essential elements in the gospel of Christ. It is one thing to teach the necessity of a faith which obeys — a trusting in Christ which leads one to repent and be baptized, for the remission of our sins; and quite another thing to put ones faith in baptism — as though we merited salvation because we were baptized. Christ is the Saviour, and no change in emphasis can change that.

Several months ago I listened to a young man preach his first sermon. He said (and I wrote it down), God sent his Son to establish the church, so that through living in the church, and by the rules and regulations which He gave us in His word, we might have eternal life. I like to think I know what he meant — and my desire to be charitable, and to encourage the young man kept me from saying anything to him, or identifying him here. But the emphasis in the statement is wrong. God sent His Son to die for man. (Rom. 5:8) The church is the people of God — those who put their trust in Christ; it is not some vehicle that God set rolling toward heaven, with seats for those who will hop in and ride. In Christ is eternal life — without His sacrifice, so that God is justified in forgiving sins, no amount of rules and regulations could save us.

Certain ones came to Antioch, and preached the Lord Jesus. A great number believed, and turned unto the Lord. Barnabas exhorted with them to cleave unto the Lord. And much people was added unto the Lord. Could Luke have said they preached the church or the kingdom? Yes, there is a sense in which this was true. (See Acts 8: 12) Were the obedient added unto the church? Yes — in that they were added to the number of people, in heaven and earth, who had come to the Lord. But the fact remains, Luke placed the emphasis upon their coming to the Lord, cleaving to the Lord, etc. Surely the wisdom, and rightness of this emphasis is clear. (Above example from Acts 11:20-f.)

Do I believe baptism is essential? I certainly do — because Christ commanded it. Is the church important? Most assuredly — for that word says called out - people in Christ, when taken in its N.T. context. I have no quarrel with the words — it is the misplaced emphasis that makes me believe this article is in order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.VII Pg.5
September 1970

Know Your Target

Robert F. Turner

As a boy, I hunted quail, rabbits, and squirrels — and BIG game was an occasional ground-hog. Consequently, on my first deer hunt I expected some huge animal to come charging through the woods — perhaps even threatening me with massive antlers. No wonder I had trouble seeing my first shadowy white-tail slip quietly through the brush and disappear. I hunted, but failed to see, because I had unseen conceptions about my proposed target.

Now it seems we may be failing in the work of the Lord because we are not realistic about the most complex game of all — the hearts of people. And some make a life-time safari for numbers and church image without even realizing they seek the wrong game. If we do not capture the heart for Christ we have done nothing.

Those church-members in the pews — are not hanging on every word the preacher or teacher speaks. Ideally, they hunger for Gods truth, and are anxious to drink the living water; but actually many are duty —conscious and polite enough to sit quietly and look at the speaker, while their mind copes with a problem at home. Some are dull of hearing due to stunted spiritual development; and some are mentally unable to grasp new material rapidly stated. Many are so tradition bound as to miss a very familiar point if stated differently — they are used to hearing it one way only — and may think you have some new doctrine, if they think anything.

So, the preacher gives them a good lashing for their hypocrisy unconcerned, worldly minds — and they wonder what has come over the man. We have missed again failing to understand our targets. If we would flatly concede that they are not the dedicated, studious, single-hearted saints they should he, we can find no place in the line-up for ourselves? And just what do we honestly expect??

I believe we have a right to expect a people who want to do better, who realize they should be more spiritually minded than they are. We must help one-another to achieve this goal— and that means we must reach less-than-perfect hearts with Gods truth. The tradition-bound man would like to be a servant of Christ, but we must reach a tradition-bound heart to show him that he is tradition-bound. The distracted house-wife would like to truly worship God (after all, she did assemble with the saints) but we must get our message about true worship into a distracted heart.

The same principle works in reaching for people of the world. One can not reach a vile heart with material aimed at a heart of faith. As the story of the cross, judgement, and eternal punishment have been neglected, so we have failed to reach the hearts of the world. Sometimes it seems our own lack of faith in the gospel of Christ keeps us from presenting this where it is most needed.

A good shot learns his rifle well, understands the sight picture — and then, concentrates on the target. We must give more attention to understanding the hearts of people. Of what benefit is a powerful bullet — which misses by a country mile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.VII Pg.6
September 1970

Action In 1845

Robert F. Turner

The July 70 issue of ACTION announced Jimmie Lovells latest brainstorm for all church work: a Bible Foundation to print and distribute the scriptures. He wrote, In order to get things moving we must clear all legal angles, select a name and get a corporate address. We must set up a board of national and influential directors — men and women of all faiths. I have heard that Pat Boone has been appointed as President.

Institutional churches are moving faster and faster toward universal church organization — with exactly the same principles that put an earlier digression there. Ponder the following quote from Search For The Ancient Order, by Earl West, Vol. 1, p. 164-f. And note how brethren reasoned in 1845. Today brethren follow the same path to organized folly.

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

One major step in this direction needs special attention, viz.: the American Christian Bible Society. It was the first attempt at anything similar to a brotherhood- wide organization yet promoted. It was founded by D.S. Burnet in Cincinnati, Ohio, on January 27, 1845. Soon after its establishment, its constitution was widely published in brotherhood periodicals along with articles urging the support of the brotherhood to this society.

No sooner was the Bible Society organized than opposition poured down upon it. Aylette Raines, editor of the Christian Teacher, a Kentucky publication, doubted the practicability of the enterprise...J.J. Goss, editor of Christian Intelligencer of Virginia, thought it would be wiser to cooperate with the American and Foreign Bible Society, a Baptist organization, than to establish another. Campbell himself thought the Bible Society to be premature, thinking the brethren were not yet ready for it. Campbell also felt that the colleges— Bethany, Bacon, and Franklin — should be put on a more substantial financial basis before trying something like a Bible Society.

Burnet seemed to have been stunned by the opposition. For several issues of the Harbinger after 1845 he and Campbell defended themselves over the society. Burnet wanted to know if the brotherhood had been sufficiently consulted when Campbell established Bethany College. Campbells reply was that the nature of the two institutions was entirely different. Bethany College was a private institution, established from the funds of himself and his friends, whereas the Bible Society purported to be a brotherhood organization. Very little of the opposition to the Society came because brethren thought it was an organization, but only because it was inexpedient at that time to start it.

For eleven years the Bible Society existed with very little interest displayed in it. It was off to a bad start and never got much sympathy behind it. In 1856 the Ohio State Convention met and agreed to terminate the Bible Society and turn its funds over to the American Bible Union. This was done, and so ended the firs general brotherhood attempt at organization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.VII Pg.7
September 1970

Queries And Answers

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

In view of 2 Chron. 29:25-36; Psm. 81: 1-5; and Amos 6:5; was instrumental music under the Law of Moses a commandment? If not,, was it permissible? Was it condemned? P.W., Ala.

Reply:

Periodically the question about David and the instruments comes to the surface, to be rehashed. It is an excellent opportunity to show prejudices (as if special opportunity was needed) for there are some aspects of the problem that have no certain answer. It should be noted here that we are not subject to the Law of Moses; our worship must find its authority in the New Testament of Christ.

There is no evidence of mechanical instruments of music related to the Jewish tabernacle, nor to the institution of the various sacrifices or festivals. But some 450 years later it seems instruments were common in certain phases of worship.

With the coming of Gods Glory into the Temple which Solomon built, there was great instrumentation. Adam Clarke, opposed to such music in the church, says, Cymbals, psalteries, and harps, of any kind, in union with a hundred and twenty trumpets or horns, could not produce much harmony — as to melody, that must have been impossible, as the noise was too great. (2 Chron. 5:12-f) But even Clarke must admit that instrumental usage was there.

Concerning the authority for such, Clarke cites the Syriac and Arabic texts on 2 Chron. 29:25 and says, "It was by the hand or commandment of the Lord and his prophets that the Levites should praise the Lord for so the Hebrew text may be understood; and it was by the order of David that so many instruments of music should be introduced into the Divine service. I can not verify such texts.

The Hardeman-Boswell Debate has an interesting exchange on this. Hardeman did not deny instruments in Solomon's and Zerubbabels temple, but argued there was no evidence for such in the temple built by Herod.

Psm. 81: 1-5 says the feast day is a statute for Israel, appointed in Joseph, commemorating deliverance from bondage. (Passover)

Amos 6:5 is not, in my judgement, a woe pronounced on the instruments, per se; nor did David invent the first instrument. (Gen. 4:21, etc.) This passage condemns the at ease in Zion attitude that prevailed despite Gods obvious warnings. Note 5:21-f. God hated even their solemn assemblies etc., done without justice and righteousness.

We can not go to David, or to Jewish worship under Judaism, for authority for N. T. church worship. If Temple worship authorizes harps, it also authorizes animal sacrifice and a priestly system. But both priesthood and law are changed (Heb. 7:12) and we find authority for religious service in the New Covenant. There we are taught by command and example to sing making melody in your heart to the Lord. (Eph. 5:19 1 Cor. 14:15) We have no authority to play. (Period!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.VII Pg.8
September 1970

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

Did you ever stay in a DO—DAD HOUSE? It is an exasperating experience for a fellow with reasonably functional tastes. (The advantage of being the writer —- you get to be the reasonable one.)

You are welcomed into a living room, but the chairs are draped with dainty crocheted doilies. To avoid disarranging these you turn to the couch — cluttered with satin pillows that are decorated with stiff lace, of intricately folded designs, that you would not dare crush.

You are shown to your room, where every available space has more do — dads. The desk, where you hoped to place a typewriter, and books, is cluttered with useless trivia — a ladies shoe, covered with colored macaroni, filled with styrofoam, holding some imitation daisies. The dresser- top space is taken with painted bottles, a miniature Chic Sales from Rock City, and an unidentifiable curlicue made from a soft-drink can.

But the bath room is the prize. In the tub sets a nylon—knit swan, complete with three cygnets. And if that isnt enough, a colorful ball of imitation flowers hang from the shower nozzle. You could, perhaps. put the swan and her young out of the tub and not use the shower, but the soap is beautifully decorated with sequins and pins. Some do—dad homes have tiny linen towels, obviously not for use; while others have big fluffy bath-towels — done up to look like a cute doggie, with the bath-cloths attached in the form of puppies.

In a desperate effort to stay the wrath of the talented women who make and display these do—dads, Ill admit that I have grouped them in a hypothetical house, and that many of them are attractive. But how does one kill a fly with a swatter all loaded with knitting, buttons and spaghetti?

Can you believe the Lord built a do—dad house? I believe the beauty of the Lords house (His people) is in its service, the functioning of every part in that work for which it was intended. Christians, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices. (1 Pet. 2:5) We must be meet for the masters use, and prepared unto every good work.

Now, how is the Lords work to be done with a house full of do—dads?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.VIII Pg.1
October 1970

Behold, The Heretic!

Robert F. Turner

The Greek word hairesis is translated heresy and sect in the New Testament. the close relative of the word is used in Matt. 12:18 — a quotation from Isaiah concerning Christ — with no bad connotation. But hairesis obtained a bad character because of the harm done by self-willed choice — stubborn determination to have my way or bust — something!!

Vines Expository Dictionary says. Denotes (a) a choosing. choice; then that which is chosen, and hence, an opinion, especially a self-willed opinion, which is substituted for submission to the power of truth, and leads to division and the formation of sects.... Such erroneous opinions are frequently the outcome of personal preference or the prospect of advantage. (See Heresy)

Heresy implies a standard or norm. The Jews called Paul an heretic, and from their point of view so he was. (Acts 24:5, 14). But with truth as the standard, Pauls teaching was certainly not heretical. In fact, it was the sectarian concept of the Jews that led them to call Paul a heretic. We have accepted the very root of sectarianism when we call heresy all which does not conform to our party doctrine, or is not in the mainstream of our movement. (2 Cor. 10:12 -f. See P. T., Mar. 70)

Heresy has to do with doctrinal error — but, it is not simply an honest difference in understanding, even though the one differing be in error. We do not say this to excuse the error, nor to say that because it is honest it is no error. We just say that the error is not heresy while an honest, objective search for truth continues and the attitude is humble and submissive. Nor will a sect be formed while such attitudes prevail.

There is a vast difference in the opinionated, self-willed ravings of the sectarian spirit, and the firm conviction of an honest truth-seeker. Nor is raving a part of the definition. Many sectarians simply withdraw into their smug party shells, thinking to avoid the searching light of Gods truth. But final judgement will roll the rocks (Rev. 6:16 -f), and then Behold, the Heretics!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.VIII Pg.2
October 1970

Tell It Like It Is

Robert F. Turner

Remember an article in our June 70 issue headed, Go, and Sin No More? (Surely you cherish every word we have written!!?) It was the true story of a west-coast preachers work among hippie type young people. And now we have another story about that same preacher.

Following a sermon in a small mid-western community, a man wished to be baptized. The candidate, preacher and a few others drove through the night to a small park that bordered a river where they hoped to assist the man in his obedience. But the park, and the entrance to the water, were cluttered with young people — radios blaring, party in full progress.

After some hesitancy, the preacher approached the revelers and pled his case. He told them that he had taught a man to love the Lord, and to want to change his life and give himself to the service of the Lord. The man had repented of his past; and now wanted to obey the Lord in baptism, for the remission of sins. He said that he knew they had the prior right to the public park, but that there was no other access to the water immediately available, and would they consent to a brief quiet recess in their party, and allow him to baptize the man into Christ?

Something about the earnest plea — the man — or the message — or what is more likely, the scriptural combination of the two — got through to the young people. They quickly stopped the party, and asked if they might be witnesses of this (to them) most unusual event.

Several cars turned, so that their lights were upon the water; and all were quiet and respectful as the preacher and the believing penitent went down both into the water. . . and he baptized him. (Acts 8:30-39) When they were come up out of the water the young people crowded about, wanting to know more about this death, burial, and resurrection to a new life. Did the Bible really teach it like that? Why did not the traditional churches of which they knew — and had rejected — teach such things? How could they learn these matters? Some gave their names and addresses, and said they would welcome a visit from the preacher, and further teaching.

This generation is wholly sensual, and uninterested in spiritual things? Impossible to reach a bunch of neckers? Only politics and the social gospel are relevant? Hmmm! ! Has it ever occurred to you that you and I may be the material ones — who lack the faith and courage necessary to tell it like it is today??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.VIII Pg.3
October 1970

No Work — No Eat

Jim R. Everett

Some at Thessalonica evidently thought that the coming of the Lord was imminent, so they had quit work and had become idle and busybodies. Because of Pauls concern about the immediate effect and far-reaching results of such a philosophy among these Christians, he wrote the second epistle utterly refuting the idea that Christs coming was looming. Pauls instruction was for each, in quietness, to work and to eat his own meat, and If any would not work neither should he eat, (II Thess. 3:10-12). A person who cannot work needs help but a person who will not work has no right to eat.

The Christian does a days work for a days pay. That might seem old- fashioned to those who greedily get all they can with the least amount of personal out-put but a Christians Master teaches higher principles — Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward, (1 Pet. 2:18). The employer — employee relationship is not identical to that of the master — servant, by virtue of degree, but the principle stands.

If a man agrees to work for a set wage, he is honourably bound to fulfill that responsibility and obey his employer. If he does not want to work there for those wages, he can quit and work elsewhere, but if he refuses to do the work agreed upon, he has no right to expect that man to pay him. Of course, the employer must realize that the LABORER is worthy of his hire, but no one has the right to exact undue benefits because the company has made a mint.

Thieves, gamblers and sluggards all thrive on the principle of something for nothing; eating without working; existing at the expense of others. In many societies there are too many thieves to catch; gambling is condoned because of the good revenue it produces (they never tell of the millions lost by the poor); and the sluggard lives off unemployment benefits. They have no right to eat the fruit of anothers labor.

The childrens story of the ant and the grasshopper is an excellent one to mould the character of every generation. The ant toiled in the heat of the summer while the grasshopper fiddled, danced and enjoyed life. The winter came and the ant snuggled warmly into his shelter to eat stored food, while the freezing grasshopper starved to death. The grasshopper learned his lesson the hard way. The wise man says, Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways and be wise; which having no chief, overseer, or ruler, provideth her bread in the summer, and gathereth her food in the harvest. How long wilt thou sleep, 0 sluggard?. . .Yet a little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to sleep:so shall thy poverty come as a robber, and thy want as an armed man, (Prov. 6: 6-11).

It wouldnt hurt for a lot of people to step outside and take a look at the ant, step humbly inside to study their Bibles, and then live in all good conscience before man and God. It might start a famine, though, if some had to eat according to the amount they worked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.VIII Pg.4
October 1970

What Did Christ Build?

Robert F. Turner

What did Christ build when He built the church? (Matt. 16: 18) The figure is that of constructing a temple (1 Cor. 3: 10-17) where lively stones (1 Pet. 2:5) are put together upon the foundation — the truth that Jesus is the Christ. (When messengers of Christ are considered the builders (1 Cor. 3:) or even the foundation (Eph. 2:20-22), the essential truth is maintained — Christ is building His church; i.e., He is bringing together people who heed His call; and as a (convened) assembly or called—out body of people they are, when considered as a whole, LIKENED UNTO A BUILDING.

What did Christ buy when he bought the church? (Acts 20:28) The figure is that of manumission; paying the price for a slave in order that he may be freed. (1 Cor. 6:20 7: 22-23 Gal. 5:1) We were slaves of sin until we obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine; a freeing that was made possible by Christs death on our behalf. (Rom. 6: 1-18) So Christ paid the price for your sins, and mine. By His death He acquired (footnote, ASV) people, one by one; saving each from his sins as that one humbly submits to His will. The figure of BUYING THE FREEDOM OF A SLAVE may have been taken from that common practice of the first century, records of which are preserved to this day. Just remember, Christ bought people who, considered collectively, are called the church.

What did Christ cleanse when He cleansed the church? (Eph. 5:25-27) He made clean those people who submit to the washing of water with the word. This figure is a common one — the removal of sins being likened to filth, washed from clothes or body. (Acts 22:16; 1 Pet. 3:21) As the application of the water with the word is obviously made to individuals, as each hears and learns the truth, and obeys it; we are again faced with the fact that Christs cleansing of the church is the remission of sins which He makes possible for people, one by one; who are called the church when considered collectively.

Now all of these things Christ is said to have done He built the church, bought the church, cleansed the church. The foundation has been firmly laid, the purchase price paid, and the cleansing blood shed. His sacrifice of Himself was once for all (Heb. 10:10), and need never be repeated. But there is a sense in which the construction work continues and lively stones continue to be placed upon that foundation. The price for freedom from sin is still amply provided for all who will avail themselves of this marvelous opportunity. The cleansing power of the blood of Christ is yours and mine for the using — in coming unto Him, and as we falter in His service. (Note 1 Jn. 1:7- 2: 1-3.)

Christ did not build, buy, and cleanse some sort of vehicle into which you come, be seated, and ride home to heaven. He will build YOU into His building, buy YOU from your slavery to sin, and cleanse YOU from your spiritual filth; and then you will be a part of that body of people who have been saved by His grace, and have thus become the church of Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.VIII Pg.5
October 1970

This Pagan Nation

Robert F. Turner

Pagan is from a word meaning heathen. It brings to mind uncivilized savages, perhaps head-hunters, dancing about a crudely carved, leering statue. We shrink in horror, at the human skulls or blood-stained mystic symbols upon their altar. We would scoff at the suggestion of paganism in our country, or pagan religions among our close associates.

But pagan and heathen are relative terms. Gentiles were heathens to the Jews, and for centuries anyone not Christian was considered heathen. Now, so says the dictionary, anyone neither Christian, Mohammedan, nor a Jew, is a pagan; and the same book says heathen suggests adherence to polytheism or the practice of idolatry, especially among rude or uncivilized peoples. (It was the so-called civilized people who wrote that line.) When we call pagans irreligious we mean they have not our kind of religion. From a strictly N. T. Christian viewpoint, pagans seek God some way other than through Jesus Christ.

Pagan religions are systems whereby men probe the mysteries of Deity with human philosophy, mystic symbolism, speculations concerning heavenly bodies, Cabalism (occult or mystical interpretation of Scriptures, with special emphasis given to numbers and geometric figures), and the like. The error is not that they reject God in some form or kind, but that they know not the true God. Pagans were not, and need not be, atheists. Today they seek light even as did the pagans of ancient Egypt and Babylon — and in some of the secret orders of our day they use the same symbols as did the ancient ones — the triangle, green branches, etc., — and proudly acknowledge the source. (See Morals and Dogma, Bishop Pike.)

Our generation is so unacquainted with Jehovah God, as manifested in Jesus Christ, and set forth in the Bible, that many will swallow the pagan philosophies of the Rosicrucian's, the Bahai Faith, etc., because they believe in God, And by the same childish imperceptivity many class as Christian such cults as Christian (?) Science, Unitarianism, Jehovahs (?) Witnesses (?) whose use of the Bible is highly allegorical, or devoid of faith in Jesus as the Son of God in a Biblical sense. We are surrounded by paganism and do not seem to recognize it.

Paul wrote, Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in Him.. . Do we really believe that? It is difficult to understand how Christians who grasp the meaning of Col. 2:6 -10, can approve, much less be part of any system for seeking light or serving The Great Architect other than that revealed in Jesus Christ and His way.

The men of Athens were religious but knew not the true God in Christ. (Acts 17:22-f) Nor will a thin veneer of traditional Christianity, polluted with sectarianism and the social gospel, keep paganism from stalking and dominating our land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.VIII Pg.6
October 1970

Moral Philosophy, 1771

Robert F. Turner

Of all the relations which the human mind sustains, that which subsists between the Creator and his creatures, the Supreme Lawgiver and his subjects, is the highest and the best. This relation arises from the nature of a creature in general, and the constitution of the human mind in particular; the noblest powers and affections of which point to an Universal Mind, and would be imperfect and abortive without such a direction. How lame then must that system of morals be, which leaves a Deity out of the question! How disconsolate, and how destitute of its firmest support!

It does not appear, from any true history or experience of the minds progress, that any man, by any formal deduction of his discursive powers, ever reasoned himself into the belief a God. Whether such a belief is only some natural anticipation of soul; or is derived from father to son, and from one man to another, in the way of tradition; or is suggested to us in consequence of an immutable law of our nature, on beholding the august aspect and beautiful order of the universe; we will not pretend to determine. What seems most agreeable to experience is, that a sense of its beauty and grandeur, and the admirable fitness of one thing to another in its vast apparatus, leads the mind necessarily and unavoidably to a perception of design, or of a designing cause, the origin of all, by a progress as simple and natural as that by which a beautiful picture or a fine building suggests to us the idea of an excellent artist. For it seems to hold universally true, that wherever we discern a tendency or cooperation of things towards a certain end, or producing a common effect; there, by a necessary law of association, we apprehend design, a designing energy or cause.

It is evident, from the slightest survey of morals, that how punctual soever one may be in performing the duties which result from our relations to mankind; yet to be quite deficient in performing those which arise from our relation to the Almighty, must argue a strange perversion of reason or depravity of heart. If imperfect degrees of worth attract our veneration, and if the want of it would imply an insensibility, or, which is worse, an aversion to merit; what lameness of affection, and immorality of character, must it be, to be unaffected with, and much more to be ill-affected to, a Being of superlative worth! To love society, or particular members of it, and yet a have no sense of our connection with its Head, no affection to our common Parent and Benefactor; to be concerned. about the approbation or censure of our fellow-creatures, and yet to feel nothing of this kind towards Him who sees and weighs our actions with unerring wisdom and justice, and can fully reward or punish them; betrays equal madness and partiality of mind. It is plain, therefore, beyound all doubt, that some regards are due to the great Father of all, in whom every lovely and adorable quality combines to inspire veneration and homage.

From Vol. 3, p.296, FIRST edition, Encyclopaedia Britannica; 1771.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.VIII Pg.7
October 1970

Queries And Answers

Robert F. Turner

Bro Turner:

I find specific authority to use the collection for helping needy saints and supporting preachers, but where is the authority to use such funds for properties (buildings, books, communion service, etc.)? PT

Reply:

If the querist means to say that we must have specific authority for all we do, he might try finding such for having the building, books, and communion service in the first place.

Go authorizes locomotion; it does not specify the means of locomotion. In the absence of a limiting specific or prohibitions, Go is all the authority we need to walk, ride a mule, swim, fly, or use other means of getting from one place to another. This is what is often called generic, or general, authority. It is not true to say we have no authority to fly, although it is certainly true to say we have no specific authority to fly. Means of locomotion are inherent in the generic authority to go.

Now go can only authorize that which is subordinate to this category, i.e., loco- motion. It does not, for example, authorize teach, for teach is a coordinate; a differing category, and one of equal rank with locomotion. It is illogical to contend that go authorizes methods of teaching, caring, or organization — it can only authorize that which is inherent in its meaning, and which is subordinate to or within its bounds. If this is not so, words have no real meaning, and are of no use whatsoever in setting forth the will of God. But the querist may have in mind some current contentions regarding the pooled funds of the saints; as if we had to have a specific example of the collecting of funds for every single item for which funds are spent. (I do not know of anyone who has gone this far — yet — but this is the logical end of their contentions.)

When the church in Corinth sent assistance to the needy saints in Jerusalem, we are given information concerning the means by which they put together this fund. (1 Cor. 16:1-f) Some details for pooling a fund and putting it at the disposition of the apostles, is found in Acts 4:34- f. But, as the querist acknowledges, the early church supported preachers( see Phil. 4:15), and no specific details are given as to how they brought together this fund. The thing itself is authorized — but authority for making the collection necessary for this is generic. In the absence of specific authority, surely we are not amiss in using the example of 1 Cor. 16: for the bringing together of funds to do whatever the saints are authorized to do collectively.

The saints are authorized to assemble, and subordinate to assembly is a place of assembly. They are authorized to sing — but you may object, They do not have to use books; they could memorize the songs. Yes, — if you could find specific authority for memorizing songs. Dont we see that the principle of generic authority is essential to interpretation and compliance with Gods will? Then let us study and understand the principle, and learn to use it wisely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.VIII Pg.8
October 1970

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

Mimeographs are available to many who have no business using them. A stencil in the typewriter, and the knowledge that what is written will be multiplied, and may influence the thinking and conduct of people, will have a sobering effect on some. But it seems to drive others to vent their spleen, or feed their ego; and write as though multiplied folly is no longer foolish.

We have received what claims to be an intelligent discussion of the restoration slogan: We Speak Where the Bible Speaks, and are Silent Where the Bible is Silent! The writer makes the sage observation that he and every preacher in the church use words and phrases ... which are NOT found — per se— in the King James or other accepted versions. He accuses some brother, who evidently advocated the slogan, of using such words as: slogan Bible catch-phrase etc., and informs us, Brethren. NOT ONE of those words are Bible words.

What a shock it would be to those pioneer preachers who coined the slogan, to learn that they were saying we must use the same words used in the English text. I suppose our mimeo editor thinks the only way one can speak the truth is to say, the truth, and those words alone.

Our editor says he agrees with the slogan in principle; that is, we are to teach and practice NOTHING which God has not authorized. Wont he be dazzled when he learns that is what the slogan meant in the first place? But he will have a lot of backing up to do, with respect to his plea for consistency with the slogan, when he tries to show us where God authorized the church to support general welfare societies, unwed mothers homes, fishing camps, preaching societies or organizations other than the single local church. etc., etc.

We are not asking him to find these words in the King James or any other accepted version of the Bible. (See article on generic authority, in this issue, page 7.) In fact, all the talk about words and phrases, per se, are camouflage — to charitably grant that the writer is really more intelligent than such remarks would leave us to believe.

We would not bother to review such material, except to point out that multi-printing and truth are not necessarily the same. But you know that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.IX Pg.1
November 1970

Past-Tense Christians

Robert F. Turner

Many years ago a woman became interested in Bible study. Something came up in her life — a chance conversation, the death of a loved one, a rumble in her church — that made her take a hard look at herself, and realize that she had little personal knowledge of Gods will. So, she got in touch with a Christian who had a reputation for knowing the Bible, and the studies began.

Soon she was led to consider the true meaning of salvation in Christ, and non-denominational Christianity, and she agreed to being baptized. I put it this way purposefully, for God must judge how fully she understood and obeyed the gospel of Christ.

But she had the opportunity. She worshipped with the saints for awhile and seemed to grow spiritually. Then, company came, her husband wanted to take a trip, a dozen other things intervened, and her interest cooled. Perhaps the efforts to revive this interest were inadequate — elders and other saints came too late, with too little — but efforts were made, and rejected. She began to resent such efforts as butting into her private life. So, she forsook all assembling with the saints, dropped personal contacts with them and the work of the Lord, and returned to her former worldly affairs.

Now, is this woman a Christian? (That means, is she a follower of Christ, Christ-like? She gives the will of Christ no precedence in her life. She is morally clean, a good neighbor, a welfare worker, etc.; but this is her desire, and is not done because it is Christs will, nor in order to be like Him. (Note Jas. 2:10-12)

She ignores teachings of the Lord which she does not consider necessary. We might charitably remember her past life and say, She was once a Christian! but I regret having to say this — for her sake.

For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. (2 Pet. 2:20-f) My heart aches for the past tense Christian!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.IX Pg.2
November 1970

What It Leads To

Robert F. Turner

I hate to admit this, but a man once told me he did not like my sermons, and wanted me to change the subject and content of my preaching. I ask him to identify my errors, and he said I was preaching the truth but he was afraid of what it might lead to. (I was preaching on the work of the church, and congregational independence. ) I replied that I realized one might make a hobby of truth and beat to death a subject (he did not accuse me of this) but that I could not see how TRUTH, properly balanced, could lead to anything but that for which it was given, viz., to make men free from error and sin. (Jn. 8:31-32)

On the other side of the coin, we frequently find timid souls who hibernate in inactivity, and equate doing nothing with soundness in the faith. They may acknowledge that the work proposed is in keeping with the scriptures, but if it calls for some unaccustomed activity — a change from status quo — they fear what it might lead to.

Life itself is a movement — we exist in a state of flux — and direction is influenced by every facet of life. Change (even in that which is good) will affect attitudes and viewpoints, and could involve new temptations. BUT REMAINING AT REST ALSO AFFECTS ATTITUDES AND VIEWPOINTS, AND COULD INVOLVE NEW TEMPTATIONS. The monastic life is no guarantee of sinlessness. It may BE sin in itself.

No man steps twice in the same flowing stream. The stream is moving, and his second step is into water that was yet above him when the first step was taken. We may begin to do something in good faith, and with ample authority; and find later that circumstances are now such as to make the continuation of our work wrong. It takes a good man to face this, and let divine authority rather than his own traditions, guide his life. Many will let tradition overrule the application of Gods word to his life. But fear of what may happen (when there is no scriptural principle violated, nor scriptural warning ignored) makes for a false soundness.

Truth never leads to error, and right is not the father of wrong. This is the point of Jas. 1:13-18 and 1 Jn. 3:6-f. We sin when we quit following God, and follow Satan.

Although times change and new circumstances constantly arise, we have an unchanging standard, suited to all ages. We are faithful only when we ACT upon its teachings. The church is the pillar, not the pillow, of Gods truth. (1 Tim. 3:15)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.IX Pg.3
November 1970

Proving Love For God

Dan S. Shipley

Through .John, God teaches us that in loving our brethren we show our love for Him and prove ourselves to be His children. (1Jn. 3:10; 4:7) If we love one another, God abideth in us, and His love is perfected in us. (4:12) He who loveth God loveth his brother also. (4:21) —for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, cannot love God whom he hath not seen. And this commandment have we from him, that he who loveth God love his brother also. (4:20, 21) Love for God cannot by—pass the brethren. As our standing with God is made dependent upon loving our brethren, every Christian needs to understand what this love involves.

Since love for brethren is easier pro- fessed than practiced, John says, My little children, let us not love in word, neither with the tongue; but in deed and truth. (1 Jn. 3:18) Here is a vitally important principle! Love for brethren is expressed in DOING and not in SAYING! We recall how that Peter said he would lay down his life for Jesus, but in the same night denied Him three times. Like Peter, many brethren WOULD DO that which they WILL NOT DO! Many would lay down their lives for the brethren but will not lay down a five-dollar bill to help feed them. Others who would go all the way for a brother will not go across town to visit him in the hospital. —how doth the love of God abide in him? The most careful aim avails nothing when the shot is not fired; neither the best of intentions if not fulfilled. The true measure of love for brethren is not to be found in what one WOULD DO, but rather, in what one IS DOING!

Children of God can and must demon- strate love for brethren now! So then, as we have opportunity, let us work that which is good toward all men, and especially them that are of the household of the faith. (Gal. 6:10) There are brethren among us who could benefit from the expressions of such love today. In addition to the poor and sick, our ministration of love could include the aged, lonely, widows, babes in Christ, the weak and unfaithful, and those who are distressed and bereaved. Opportunities for demonstrating love are limitless!

But this love cannot be manifested by merely bumping-in to each other at Bible classes and worship. Loving in deed means in act and fact. It requires a personal, face-to-face involvement. Only in this way can we express the care, concern, and tender affection that we are to have for all brethren.

The requirements of this love makes debtors of us all. (Rom. 12:8) Loving brethren is an ever-owed, never-satisfied debt. The exercise of it strengthens us, it helps the brethren, and it glorifies God. By this love the family of God is cemented together. Without it, he who claims love for God is twice-wrong.

This is my commandment, that ye love one another, even as I have loved you. (Jn. 15:12) Here is the simple antidote to many complex problems that plague Gods people. Love the brethren in deed and truth! Failure here could make our unloved brethren the biggest obstacle between us and heaven!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.IX Pg.4
November 1970

Our Church Offices

Robert F. Turner

Does the church of Christ have an hierarchy? Most brethren would give you a blank stare at that question; or say, Hmmmm, No, we dont have any thing like that.

Does the church of Christ have a system of church government, with a body of rulers having differing rank? To this question some might ponder a bit, then say, Well, the bishops are above the deacons, if thats what you mean. A few hardy souls might add, Of course, that is just in the local church.

Websters says of hierarchy: A body of rulers. especially of ecclesiastics, (that means, in the church — rt) disposed organically in ranks and orders each subordinate to the one above it; also, such a system of church government or its authority.

There is much discussion today re. the elders rule etc., and some seem ready to ignore Gods plan for qualified leadership (1 Tim. 3: Ti. 1:) because of abuses they have seen, or think they have seen, among bishops. On the other hand, unlearned or careless brethren play right into the hands of these majority rule advocates (and make no mistake about it — a common mind or decision for action must be reached by some means in order to have team action by talking about the office of the elders or deacons in exactly the same way others speak of their hierarchy.

In 1 Tim. 3:1 the K.J. translation, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work — is an English version of seven (7) Greek words. Literally they say, If anyone oversight aspires to, a work he desires. (I have underlined to indicate the seven words translated, as shown by Marshalls Interlinear.) There is no Greek for office here.

A man who paints, is a painter, and If anyone painting aspires to, a good work he desires. The office (function, work) of painting, is an honorable work.

In the same way, in 1 Tim. 3:10,13, let them use the office of a deacon (eight words, KJ) is a translation of one Greek word, let them minister or serve. (Vs. 13, having served or having ministered.) There is no justification for the official idea of a rank of capital Bishop or Deacon in the church, local or otherwise.

A quarterback is part of the football team, one of the players. But he is one who has been judged qualified to call signals, and do the work of a quarterback. He doesnt make the rules of the game; he functions, as a player, in keeping with the rules. So also, the elders in a local church.

Jesus said, One is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren (Matt. 23:8) All ye are brethren — that says. no hierarchy. No differing rank, just different jobs to be done. No Clergy-laity distinctions — but all saints are priests, a holy and a royal priesthood (See 1 Pet. 2: 5,9) in keeping with our High Priest who is after the order of Melchisedec both King and Priest. We plan to have following articles on hierarchy and the sacerdotal system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.IX Pg.5
November 1970

Armstrongs Folly

Robert F. Turner

Few if any cults or our clay have deluded more people, with greater error, than has Herbert W. Armstrong and his Radio Church of God. Thousands hear his son, Garner Ted, and swallow his smooth speech without realizing the background of Anglo- Israelism that is in his prophecy nor the consequences of its error.

Herbert W. wrote: We want to impress here that Israel and Judah are not two names for the same nation.... The House of Judah always means Jew. This distinction is vital if we are to understand prophecy.... The next place where the term Jew is mentioned in the Bible, the House of Israel had been driven out in captivity, lost from view, and the term only applies to those of the House of Judah. There are no exceptions in the Bible. (Where Are the Ten Lost Tribes? H.W. Armstrong, p.8.)

The mere smatterer in Bible history will remember that following the reign of Solomon, The Israelites were divided into two nations —the two southern tribes of Judah and Benjamin being called Judah while the ten northern tribes kept the name Israel. This distinction is found frequently in Chronicles, etc., and in the writings of the Prophets during this time. But the Prophets foretold reunion (Jer. 30:1-4 etc.) and Nehemiah prayed for Israel. All Israel gave portions to the Levites (Neh. 12:47); some of the children of Israel returned with Ezra (Ezra 6:21 7:7); and men of Israel repented of having taken foreign wives (Ezra 10:25). Isaiah said the Lord would set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people... from Assyria, etc. (Isa. 11:10-f.) The first time points to their physical restoration. referred to above. The second time refers to redemption in Jesus Christ, where both Jew (all Israelites) and Gentile (all others) have equal opportunity to be one in their salvation from sin.

The New Testament does not maintain the strict distinction which Mr. Armstrong says is so vital if we are to understand prophecy. Jesus sent His disciples to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, the cities of Israel;— and they went to the Jews. (Matt. 10: 6,23) (Israel was not as lost — physically— as Armstrong seems to think.) Paul was of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an impossible combination if Armstrong is right. (Phil. 3:5) But the truth is that the Judah-Israel distinction of divided kingdom days was not maintained; some of Israel as well as some of Judah (not all) returned to Jerusalem (Anna the prophetess was of the tribe of Asher, Lu. 2:36) and Armstrongs idea that the British and American people are the descendants of Ephraim and Manasseh. the ten lost tribes — is foolish.

It is Armstrong who does not understand prophecy. His special brand of folly, first advocated during the plush Colonial days of Britton, is a superior race concept; although the current reaction to such a spirit may cause this facet of the doctrine to be soft-pedaled. The materialistic basis, like all premillennialism, refuses to accept the Holy Spirits explanation of prophecy and the church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.IX Pg.6
November 1970

Love And Marriage

Robert F. Turner

Laugh at these quotes from Fnclopaedia Britannica, 1771 edition; then ask yourself if our current philosophy has produced more happiness, better homes, or more noble lives.

Falling In Love, 1771.

When man arrives to a certain age he becomes sensible of a peculiar sympathy and tenderness towards the other sex; the charms of beauty engage his attention, and call forth new and softer dispositions than he has yet felt. The many amiable qualities exhibited by a fair outside, or by the mild allurement of female manners, or which the prejudiced spectator without much reasoning supposes those to include, with several other circumstances, point his view and affection to a particular object, and of course contract that general rambling regard, which was lost and useless among the undistinguished crowd, into a peculiar and permanent attachment to one woman, which ordinarily terminates in the most important, venerable, and delightful connection in life.

—CONCERNING MARRIAGE—

Of the conjugal alliance the following are the natural laws. 1. Mutual fidelity to the marriage-bed. Disloyalty defeats the very end of marriage; dissolves the natural cement of the relation; weakens the moral tie, the chief strength of which lies in the reciprocation of affection; and, by making the offspring uncertain, diminishes the care and attachment necessary to their education.

2. A conspiration of counsels and endeavours to promote the common interest of the family, and to educate their common offspring. In order to observe these laws, it is necessary to cultivate, both before and during the married state, the strictest decency and chastity of manners, and a just sense of what becomes their respective characters.

3. The union must be inviolable and for life. The nature of friendship, and particularly of this species of it, the education of their offspring, and the order of society, and of successions which would otherwise be extremely perplexed, do all seem to require it. To preserve this union, and render the matrimonial state more harmonious and comfortable a mutual esteem and tenderness, a mutual deference and forbearance, a communication of advice, and assistance and authority, are absolutely necessary. If either party keep within their proper departments, there need be no disputes about power or superiority, and there will be none. They have no opposite, no separate interests; and therefore there can be no just ground for opposition of conduct.

From this detail, and the present state of things, in which there is pretty near a parity of numbers of both sexes, it is evident, that polygamy is an unnatural state: and though it should be granted to be more fruitful of children, which however it is not found to be; yet it is by no means so fit for rearing minds; which seems to be as much, if not more, the intention of nature, than the propagation of bodies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.IX Pg.7
November 1970

Queries And Answers

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

In Matt. 18:17 we are told to treat the one disfellowshipped as a heathen man and a publican, but 2 Thes. 3:15 says, count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother. How do you reconcile these verses? HT

Reply:

The K.J. heathen is Gentile, someone not a Jew (RV), and Jesus was speaking to Jews — hence, someone not in communion or fellowship, not sharing— a common interest in clarifying and correcting the differences that may arise. (The publican had cut himself off from the Jewish com- munity by becoming a tax collector for the occupying force, the Romans.) Jesus was saying, Recognize the man for what he has proven himself to be — a man apart, one not having the same interest in righting wrongs that all true followers of Christ must have.

This does not authorize mistreatment. As Adam Clarke says, To whom thou art, as a Christian, to owe earnest and persevering good will, and acts of kindness. Often the very opposite is observed — and those who were first wronged (to grant a context like that of Jesus illustration) now are vindictive; acting like the devil, but justifying it with the words of Christ.. How ungodly can men become? Two wrongs do not make right.

In 2 Thes. Paul says, count him not as an enemy i.e., hated or perhaps outside (See Vines); but admonish —. The word for admonish is used eight times in the N.T., and four of these times it is translated, warn. (Acts 20:31; 1 Cor. 4:14 etc.) Vine says it is the training by word, whether of encouragement, Or, if necessary, by reproof or remonstrance. It would seem that there is not the same sort of rejection under consideration here, as in Titus 3:10, where the same word is used. (A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admoni- tion, reject.) Maybe we are too prone to want everything cut and dried — disfellowship is disfellowship — so we hastily classify all passages that seem to deal with such in a sort of church- doctrine package. Consider, And of some have compassion, making a difference: And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh. (Jude, 22-23)

And something else that deserves attention: brother does not necessarily refer to a faithful follower of Christ. All men are brothers in the flesh (in somewhat the same sense as neighbors, cf. Heb. 2:17) and the fellow -Gentiles were brethren. (KJ says publicans, Matt. 5:47) Vines Dictionary gives multi-uses of the term, and Diessman classes brother as a word having a wide connotation in the first century. (Something like comrade in Russia; or as we address someone as Buddy.)

Paul says. Do not company with the lazy busybody, to feed, condone his ways, etc.; yet continue to train by word, reproving, remonstrating, as could be expected in the relationship of people who still have some things in common. (Be not weary in well doing. Vs.13) Thus viewed, the two passages are not in conflict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.IX Pg.8
November 1970

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

Any preacher, or other saint who has been around awhile, and has traveled a bit, will tell you that there are certain problems which appear over and over, generation after generation, among brethren. They may be certain scripture interpretations, or hobbies, or matters involving human judgement, traditional practices, and the like — things which each generation must face and solve for itself.

Some of these are inevitable, and the sooner each church can face and settle — themselves, if not the problem — the better off they are. But others are senseless quibbles that survive only because there is some one in just about every church that loves to argue, or thinks it is a sign of brilliance to bring up something the brethren cant answer. (The querist usually proposes answer — some old saw that has long ago been thrashed to threads, but is new to the present victims. Subject matter may be anything from Cains wife to the church treasury.

One preacher wrote, I have known of local churches that have had trouble after trouble for years and years I think some of them can-up trouble for the future, even; like Mom used to can beans, corn, and sausage. When they get tired of fussing over one can of trouble, they can open up a new can of trouble, and eat away at each other. I understand and appreciate the writers disgust at this.

This attitude thrives where the brethren have no sense of direction — no positive goals toward which they press. Reminds me of the old man who made his first trip to the big city, and his court-yard cronies back home were anxious for a report on his trip.

Wasnt you a-feered youd get lost? he was asked.

How could I of got lost, the old man spat, when I didnt even care where I was at?

There are brethren who apparently have no real goals, and dont even care where they are at. Their idea of Bible study is to spend an hour arguing about Pauls thorn, and future planning is getting a preacher for the next meeting. Canned problems compose their steady diet — no energy to generate fresh ones.

Thank God for brethren who can-up solutions — and use them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.X Pg.1
December 1970

God - Orientated

Robert F. Turner

And these words, which I command thee this day. shall he upon thy heart: and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thy house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thy hand. and they shall be for frontlets between thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the door-posts of thy house, and upon thy gates.

These words are preceded by the basic factor that makes them more than mere commands. They are justified, and readily accepted in the lives of people who love Jehovah thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. Deut. 6:4-9 They are hallmarks of a God-orientated people.

Make a survey of one day in your life — and choose the day when you will likely think most of God. Now, ask yourself if your life revolves about God — if you are much conscious of His presence; and that in Him you live, move, and have being. (Acts 17)

IF you thanked Him for your food, did you really recognize Him as the provider, and sincerely thank Him; or did you just say Grace from habit? Were you aware of His presence as you moved through the day? Did you consider His will as you made important decisions? (Jas. 4:13-17)

A well-balanced Bible student does not rush emotionally to some idea of direct Spirit endowment; seeking subjectively to experience a closeness to God. Neither must one remove ones daily life and needs from prayer, by a pseudo- spiritualization of all God says on this subject. The truth of the matter is that when we become truly God -orientated - living as in His presence (Heb. 4:12-13) —when God is real to us. and we love Him with all our heart. soul, and might — we can not help but think of Him through the day. and deal Him in to life.

When our lives are measured by the God-orientated life of the Israelites (as taught in the opening text) we see how shallow, how incomplete, how utterly we have failed to measure up to this Old Testament standard. How can we boast of the superiority of our New Testament lives?

Are we rich in all but the things that really count? (Rev. 3:17-18)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.X Pg.2
December 1970

Historic Focus

Robert F. Turner

I was impressed by the analysis of world conditions by a noted historian (D. J. Boorstin, Readers Digest, Sept. , 1970; p. 92-f) who said that our up-to-the minute society makes it harder every day for us to keep our bearings in the larger universe, in the stream of history. He thinks. This imprisonment in the present tempts us to a morbid preoccupation with ourselves... We think we are the beginning and the end of the world; as a consequence. we get our nation and our lives quite out of focus

in our schools today, the story of our nation has been displaced by social studies — which is the study of what ails us now. In our churches, the effort to see the essential nature of man has been displaced by the social gospel-— which is the polemic against the supposed special evils of today... In a word, we have lost our sense of history.... Obsessed by where we are, we forget where we came from and how we got here.

This is precisely our reason for continuing a quote page (p.6) that delves into the past, and endeavors to keep us aware of the fact that todays problems in the church are but current versions of earlier counterparts. A cloud of witnesses watch us struggle with todays issues. We must not go to past solutions as having authority — but it does seem we should scout their struggle, and seek to learn something of this game from their experiences.

In this issue we publish the first of three quotes from a sermon of the last century. The writer was a popular preacher of his day, who had accepted mechanical instruments of music in the worship, and the missionary society. He did not consider himself liberal — (he deplored the rising liberalism among brethren, and struck out against modern- ism) yet, he had adopted the very course of lax interpretation, and speaking where the Bible was silent that brought about conditions he deplored.

Many good men today are doing exactly the same thing. They ring the same orthodox bell, and think they can dispose of the opposition to inter-church activities, benevolent organizations, etc., by belittling the size of that opposition.

Are we so brilliant, so complete, that we can learn nothing from the past? To think so is to doom our generation to repeat the mistakes of the past. Our one-in-twenty ancestors avoided digression by following God, not majorities. The same God rules our act in the drama of history.

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...