Jump to content

Plain Talk


RETIREDFAN1

Recommended Posts

Vol.VII No.X Pg.3
December 1970

Paul And Silas

Jim R. Everett

Silas first traveled with Paul to Jerusalem on that momentous occasion when there were issues that needed settling. Luke records the co-labor of several different ones with Paul, and Paul mentions true yoke- fellows in some of his writings (Acts 14:18; Phil. 4:3). I would conclude from this that the H.S. approved of such efforts and also that the fellow laborers benefited from the presence of each other. Such a relationship is not without difficulties. Anytime there are people together there are, to some degree, problems of adjusting to each others personalities and the need for patience with flaws of character. People are people, no matter who they are. However, true yoke- fellows are indeed a blessing.

Paul and Barnabas had a disagreement about taking John Mark with them which produced sharp feelings. You see, Paul and John Mark didnt hit- it-off very well after Mark left them high and dry in Pamphylia. Paul evidently felt justified in not wanting Mark along, and Mark might have been able to excuse his actions in Pamphylia — at least, to himself. So Paul chose Silas, and Mark went on with Barnabas. This rift must have been mended later because Paul wrote, Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry, (2 Tim. 4:11).

From experience, I can recommend two or more men working together in preaching the Gospel. It is no easy task — if you dont believe it, ask those with whom I have worked. Our relationship continued profitably because I was willing to give 60% while they gave 40%. Of course, even as I write this, I am aware that they were probably the ones giving 60%. The willingness of each to go the extra five miles avoided any major problem. It is the Lords way (Matt. 5:41).

Together, Paul and Silas were beaten with many stripes because they had angered the masters of a demon-possessed damsel. They sat together, securely bound in their stocks, and sang praises and prayed at midnight. Later, they taught the jail-keeper about their master, Christ Jesus; and saw fruit abound from their labor. They knew the anger of religious men, the perils of travel and the weight of concern for the churches. But the loads were lighter because each was a source of strength to the other.

This is the same kind of relationship that exists in a local church — Christians working together, making allowances for individual weaknesses, and suffering long in the face of provocation. Many are not willing to put forth the effort. They find it easier to cringe in their darkened dens and lick their self-inflicted wounds as they yelp for others to grovel with them in their self-pity. Problems do arise, but solutions must be sought. This takes patience — the quickest way to the lair is not the best. The warmth of brotherly love is a just reward for tears and diligent effort, and our loads are lighter when a brother is helping to lift.

The memories of toil, tears, tender compassion and triumph linger and they are enriched because there were others to share them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.X Pg.4
December 1970

Sacerdotalism

Robert F. Turner

Unless you have done some reading in early church history — something about the developing apostasy of the second and third centuries — you may not realize how easily the sacerdotal system slipped into Christianity — and how soon after Christ the church was corrupted by its fruits. It was a major factor in the developing of the first great apostasy. and has repeatedly led reformers and restorers away from their noble purposes.

Sacerdotal is, Of priests; relating to the priestly office or function. Or sacerdotalism, The doctrine that ordination confers special powers and rights.

Judaism had its special priesthood and sacred objects. Only the priests could enter the holy place — wear the holy garments — offer at the altar — approach God on behalf of the laity. And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God as was Aaron. (Heb. 5:4)

This system was especially suited to the moonlight age of revelation. while Gods scheme of redemption was yet hidden (Eph. 3:2-f); and served unto the example and shadow of heavenly things. (Heb. 8:4—5) But the New Covenant has its High Priest in heaven, after the order of Melchisedec. and all saints are priests. (1 Pet. 2:5) Even here, we must understand that such statements are couched in the terminology of the shadow. Our tabernacle is the true tabernacle. which the Lord pitched, and not man. The once for all offering is the blood of Christ, i.e., His life given in our behalf. We are given no earthly sanctuary (holy place); although by some unexplainable quirk, the liberal brethren who often accuse us of considering the church building as holy because we do not banquet there — are the very ones who often call the auditorium a sanctuary — and go right ahead and misuse it. (Cf. Heb. 9: 1-8-9, 23-f)

Does sacerdotalism exist among brethren? Well, few would admit it, and none would call it that, but let me give you a little test. (1) Do you regard the Lords Supper as a sacrament which only the Elders or Deacons can administer? (2) Are there certain words which must be uttered, and without which valid baptism can not be performed? (Is baptism a holy rite with a liturgy?) (3) Must baptism he administered by preacher — or saint — to be valid? (4) Is the judgement of the Elders irrevocably the will of God by virtue of their office? (See Nov. issue, on office.) (5) Is the church building the house of God? If you think yes to any of these, I beg you to examine your reasons carefully. You may be caught in the web of sacerdotalism without realizing it.

Dont let the terminology fool you. I have deliberately used words that our brethren may reject — and not know what the words really mean. Do we reject priestly functions because the word priest is used instead of preacher or elder? Let us hope we have better reasons. Nor should we play into the hands of those who would reject legitimate rule of elders, etc. , by refusing to seriously consider these matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.X Pg.5
December 1970

Im Scorpio Maybe!

Robert F. Turner

The desire to penetrate the future and influence its events has shown itself in all lands and ages. But it is clear that a knowledge of the future does not lie within the scope of mans natural powers; divination therefore has always been an attempt to gain the help of beings possessing knowledge and power transcending those of man. (See Dan .2:10- 11 rft)... Divination, therefore, in all its forms is but an aspect of polytheism. (many-gods. rft)

The above is the opening statement of an article in International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, under the heading, Astrology. What the writer of this ISBE article sees so clearly, surely my brethren should understand; — and shun the current pagan fad of astrology. This ancient superstition enjoys a tremendous revival in our day, and silly (2 Tim. 3:6) men and women spend hours reading its ambiguous literature. I wonder if they are aware that one of the chief living astrologers said, The TRUE astrologer believes that the sun is the body of the Logos of this solar system, in Him we live and move and have our being. The planets are his angels, being modifications in the consciousness of the Logos. (Knowledge, XXIII, 228; from ISBE, ibid.)

Isaiah foretold the destruction of wicked Babylon, chiding them for such trust in sorceries, saying, Thou art wearied in the multitude of thy counsels: let now the astrologers, the star-gazers, the monthly prognosticators, stand up, and save thee from the things that shall come upon thee. Behold, they shall be as stubble; the fire shall burn them.. . (Isa. 47:12f) As a footnote to the word astrologers the ASV explains, dividers of the heavens. This is a reference to the arrangement of the zodiac, with its stations or houses.

Current fascination with astrology does not mean that these devotees are seriously and consciously seeking the message of other gods — in the sense that earlier men believed in gods — for our society is far too atheistic for that. The paganism of our day is not the philosophical seeking after Deity that it was in earlier days — although deluded members of various orders pay lip service to light which their borrowed symbolism is supposed to reveal. But in all of this we see evidence of a generation which has no real chart or compass. True objective faith in Jehovah God, as revealed in Jesus Christ and set forth in the Spirit -inspired word, is no longer regarded as valid or sufficient. Men grope for a firm foundation, grasping straws. The saddest aspect of it all is that people who are supposed to know God are taking part in the vain search.

William Barclay says the rudiments of Col. 2:8-10 may refer to elemental spirits of the world, and especially the spirits of the stars and planets. He says that Pauls answer is, You need nothing but Christ to overcome any power in the universe; for in Him is nothing less than the fullness of God; and He is the head of every power and authority for he created them. I say, Amen!

Brethren. quit this foolishness!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.X Pg.6
December 1970

19Th. Century Sermon (1)

Robert F. Turner

From the sermons of J.M. Trible, pub- lished in 1892. we have made the following digest. The subject is Against Creeds, although this month we will have room for his introduction only — material we believe will be of historic interest to you.

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

The movement for the reformation of the church and the restoration of the faith of the apostolic church, has always been most outspoken and uncompromising in its opposition to human creeds as bonds of union and tests of fellowship among the followers of Christ. We have undoubtedly toned down in respect to some other things.

We do not make the same undiscrim- inating warfare on a regular and settled ministry as was the custom of our fathers. While we recognize that their attacks were not without great provocation and fair semblance of reason, we have learned, as most of them learned, that a regular ministry of the gospel, and paid pastoral care (1) of the churches, are indispensable to the life and growth of the church; and whatever may be their tendencies and perils, they can never work such harm to the churches as to leave them without such care.

So likewise the leaders of this movement were inclined at first to commit themselves against missionary societies, (2) as both inexpedient and unlawful for the churchs adoption. But we have gradually given over our opposition to them, and now use them as a necessary means of discharging the great commission which the Lord has left to his church. (3) Not one person in twenty among us today regards the society issue as anything else than both a false issue and a dead issue. I have been in a position to speak on this subject from knowledge. and I declare to you that one in twenty is a very liberal allowance for those who think the society principle opposed to the word of God. (4)

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

(1) This equating of regular support of a preacher, and paid pastoral care, was responsible for a Pastor system that ignored or downgraded scripturally appointed elders, and created opposition to the proper support of preachers who did only their God-appointed work.

(2) The writer acknowledges that early restoration leaders were opposed to missionary societies. But the expediency arguments, by which much early opposition was gradually overcome, he now replaces with necessary means of functioning.

(3) A basic fallacy in liberal thinking, then and now, is that the great commission was given to the church (as some sort of functional organization) and, hence, some means must be found whereby the universal church may poor means, and act as one in carrying Out the commission. The church (all saints) manifest Gods wisdom and goodness by what they are; (Eph. 3: 10-f) and instruct as individuals (2 Tim. 2:2) or through the organizational structure of the local church. (Phil. 4:15 2 Cor. 11:8)

(4) God and one can take twenty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.X Pg.7
December 1970

Queries And Answers

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

We have had much discussion about the word gospel; is it properly applied to anything other than the death, burial and resurrection of Christ? (1 Cor. 15: 1—4) SD

Reply:

I wonder why people who read that passage stop with verse four? Verse five continues. and that he appeared to Cephas; then to the twelve... etc If this is such a complete statement of the gospel as to rule out all extensions, we should at least get all that Paul put there.

Gospel is an English word, from the Anglo-Saxon god (good) and spell (a saying, tale, speech). We are repeatedly told in the footnotes of the ARV that it means good tidings. But what good tidings?

There is no doubt but that Christ our Saviour is the center, apex, pivot, fullness. etc. , of the gospel and I know of none who deny that; although we sometimes hear some facet of the glad tidings so emphasized as to overshadow Christ. All fundamentalist agree that the death, burial and resurrection of Christ are the key factors in the gospel. But this must not be allowed to rule out scriptural extensions of the term, nor become the basis for unfounded assumptions that Christ can be separated from His teaching (doctrine).

Christ preached the gospel of the kingdom (Matt. 4:23) before he began to foretell his death, burial and resurrection. (Matt. 11:21) The coming of the rule of God in Christ was also gospel (see Mk. 1:14-15).

When Paul saw that Peter, et al., walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, (Gal. 2:14) he upbraided them. To preach or practice less than a universal gospel — treating Jews and Gentiles alike — was to pervert the gospel.

The Colossians heard of the hope which is laid up for you in the heavens from the word of the truth of the gospel. (Col. 1:5)

Paul preached with authority, as one entrusted with the gospel — and this involved exhorting and reproving to the end that ye should walk worthily of God. (1 Thes. 2:2,4,9-12) We believe this clearly shows that the many teachings of Paul were counted a part of the gospel.

2 Thes. 1:8 shows that the gospel can be obeyed — which means it includes commandments. It is not enough to say that baptism is a form of the death, burial and resurrection. This form is commanded; and God will render vengeance to them that know not God, and to them that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus. (See also 1 Pet. 4:17)

So, although the essence of the good news is that Christ gave Himself for us, we have no right to build a fence about the word gospel. The proofs of His resurrection, the sovereign rule of His kingdom, the universality of His blessings, His commandments, instructions for a true Christian life, and the promise of heaven, are all part of His gospel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.X Pg.8
December 1970

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

Once, in northern Arizona, a huge Indian woman visited our Bible Class. She gave no indication she could understand a word of English, and apparently only came because several of her children were enrolled there. But my wife wanted to welcome her, and so she sat beside her, and talked with her for some time, using an older daughter as an interpreter.

Vivian would say, We are so glad you could come to our Bible Study. The daughter would then speak to the mother in the rumbling, softly explosive language of the Navajo — mother would reply in kind — and daughter would say to my wife, She is happy that you are trying to teach her children.

This went on for some time —- until my wife asked, How many children have you?

The daughter answered, Eighteen! and this caught my wife a bit off-guard. She hesitated a moment, and then said to the daughter, Tell her it must be wonderful to have such a large family.

Without waiting for translation the large Indian woman leaned over and spoke directly to my wife, You think so?? Apparently the Navajo mother had her own reasons for not understanding English — until interests and emotions arose that over-shadowed the first consideration. I can almost sense her thoughts: What does that two-child pale face know about having a large family??

And I think I have seen this philosophy at work among people who just cant understand the word of God. They understand the daily paper, the trade journals, football statistics, etc., — enough to argue with you about any point of difference there. But through the sermon, or in Bible class, they are politely indifferent; with an attitude of Ill take your word for it — its all over my head.

Until you hit close to home —something that really matters to them. Then they come to life — feelings hurt, or swinging their pet scriptures about as though they were full-time debaters. They need your help, on everything except money, marriage, and masonry — or whatever touches home. Then, Forget the translator, Sir, you are singing my song.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.XI Pg.1
January 1971

The Last Fight

Robert F. Turner

On the ruins of a theater in Ephesus there is a memorial to an athlete of the 2nd. century A.D. which reads:

He Fought Three Fights,

And Twice Was Crowned.

Watch out for that last step! You see, those athletes fought to the death. A mans last fight was always fatal.

So, the crown meant only that one changed opponents; and sooner or later the last would slay him. What a difference in this crown, and that of the apostle Paul.

I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day. . Paul did more than fight unto death — he fought unto life, eternal. If his fight of faith cost him his earthly life, it only meant he was now free to claim the crown that counted most. (Rev. 2:10 2 Cor. 5:6-f.) How different from those who die without hope. Paul sought an enduring victory — one that could not be taken from him. He exhorted Timothy, Lay hold on eternal life.. . (1 Tim. 6:12) This called for training, perseverance, and above all, self control. (1 Cor. 9:24-27) The athlete trained his body only to prolong the day when it would fail him; but Paul trained his that it might the better serve the Lord, and thus serve his eternal purposes.

We are all engaged in some sort of battle, and in a very real sense it is unto death. The fatalist, the fool, resigns himself to shortchange. Though he fights 3,000 times, he can expect but 2,999 temporal crowns, not one of which he can take with him beyond that last fight. The futility of it all is enough to make a man throw in the towel.

The Faith gives purpose to life The Christian fights, hard and often. But he has submitted himself to Gods will, strives lawfully, (2 Tim. 2:5) and his fight is never in vain. Jesus Christ has provided for him a crown, and not for him only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.XI Pg.2
January 1971

The Lord Willing

Robert F. Turner

Here water spins left, or counterclock- wise as it drains from bathtubs. But my High School physics teacher said that in Australia it would spin right, or clockwise. Well, we shall see! (Assuming I use a bathtub.)

My meeting schedule for 1971 calls for one meeting in Launceston, Tas.; two in Melbourne, Vic..; one in Wagga Wagga, Wollongong, Sydney, Newcastle, Armidale, and Lismore, N.S.W.; and in Bundaberg, Rockhampton, Emerald, and perhaps another in Queensland. This will require 14 weeks in Australia.

I return to the States for meetings in Sparks, Nev.; Santa Clara and Santa Rosa, Cal.; Tucson, Ariz.; and Lubbock, Tex. before getting home. Go then to Nashville, Tenn.; Decatur, Ga.; Birmingham, Ala.; then to Brady, W. Columbia, Bridge City, Houston, Sinton, and Austin, Tex. Then off to Indianapolis, Ind.; St. Louis, and St. James, Mo.; Mulvane, Ks.; then west to San Diego, Garden Grove, and Gardena. Cal., and Glendale, Ariz.

During the Australian trip Plain Talk will be edited by bro. Joe Fitch and articles will be by bros. Fitch, Jim Everett, and Dan Shipley — along with a few of my own. These are good men, and you have had proof of their capable writing in past issues. If I come home to find myself out of a job in this field, you will have gained. The paper will continue to be published by the Oaks—West church of Christ, as part of their teaching program, available to all who request it, free of charge. Address correspondence to same as always— my home office, shown in block at right.

We plan to write several reports on the Australian trip, with emphasis on the cause of Christ there, when experience has provided information. Now, however, we must be content with expressing our sincere thanks to the saints who have made this trip possible. The Seligman. Ariz. church (5 members) and bro. Ted Bollier, Phoenix, started the fund. Ted contacted other Phoenix members, who further helped me; and Central church, Beaumont, Tex., picked up a large deficit just prior to ticket-buying time. The Oaks—West church, Burnet, supplies almost half of my weekly support; and I will use some of my own funds, put aside for such purposes. Individual reports and thanks are, of course, sent to each donor.

Vivian will remain in Burnet while I am away — this is not a vacation trip, as thirteen one-week meetings in fourteen weeks will indicate. I am a little frightened by the responsibility of the whole thing. Pray that I may serve my Lord acceptably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.XI Pg.3
January 1971

Human Sacrifice

Robert F. Turner

Abraham. . . take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah and offer him there for a burnt offering (Gen. 22: 1,2). What a heart rending command for a father! Reason cried that it was contrary to Gods promise —in Isaac shall thy seed be called (Gen. 21:12). Furthermore, God had never accepted such sacrifice. Nevertheless, Abraham sadly journeys to Moriah. Isaac and his father leave the servants and ascend the appointed mount. Where is the sacrifice? asks Isaac. From a heart that believes in Gods power to raise the dead (Heb. 11:19), Abraham replies, God will provide himself a lamb. Rocks are stacked to form an altar. Wood is laid on it, and the fire is ready. Finally Isaac is bound on the altar. Now the test! Abraham raises a knife to slay his son, but an angel stays his hand. God says, Now I know thou fearest God. Abraham then sees a ram caught in the bushes and offers the ram as a sacrifice.

Now, did God change his mind about what sacrifice he wanted? No! Though the ram is offered in sacrifice, the ram is not the sacrifice of this account. Isaac was laid on the altar, but from the beginning he was not the sacrifice God sought. Before the angel appeared, God received his sacrifice. It was Abraham who was offered to God, and he was completely sacrificed when he raised the knife to kill Isaac. His will, his logic, his emotions as a father, his whole being had to be subdued to obey that command. God received human sacrifice.

The Jew brought a calf for a burnt offering. It was just as God commanded, yet it was not the calf God wanted. I am God,... every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills (Psa. 50:10). God wanted the man who brought the calf. He sought the Jew in complete and voluntary submission to Gods will. He was pleased with such human sacrifice and satisfied with no less.

Jesus said, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. (Matt. 16:24). Thus, discipleship demands self denial. That means putting God above emotions when you must choose between God and family. It means putting God before self when you really want to do something that God forbids. Self denial means blindly obeying a command though you do not see why it should be necessary. Self denial is human sacrifice. It is self offered to God on the altar of unconditional obedience.

I beseech you therefore. brethren by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God. which is your reasonable service (Rom. 12:1). Through the centuries many godly men have offered themselves as martyrs for their faith in God. All Christians must first offer themselves to God in simple obedience. We must love God enough, trust him so completely, submit our will to his so thoroughly, and anchor ourselves in hope so securely that we will do anything he says — simply because he says it. I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: (Gal. 2:20) Joe Fitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.VII No.XI Pg.4
January 1971

Gods Cooperative

Robert F. Turner

Is the local church a divinely instituted organization — Gods plan for the collective action of saints? Is it, when a plurality of saints makes it possible, a relationship of saints and means of functioning that is God authorized and bound upon all who would follow the precepts and approved examples of the New Testament? Yes, Yes!! We have repeatedly offered scriptures for these affirmations.

Now some seem to have made it a special project to belittle the local church — going much further than correction of abuses, and misuses of terminology. Some of the attack upon a church treasury (and they almost spit when they say it) is fundamentally an attack upon the whole idea of collective, or church action. We have long fought churchanity as opposed to Christianity, and plan to continue this battle. But we are far from rejecting the local church as a God — approved organized entity.

We like the way it was put in the Aug. 24, 61 issue of the Gospel Guardian — a five page article called How Churches Work Together — Christian Church Style. Note a few quotes.

How similarly do many brethren today dispose of the local church as nothing more than just one of several means Christians may use to do spiritual work! (There follows a quote from a 59 A.C.C. lecture brochure —).

Then, So, according to our brethren who conduct these lectures, the local church is nothing more than one of the many ways to get the job done; not a mandatory, God ordained cooperative of his chosen people, but only an expedient, and that on the level of those devices of mans ingenuity. Shades of the Christian church!

On the next page, Men need to realize that the independent action of each congregation is the direct result of Gods wisdom and planning; they need to realize that the local church is Gods ordained instrumentality and is the most efficient, practical, and productive organic structure capable of being devised. If there were a more proficient, practical, and productive organization capable of doing the work God wanted done, God would have devised it and set it in motion by his word.

And in the next column, How to work together will never be a problem for people who let God do their thinking for them through his Word; who submit their wills in complete subjection to the will of the Lord. People who feel intensely responsible to God for their conduct will not be quick to exalt their wisdom above the wisdom of him to whom we all shall give account in judgement. The Lord demonstrated his wisdom in setting forth the congregation in each locality to be the unit of working together. The local church is Gods cooperative through which combined energies of many individuals produce to the glory of God. But to form cooperative agencies larger than, smaller than, other than, or to form cooperatives consisting of Gods cooperatives (the local church) is wholly without scriptural precedent of any type or form from Gods Word.

The author? Bro. Harold Spurlock

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.XI Pg.5
January 1971

The Editor And Isaiah

Robert F. Turner

In our Nov. 70 issue, under the heading, Armstrongs Folly I ventured a comment on Isa. 11:10-f. as follows: Isaiah said the Lord would set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people from Assyria, etc. 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.

Then came the most delightful disagreement. Bro. L.A. Mott, Jr., of Romulus, Mich., wrote: I am delighted finally to disagree with you on something. I dont think I read anyone I agree with so nearly 100% of the time; nor anyone who has taught me so much or given me so much to think about in the years Ive read Plain Talk

I agree that the second time refers to the spiritual return and restoration. Rom. 15:12 establishes that. But I doubt that the implied first time refers to the physical restoration described in Ezra. Rather, the reference is to the deliverance from Egyptian bondage when with a strong hand Jehovah brought Israel out of Egypt (Ex. 13:9, 14, 16). The thought springs from the context of Isa. 11:11-16, where the spiritual deliverance is thought of as a second exodus from Egypt. Note esp. vs. 15-16. Note also that Isa. 12: corresponds to the song of deliverance in Ex. 15.

Second time is, then, not connected with the whole clause — which would suggest a second recovery of a remnant. with an implied reference to the first one — but only with the Lord will set his hand. He set his hand and brought the whole nation from Egypt. He now sets his hand a second time and recovers the (spiritual) remnant.

I dont suppose it is necessary to say that I agree with your general position in the article but only question the explanation of that one verse. What do you think?

I think that next time I am tempted to rely on past studies, and make a hasty reference to a prophecy, I will need a reprimand more like a swift kick than this gentle assist.

Reference to Egyptian deliverance is common in the prophets promises of further help (Isa. 44:26-ff. 51:10 - 11, etc.) as I well knew. (Watch me try to pull this one from the fire.) I should have made the connection in this passage, as context demands.

Notice that Egyptian deliverance is used as an example of the physical reprieve, made possible by Cyrus. But although Isa. 11: may contain a literal reference to the recovery from Babylon, this would be only a shadowy fulfillment of the second setting of hand; for the substance of the redemption is certainly that found in Christ. (Rom. 15:12; Acts 13:23; 28:20)

If I should have 10,000 readers. I could wish that 9,980 of them be like bro. Mott. A few old sore heads add chili to the frijoles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.XI Pg.6
January 1971

Against Creeds 1892 (2)

Robert F. Turner

What do we mean by creeds, when we avow our opposition to them?

1. We do not mean the same as belief. A man may have many beliefs, and these may be as deep as the fountains of his own life, and yet he may be a man without a creed, in the sense in which that word is meant in our usage of it. We make no war on beliefs; very far from it. On the contrary, one of our objections to the creeds is that they tend to promote unbelief instead of faith....

We have no sympathy with the common practice of some loose and, as they love to be called, liberal thinkers, who set creed over against character and conduct, telling us in many specious phrases that it is of no consequence what a man believes, but what he is and what he does. We believe that both character and conduct must be grounded in faith, and that creed in this sense is as vitally related to deed as cause to effect, or means to end. Character is the solid framework of bone and tissue and muscle, and is the product of the food of truth taken into the moral system by faith. To say that it makes no difference what a man believes, is like saying it makes no difference what he eats. It does make a world of difference.... The man who believes nothing will be nothing and do nothing. In denouncing creeds, therefore, we by no means denounce the duty of belief, nor yet the truth which those creeds may contain.

2. In opposing creeds we do not thereby oppose all statements of doctrine which may be made for the information of the public, whether those statements be drawn up by one or a number of persons. I have been told that as often as I propose any interpretation of any text, or even any view as to the meaning of any particular statement, I recite, in effect, an article of my creed... .Now this is a strange and almost incredible misstatement, when we consider the respectability and intelligence of the people who make it. The creed is not what I believe. It is what I say you must believe or else I will have no fellowship with you. So long as I do not force it upon you, so long as I do not insist upon it as a term of communion between us it is not a creed, but only a conviction. It is when I seek to fasten this statement of my own upon you as a part of the divine word that it becomes a creed.

3. Dr. Schaff thus defines a creed A form of words setting forth with authority certain articles of belief which are regarded by the framers as necessary for salvation, or at least for the welfare of the church. A creed, then, in the first place, assumes to be an authoritative document. Some regard this as simply the authority of the church... which she here announces and proclaims... Others explain this as the authority of the churchs teachers, to whom has been committed the office of interpreting the Scriptures... A third class claim that the creed-makers were actually inspired for their work... It follows from this that a creed must be either directly or otherwise a term of communion and a test of fellowship.

(Digest From Tribles Sermons 1892)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.XI Pg.7
January 1971

Queries And Answers

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

Is it in harmony with the spirit and general teachings of the N.T. for the church to borrow money from worldly people? Is borrowing money for a preachers house borrowing money to support him? Should we not consider be content with such things as you have, Heb. 13:5 Matt. 6: Acts 2: 44-47; 4: 32-37 17: 24-29? HK

Reply:

Heb 13:5 does not teach a poor man to drop his plans for getting a better job. It urges contentment as opposed to covetousness. The one-talent man was expected to gain other talents. Matt. 6:19-f. teaches us not to make earthly things our treasure, or our master. Acts 2: and 4: teach us selflessness (Phil. 2:4) so that we would, if need demanded, sell our own possessions to help our brother. This does not teach communism as a way of life. The Corinthians were differently prospered, (1 Cor. 16:2). And Acts 17: teaches that we can not worship God with materials per se. But if we have the proper attitude toward God we will, use our materials in His service, as seen in foregoing verses.

These passages have to do with the individuals attitude toward material things, plus the example of collective care of needy saints, and forbid neither church nor individual to borrow money. They certainly teach us that fancy buildings, Keep up with the Jones, covetous living above our means, etc., are contrary to Christian principle — for individual or church. And let us here note that the Spirit of N.T. teaching is always in keeping with the teaching — i.e., what it says. We must be careful never to imagine the spirit of the word to differ from what it actually says.

Alliance with the worldly, sharing or fellowship in evil, is clearly forbidden (2 Cor. 6:14); but this is different from buying his bread, taking passage on his ship, or even doing banking business with him. (Matt. 25:27) Saints are authorized to act collectively (Phil. 4:15) and they buy materials and service for anything in which the collective is authorized to act on the same principle by which an individual buys such. And make no mistake about it — when one borrows money at interest, he buys the use of money, whether from bank or individual. The same is true of bonds. We buy the use of money, even though we call it selling bonds.

Now a church could sin in building an elaborate place of meeting — catering to pride, ignoring more important obligations, wasteful of resources, etc. — even if it had ready cash on hand for the whole thing. I also believe it could sin in failing to accept opportunity to scripturally serve the Lord, even if this meant borrowing money. How can a saint have the right to borrow money to advance his business, and deny the church the same right? What would make it wrong for a church (the moral principles involved) would stop the individual.

Providing housing, clothing, food, etc., for a preacher is providing his support wages. (Study 2 Cor. 11:8) Of course I can not judge the wisdom of various circumstances. I personally prefer money, to buy my own house.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.XI Pg.8
January 1971

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

Believe nothing that you hear, and only half of what you see! That was the advice some cynical father gave his small son. Then, standing him on the table he said, Jump off, and I will catch you.

The boy jumped, but his father moved back and allowed him to strike the floor. When the boy began to cry his father said, 1 told you, dont trust anyone! This is not my idea of a healthful attitude, but I must admit that we live in a deceptive age.

It is even difficult to believe advertising. We returned from travels to find some kind of bug in the bathroom. A bottle of antiseptic was near by — one that claims to kill millions of germs on contact — and I figured if it could kill millions of little bugs, it certainly should kill one big bug. So, I poured some on the varmint. Didnt seem to bother him. But I will say I never knew that bug to have a sore throat.

One of our poets has said, Things are not what they seem; and I think that is true. This doesnt mean, however, that we must be deceitful. Nor is all uncertainty the fault of others. Sometimes we deceive ourselves, by jumping to unwarranted conclusion. For example, I visited with a rancher and watched his two sons mix dehydrated milk, wash nipples, and hand-feed a bunch of orphan calves. The wind was cold, and the boys were unhappy with their lot. The rancher said, Bro. Turner, these calves will put my boys through college.

The calves looked good, but I expressed doubt that they would make that much money. The rancher laughed, Im not thinking of selling them. My boys will go through college rather than stay home and feed them.

In the midst of all the worlds deceit, confusion, double-talk and misunder- standing, there should be an oasis — a people whos yea is yea. and whos nay is nay; whos word is as good as their bond. A people who seek to avoid misunderstandings by open conduct; appeal to Gods word for guidance. and pray for strength. Brother — sister — if you are not a part of that oasis can you really say you are serving the divine purpose?

Stuff — is on the lighter side of life (actually, we never saw that bug again) but our purpose is serious. Do not fool yourself, and miss heaven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.XII Pg.1
February 1971

Thats Great!

Jim R. Everett

Some men who are held in high esteem because of position, ability or wealth can conceive of serving God only by doing those things deemed to be great deeds — they think BIG. However, great deeds and great men may well be mans labels and do not necessarily reflect Gods views.

Naaman was a great man. a captain of the Syrian army but all his majesty and power could not conquer leprosy. He sought cleansing from the God of Israel by going to the king of the land, but the king was perplexed and said, Am I God, to kill and to make alive, that this man doth send unto me to recover a man of his leprosy? (2 Ki. 5:7). He wanted no part of the deal. The Great God is an infrequent guest in kings palaces and non-resident in majestic houses of worship in which men glory. Thats not great, Naaman, you went to the wrong place!

Naaman waited outside Elishas house for the prophet to come out, call upon his God and wave his hand over the leprosy but word came from Elishas servant — Go and wash in the Jordan seven times.., and thou shalt be clean, (v. 10). Abanah and Pharpar are BETTER than all the rivers in Israel, Ill wash in them. Thats not great, Naaman — you missed the point and made yourself the judge of how to cleanse leprosy. Todays Naamans proudly reject Gods simple conditions for cleansing sin and tell HIM how THEY want to be saved.

The ten talents of silver, six thousand pieces of gold and ten changes of raiment are proof of desire to do great deeds and dipping in the muddy Jordan wasnt the right price. If the prophet had bid you do some great thing you would have done it, (v. 13). Then why not do the small task commanded of God? Naaman dipped himself seven times and was cleansed by God. Now you understand, Naaman — true greatness is humbly submitting to Gods way.

Men seek great ways to serve God and teachers become great preachers and Jesus says, For he that is least among you all, the same is great, (Lk. 9:48). Covet the day when the back of the head is seen more than the life of the chin. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.XII Pg.2
February 1971

Pass The Milk

Jim R. Everett

A couple of decades ago Issues arose that demanded a new look at our studying and teaching habits. We had continued to fight yesterdays battle and parrot arguments from the past. We waged war on the retreating denominations and neglected grounding the converts in a thorough knowledge of the truth. It became obvious that critical and detailed work needed to be done. Dedicated men rose to meet the challenge, and the years have developed some fine Bible students among us, capable of teaching and discussing the most technical subjects. Many brethren also became enthusiastic students. Generally we profited from good research and serious study. Of course, we al so developed some knot-heads who pretend scholarship to advance their pet speculations.

Community trends, however. are the opposite — toward abysmal ignorance of the Bible. Sectarian preachers are almost exclusively concerned with social and political problems. They do not even teach what little they know about the Bible. Many liberal minded brethren are to busy promoting brotherhood projects and being congregational pastors to do more than warm-up a borrowed sermon outline. The result? General ignorance of even basic Bible history and principles.

Now to the point. We need good challenging lessons for mature brethren who study. But it is no reflection on a preachers scholarship or ability to also preach the basics in terms that even a child can understand. In studies aimed at unbelievers we need elementary lessons. A technical Greek word study is hardly going to help a fellow who does not know who came first — Moses or Paul. Feed the full grown on strong meat but serve the unbelievers and babes in Christ some good wholesome milk (Heb. 5:12. 14).

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

Jan. 18 was the big day. Brother Turner left Burnet for Australia and is currently busy (what else for him) in meetings there. Also, on Jan. 18 the Shipley's left Arizona to begin working with the Oaks—West congregation in Burnet. The same day the Fitch family bid sad farewell to home and friends in Burnet to work with the Laurel Heights church in McAllen. Texas. So — a real fruit -basket- turnover.

I will be Plain Talk editor in Roberts absence. The editors shoes seem uncomfortably oversize, but I am fortunate to have two good writing helpers inverett andJoe Fitch, 1616 N. 6th. McAllen. Texas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.XII Pg.3
February 1971

Hindering Little Ones

Dan S. Shipley

And he said unto his disciples, It is impossible but that occasions of stumbling should come; but woe unto him, through whom they come. It were well for him if a millstone were hanged about his neck. and he were thrown into the sea, rather than that he should cause one of these little ones to stumble. (Lk. 17: 1,2)

Few courts of men ever meted out such a dreadful punishment as Christ describes in this passage. And yet, severe as it is. He says that even this fate would be better than causing a little one to stumble. We can only imagine the frightful punishment awaiting these offenders. This inferred punishment but indicates the enormity of such a crime. It is obvious that Christ intends for men to be deeply impressed with the seriousness of this sin and its consequence.

Few are more susceptible to the sin of causing little ones to stumble than we parents. What children are and what they become can be largely attributed to the influence of their parents — whether it be by design or by default. Little ones stand to be helped or hindered; led to God or away from Him by Mother and Daddy more than by anyone else. For this reason parents must have an abiding awareness of the God-given obligation to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord and to train them up in the way they should go. (Eph. 6:4; Prov. 22:6)

While few parents would deliberately come between their children and God, many do so unwittingly by their example. Even children can see the absence of spiritual values in parents who do not pray and read the Bible. They understand that God cannot be very important to a Mother and Daddy who wont worship him. Stumbling block examples are not limited to the parents who curse, cheat, lie and drink before their children. High principles and good morals that are not Divinely motivated do not produce spiritual values and are no substitute for doing Gods will.

Precious young souls are hindered from knowing Christ and His teachings by parents who will not teach them at home nor allow others to teach them in Bible classes. Such parents are not unlike the scribes and Pharisees who shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; neither entering themselves nor allowing others to enter (Mt. 22:13). What a heritage for our little ones! — stumbling-blocks! And what can their children expect but more of the same. Satan could have no better ally than a parent who hinders his child from learning about Jesus and his truth.

It has been wisely noted. as the twig is bent, the tree is inclined (Pope). God looks to parents to bend the twig heavenward. Little ones are trusting us to lead them, by precept and example, in the right paths. With David, we should urge them to keep the charge of the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, to keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his judgments, and his testimonies.. (1 King. 2:3). Better the millstone than to hinder these little ones!Box 237, Burnet, Texas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.XII Pg.4
February 1971

White Washin

Jim R. Everett

The old chicken coop didnt last long between white-washins — one was hardly finished and it was time for another. It always looked so clean after each job that it was hard to imagine that those gathering eggs were met with such a stench. No matter how much white-wash you put on, it didnt seem to improve the smell on the inside of the coop.

After awhile the filth got so bad that someone (never me) would suggest that it was time to clean and disinfect the inside. It sure smelled a lot better after that. But believe me when I say that its much more pleasant to white-wash two chicken coops than to clean out one.

Of course, white-washin is nothing new. The Pharisees garnished the tombs of the fathers to make them appear beautiful but there were dead mens bones inside. They meticulously cleansed the outside of the cup and platter but this did not remove the inside stains (Matt. 23:24—27). Our Lord was not condemning the whitewashing of sepulchers nor was he teaching a lesson here on how to wash dishes. He said, Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity, Matt. 23:28), and they understood that he spoke of outward religion (white-washin) as opposed to inner cleanliness of heart.

It is never easy to cleanse ones heart of sin but sometimes the smell becomes so odious that we can no longer cover it up. The more David white-washed to cover his sin, the more sin there was to cover — first adultery then deception and finally murder. Admitting his sin was humiliating and painful, but far better this than plunging white- washed into eternity where the paint job peels.

Pity poor Saul. God said for Saul to utterly destroy the Amalekites, but Saul and the people spared Agag, the best of the sheep, oxen, and all that was good. Saul said to Samuel, I have performed the commandment of Jehovah, (1 Sam. 15:13b), but his paint began to run when the oxen lowed in Samuels ears. He thought he could blame the people but Samuel applied Gods paint remover — to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. (v.22)

Many souls today are filled with extortion, excess, murder theft, adultery, etc., and each new day demands more self-justification, excuses, and rationaliz- ations to hide the sins — at least from ones own eyes But there is not enough white-wash in the world to cover ONE sin. The only hope for the cleansing from sin is through the blood of Christ (Matt. 26:28; 1 Jno. 1:7). It was not easy for him to die on the cross and it may not be easy for Christians to repent and confess sins, but thats what it takes to cleanse the inside (1 Jno. 1:9; Acts 8:22).

The cleansed conscience and restored relationship are much better than self-justification. I liked the clean chicken coop much better than the white-washed one too — after it was all over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.XII Pg.5
February 1971

Second - Mile Living

Dan S. Shipley

And whosoever shall compel thee to go one mile, go with him two. (Matt. 5:41) Under Roman rule it was not unusual for Jews to be pressed into service for the purpose of assisting soldiers and couriers in the performance of their duties. Such tasks were especially distasteful to the Jews. In this passage Jesus pictures one who is obliged to accompany such men, perhaps as a porter, for a distance of one mile. To the proud and reluctant Jew, this must have been a long mile! But now they learn that even after traveling that difficult distance, they were still a mile away from where Christ would have them to be! Hard sayings indeed!

The principle of second—mile service is repeated often in the sermon on the mount. Christ teaches that we are not only not to despair in persecutions, but that we are to rejoice and be exceeding glad. Not only are his followers to be righteous, theirs is to exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees. Second—mile service means more that not killing, it means not hating. It means abstaining from adultery and from the lust that leads to it. Second—milers not only do not forswear themselves, they swear not at all; they not only forego seeking revenge, they turn the other cheek. The citizens of Christs kingdom do not hate their enemies, they love them. For them, going the second mile means more than a casual seeking of the kingdom of God and His righteousness, it means seeking them FIRST! Faithfulness here is more than being a mere hearer of His word, it means doing it as well. By such standards it is not difficult to see how many of these Jews were a mile off in much of their thinking and practice — and just that far from walking with Christ.

The passing of two thousand years has not diminished the distance nor broadened the way to Christ—pleasing service. While many seek Him at a lesser and more convenient distance, Christ is still found at the two—mile mark. Even among His own. many are yet thinking in terms of how little can I get by with?. The Lord doesnt get much mileage from this kind of attitude (usually less than two!). Those who try to just get by wont. None are more deceived than those who seek fellowship with Christ in the near-by areas of half-hearted, lukewarm and begrudged service. He is not there — except in the distorted imaginations of would-be Christians. It is unlikely that their Lord, Lord's will be heard from this remote distance at which they seek Him.

The question posed at the Mount is always appropriate for the Christian: What do ye more than others?. Serving Christ means being more and doing more — this is the essence of second- mile living — and this is the dividing line between His true and would - be disciples and the world. Through His word, Christ directs men in the way of second- mile living to a righteousness that exceeds.

Re-read the sermon on the mount. Consider well its lessons. Failure to appreciate and apply these principles of truth could cause us to miss heaven — we could miss it by a mile!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.XII Pg.6
February 1971

Why Oppose Creeds? (3)

Robert F. Turner

This is the third in a series of quotes from Against Creeds, a sermon by J.M. Trible, published 1892 in a book called Tribles Sermons. RFT

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

1. Creeds. as defined in what has been said already, are without warrant or authority in the word of God.

There is no appointed authority of interpretation, but every child of God, every servant of Jesus Christ, has the right, and consequently the obligation, to interpret the meaning of Scripture for himself. (Acts 17:11; Lu. 1:1-4; 2 Pet. 1:13-15; 3:1-2 rft)

I do not wonder that the ablest apologists and advocates of the creed would restrict within very narrow limits the right of private judgement. Their course is logical and inevitable. Indeed the only logical defense of creeds, as it appears to me, is to say, (1) either that the priest has the power of interpretation entrusted to him as his exclusive prerogative, as the Romish Church does say or do, or (2) that God raised up and inspired special men in different ages of the church to formulate creeds and deliver to his people the authoritative interpretation of his word, as some Protestants hold. One thing is plain, there is no logical defense of creeds consistent with the divinely guaranteed right of private judgement. Sooner or later either that or the creeds must go overboard.

2. Creeds... tend to set aside and make void the word of God, and substitute for the commandments of God the traditions and interpretations of men... I will not speak of the obvious errors which they contain, and which. so far as they are received, must annul the divine truth... If they were all true I should still oppose them. Because in any case they serve to divert attention from the truth and fix the mind and thought of the church upon what is at best a mere interpretation of the truth... It also accomplishes the perversion of that sacred Word... Every man who subscribes to a creed promises virtually to read the Bible in the light of that creed; to construe its meaning according to this human and fallible statement of doctrine. This checks all independent investigation and makes him trim down his own apprehensions of truth to suit the authorized standard. That cannot but result in the perversion and sacrifice of truth

. . It must be charged against creeds that they tend to arrest the progress of thought in the minds of those that accept them. It is true that we are to have no new revelations of truth; the faith has been once for all delivered to the saints. He that adds to it or takes from it shall do it at his peril. But mans apprehension of the truth should enlarge from age to age. We are exhorted to grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Now the effect of the creeds is to put a period to progress, to stunt or stay the growth of knowledge, to make the impression that God has no more light to break from his Word than that which the creed reflects... They would surround the church with a Chinese wall forbidding either the egress of error or the entrance of truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.XII Pg.7
February 1971

Queries And Answers

Robert F. Turner

Editor:

Is it right for a preacher to quit the ministry to take a secular job?

Reply:

There is so much work crying to be done in so many places that we lament losing the efforts of any who quit. I understand their discouragement with brethren who refuse to treat them fairly and the problem of trying to make ends meet financially. I have brooded sitting where they sit, but I ask myself. Why did you begin to preach? No one expects to get rich preaching; discouraging and hard obstacles were expected. Love of souls, an awareness of the need for preachers. and a desire to be of service to Christ is why we all began. What has changed to make any of us quit? Perhaps we lost those unselfish motives.

Does a preacher have the right to quit full time work? Paul accepted church support (Phil. 4:15-f; 2 Cor. 11:8), but at other times he supported himself as a tentmaker (Act. 18:3). He even supplied others their needs with his own hands (Act. 20:34). Doubtless then a man may choose to accept or reject support as a full time preacher. He has the right to be a tentmaker. A preacher has no more obligation to continue in full time work than other qualified brethren have to begin such work Brethren condemn a preacher for quitting to become an insurance salesman. yet they offer no criticism for the insurance salesman who is capable of preaching but will not try. Such is not just judgement.

Now to the real point. Does any Christian have the right to quit the ministry — regardless of support. May a qualified man CHOOSE not to preach? Absolutely not! Paul said. . . .necessity is laid upon me: yea, woe unto me if I preach not the Gospel! (l Cor 9:16). He could choose to be a tentmaker but not to quit preaching. Make a living how you will but serve the Lord as ability and occasion require.

Oh, yes — the ministry is more than full time pulpit work. There is a ministry of the Gospel (Col. l:23) and of the word (Act. 6:4) which is the work of teaching truth. Every teacher — part time or full: man or woman: public or private — has part in this ministry. There is a ministry to Gospel preachers (Act. 19:22;

2 Tim. 1:18; Phm. 13). Christians who love truth and men who preach it become helpers to them (Rom. 16:3). Perhaps more preachers would stick-it-out if more brethren were busy helping them. Pauls ministry of reconciliation was bringing lost men to be at peace with God in Christ. How brethren need to awaken to such work! And there is the ministry to the saints (2 Cor. 9:1-f). Surely we need to participate in this work that God never forgets (Heb. 6:10) and by which we are judged (Mt. 25:31-46). Paul also ministered to the Lord (Act. 13:2). This evidently refers to the whole deportment of life in those who have become servants to God ( Rom. 6:22).

Quit the ministry? Never! Our ministry requires faithfulness unto death (Rev. 2:10). Let all saints ... . take heed to the ministry which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfill it (Col. 4:17). Joe Fitch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VII No.XII Pg.8
February 1971

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

Perhaps you have heard the story about the man who wanted to know why his wife cut the end from a ham she was preparing to bake. She said her mother always did that. Mother said that grandmother, always did it. And grandmother, shaking her head as memory spanned the years, said yes, she always did that — because she did not own a roasting pan large enough to hold the whole ham. That illustrates the meaning of tradition bound.

There are church members, just as tightly and foolishly bound to doctrinal conclusions of the past; with less real historic reason for their faith, and no Bible reason at all. We may be unaware of the fact that most denominations of our day no longer hold to their creeds as they once did. They couldnt care less about conforming to this or that traditional doctrine. But we — who so long fought creeds — are threatened by the same spirit we once condemned.

A creed need not be written by a council and formally accepted with a pledge of allegiance. It can be any belief (credo, is Latin for I believe) which we accept as the final authority in a matter, and by which we judge and fellowship, or refuse to fellowship others. Read with care the quote on page 6, this issue.

We urge people to have convictions and to stand by them. This is not the same as saying, however, that what one believes is the divine standard. We must leave the rule where God put it — in His word; and be as willing to have our own conclusions measured by that rule, as we are anxious to measure others by that rule.

The radical mind may plunge recklessly after something new, and the reactionary mind may seek to bind where God has not bound, but these extremes do not stamp the mainstream of the movement with authority. In fact, creeds form in such mainstreams and are given strength there. It is there that majority opinions are framed into church doctrine and become law in the minds of the creed- bound. It is the great middle section that frowns upon private investigation, and refuses to study issues in the light of Gods word. It might rock the boat of their serenity.

As you read Tribles Sermon about creeds in 1892, ask yourself if you are cutting ham ends today simply because some one before you did it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VIII No.I Pg.1
March 1971

Illusions Of Permanence

Dan S. Shipley

An illusion of permanence is the senior citizen of seventy-five negotiating for a thirty-year home loan. It is the combat soldier who knows nothing can happen to him because his guaranteed-for-life pen is still writing like new. It is the aging grand- mother who exchanges her dignity for the fashion of miniskirts and gaudy paint. It is the wealthy farmer of Luke 12 who, shortly before his unexpected demise, was thinking in terms of many years while planning a future that did not include God. It is every Felix who seeks a more convenient season in which to obey the Lord. It is all who live as if they anticipated an almost indefinite earthly existence. Few escape the beguiling effects wrought by these illusions of permanence.

But the Bible dispels these illusions. God describes mans earthly tenure in such terms as shadow, season, and vapor — words calculated to discourage our feeling at home in the body. As One more concerned with our eternal welfare than with our earthly comforts and prosperity, He teaches that a mans life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth (Lk. 12:15); that here we are but pilgrims without an abiding city (1 Pet. 2:11; Heb. 13: 14). Davids perspective is essential: Lord, make me to know mine end, and the measure of my days, what it is; that I may know how frail I am (Ps. 39:4).

However, many, though professing otherwise, seemingly prefer illusions to truth. They remind me of the merchant who erects a large and expensive neon sign to advertise his Going- Out- Of- Business sale — you doubt that he is. Similarly, some who talk of preparing for eternity show big signs of planning to be in business on this old earth for many years. Investments of time, talents and resources reveal where ones treasure is — and his heart (Matt. 6:19-21).

The farmers illusions of permanence were shattered with these words: Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee. ... The time of this day is best redeemed in remembering that this night is never far from any mortal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VIII No.I Pg.2
March 1971

Cultivating Oddities

Robert F. Turner

An old professor, a scientific genius, absent-mindedly worked on an equation at a banquet. He heard none of the speeches honoring him. It was thoughtless and people noticed it. Yet in deference to a great man, they overlooked his inconsiderateness. A young admirer watched the professor and mimicked him. He missed the point of greatness and cultivated being absent-minded and inconsiderate of people.

It is a common blunder. It was not thoughtlessness that made the professor great. Dedicated work made him an exceptional man in spite of being thought- less. Oddities — being so obvious — are often emphasized and cultivated. Genuine virtues are not dramatic and are often overlooked.

Legends of the pioneer preachers reveal the same problem. Their jokes, pranks, and personal peculiarities endure and are constantly retold. It is sad that some of the most dedicated men are remembered only for their jokes and stunts. Young preachers get the idea that such was what made them great preachers. Far from it. Their quirks were tolerated because of the good work they did. We forget the undramatic but sound teaching, the selfless sacrifice, the midnight oil burned in study, and a genuine love for souls. These things make great preachers. Enlarging oddities distorts proper perspective. Remember, you can be an odd ball without being a great man. There are more absent-minded dunces than absent-minded geniuses. There are lots of rude, prank-pulling, and otherwise weird preachers who have nothing else to offer.

Come to think of it, a man does not even have to be odd to be great. All geniuses are not absent-minded. An exceptional preacher does not have to be a nut of some sort. Being a peculiar people does not require Christians to become a clan of kooks. It is rather a people who belong to God and are dedicated to his service. (Note ASV —a people for Gods own possession 1 Pet. 2:9). We will all have oddities enough without cultivating them. Joe Fitch

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

Reports from Robert indicate that the meeting work in Australia is producing fruit. We will have some reports in Plain Talk when Robert gets home. Pray the Father for his safety and success.

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

This issue of Plain Talk begins the eighth year of publication. It is still sent free to all who request it. We try to make it worth reading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.VIII No.I Pg.3
March 1971

Change Of Signs

Jim R. Everett

The pool hall was a hang-out for the local riffraff. The joint wasnt classy enough, so a billiard table was added, carpet was laid over the cracked, wooden floor and the sign out front was changed to read Billiard Parlor. The same people frequented the place. As always, they gambled and boozed a little on the side and the townspeople knew that Billiard Parlor was a highfalutin way of saying pool hall — its practice hadnt changed at all.

Someone persuaded the community, shade-tree mechanic, who knew motors inside and out, that he should present a better image for the sake of community. He went to a mechanics school and paid good money to learn what he already knew. After graduating, the sign on the fence which used to read Joes Garage said Doctor of Mechanics — Joseph C. Jones. A certificate hung on the wall to prove that Joe was a qualified mechanic.

Of course, Joe still tuned an engine by sound and smell while the electronic gadgets stood in the corner gathering dust. And if you stood just right when you looked through the knothole in the new sign, you could still glimpse a worn, chain hoist which hung from the shady, old oak out back of the place.

On some buildings hangs a sign cracked and weather beaten by time — Church of Christ. This sign is supposed to signify that Christs people meet there to worship God and do His work. They are supposed to respect His authority, preach just what The Book says and give book, chapter and verse for everything believed and practiced. However, in addition to sounds of worship and Bible teaching. one hears kindergarten nursery rhymes, the pitter-patter of tennis shoes in the basement gymnasium, the click of billiard balls in the upstairs recreation room and the banging of pots and pans in the newly acquired kitchen and fellowship hall. These are strange and divisive noises coming from meeting places where once echoed a unifying plea — We speak where the Bible speaks and are silent where the Bible is silent.

In attempting to defend feeding, recreation, and entertainment programs being conducted by the church, a preacher told me that the N.T. does not say how the church building is to be used. I agree, hut this is only a quibble — the real issue is determining the scriptural work of a congregation. If a person understands what the work of a congregation is, he has no difficulty understanding how its facilities are to be used.

Neither is the issue what individual Christians may or may not do, hut rather what a congregation may practice by Gods authority. I do not find scriptural authority for church kindergartens. gymnasiums, baseball teams, fellowship halls, etc.

Methinks that not only does the practice not fit the sign (church of Christ) but also that the practice is a sign of change. In this instance there should be a change of signs to fit the practice. 

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...