Jump to content

Plain Talk


RETIREDFAN1

Recommended Posts

Vol.IX No.V Pg.1
July 1972

The Meat Of Argument

Robert F. Turner

Reading bro. Ray Bohannans M. A. thesis on The School of Preaching I was impressed by quotes from rhetoricians on the importance of the character of one who would convince others. Can a preacher or teacher convince others of truth he does not practice?

Aristotle said, The character of the speaker is a cause of persuasion when the speech is so uttered as to make him worthy of belief;... It is not true, as some writers on the art maintain, that the probity of the speaker contributes nothing to his persuasiveness; on the contrary, we might almost affirm that his character is the most potent of all the means of persuasion.

Further (from Rhetoric of Aristotle) There are three things which inspire confidence in the orator s own character—the three namely, that induce us to believe a thing apart from any proof of it: good sense, good moral character, and good will.

Another ancient, Quintilian, held that the perfect orator must be a good man skilled in speaking: and in this generation, the modern speech teacher, Monroe, agrees. Speaking of ethical proof or the character of the speaker, he says, Of all the nodes of persuasion, it is the strongest and most permanent.

Of all people, Christians should understand this best. Paul offered his conduct purpose faith etc. in step with his doctrine. (2 Tim. 3:10-f) He charged Timothy to war a good warfare: holding faith, and a good conscience: (1 Tim. 1:18-19) and exhorted the young preacher Let no man despise thy youth: but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in manner of life in love, in faith, in purity. (4: 12, ASV) Again, Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine: continue in them: for doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee. (4:16)

Without holiness in our lives, we can not teach holiness to others. Our "arguments fall flat unless they are backed by God-respecting practices. Half the job is done when hearers respect and expect truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.IX No.V Pg.2
July 1972

Becoming A Denomination

Robert F. Turner

Reprint of an article by Rubel Shelly (Learning From The Methodists) has been given me, in which the writer says, The church of Christ is not a denomination, but it will soon become one if our liberal brethren are allowed to continue to extend their influence among faithful congregations. By liberal brethren brother Shelly means those denying the verbal inspiration of Scripture, denying the validity of the restoration plea, denying the absolute essentiality of baptism unto salvation, denying the principle of Biblical authority by extending the right hand of fellowship to those who worship with instrumental music, etc.

We dare say bro. Shelly does not believe the true people of God will become a denomination; and that he refers to a current group wearing that name and claiming that place. If our assumptions are correct, we are in complete agreement with his opening statement, above. But we wonder how many really understand this becoming a denomination, may it be avoided by staying on the right side of bro. Shellys list—and how did validity of the restoration plea get into that list?

Saints may leave their first love, faithful congregations may become unfaithful; but these apostates must remain in a single brotherhood to form a denomination. This binding usually takes place through gradual moves toward collective functions— accepting boards sponsoring churches or other media by which many churches may act as one. Through such centralization distinctive doctrine is propagated, and becomes the creed of the faithful, This process has been repeated so many times, and is such a theme in the history of denominationalism, that it should be well understood by brethren. But I fear it is not understood, nor is its less heeded. We are doomed to repeat it.

False doctrine should be fought and false teachers withstood, but the word of God must determine what is false and what is true—not the majority opinion of that great middle section of the brethren. Free, open Bible studies must be kept alive, and the spirit of investigation encouraged. Quarantine and disfellowship can, with strong party backing, become the means of putting together a party a creed and inter-church co-operation (collective action of many churches) demands the very machinery by which churches become a denomination. As bro. Shelly says, Let us resolve not to adopt the formula of ecumenism unto our destruction, but to stand firm for truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.IX No.V Pg.3
July 1972

After - Thought Authority

Dan S. Shipley

An interesting story with a good point appeared in a recent issue of Nuggets. It told of a Marine recruiting sergeant who happened upon an impressive sight while traveling the back-woods country. At this one road­side farm, he saw targets painted just about everywhere — on the barns, on fences, and on all the out buildings. And exactly in the center of each targets bullseye, there was a bullet hole! Knowing the Marine Corps could use a marksman like that, the sergeant stopped at the farmhouse in hopes of recruiting this sharpshooter. His knock on the door was answered by a gangling, barefoot lad of a not-too-bright appearance who proudly admitted that he had made the targets and bullet holes. The sergeant asked him how he managed to get a perfect bullseye with every shot. He drawled, Aw, that s easy Sarge — I jes shoot first an then Ah paint rings around the bullet hole!

It occurred to me that a lot of people make bullseyes in religion like that too. They shoot first by committing themselves to some religious position or affiliation, then later when necessary, seek to justify their actions by painting on the target—rings with some kind of after-thought authority. Multitudes have made such commitments and in doing so have entrusted their souls to positions which they have pleased God, but in which they have no real understanding or conviction This means that what these people are religiously is attributable to some­thing less than their regard for Bible truth — and they, therefore, are something less than what God would have them to be. In spiritual matters as elsewhere, eternally important commitments are apt to be improperly motivated and rashly made.

But, in religion, as nowhere else, once committed, seldom changed. Why? Because Every way of a man is right in his own eyes. (Prov. 21:2). And perhaps because many had rather be considered right than to be right. And because, though essential, pride makes it difficult to render an objective assessment of what one has done or become. So — out comes the target paint of after-thought authority. Just about any shot of commitment can be transformed into a bullseye using such paint as feelings or sincerity. Other popular shades of target paint are: It-doesnt-make-any-difference what-you-believe"; "the-Bible-doesn't say-not-to" and all-roads-lead-to heaven. No wonder so many view themselves as being "on target" in religion.

But all such efforts ignore the fact that only God has the right to make such a target and that His word (Bible truth) constitutes the mark (bullseye) for which all men are to strive. (Sin is missing His mark) Coming to Jesus Christ and salvation is impossible apart from hearing and learning His will (Jn. 6:44,45) and abiding in Christ means abiding in His teaching (2 Jn. 9). Therefore, all right relationships with the Lord in­volve a right relationship with Bible truth and vice versa (Col. 3: 17: 1 Pet 4:11).

Was it Bible truth that influenced what you are?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.IX No.V Pg.4
July 1972

Welcome, Stranger!

Robert F. Turner

It seems simple enough to walk up to someone and say, Hello, my name is John Doe, and I want to welcome you to our meeting. But it must have some dreadful effect on brethren, if the few who try it is any indication.

I know many of the regular excuses given. They rush out and are gone before we can get to them. Right! Now that we know they do this, we can postpone our visits with friends and relatives, and hurry out to foyer and parking lots to intercept them. We are the ones who go the second mile — remember? We do not wear our feelings on our sleeves, but show them what Christianity has done for us.

I dislike hypocritical back-slapping and glad-hand tactics. Yes, so do I. Hypocrisy has no place in the conduct of saints, so leave it out. Our greetings should be warm and sincere. Or, could we mean we are not happy to see the visitor at the meeting? If this is the case there is need for a completely new attitude. I sometimes suspect that our lack of concern for others is dire to our own failure to understand and appreciate the blessings in Christ. Every true Christian must surely be happy and anxious for others to hear the news.

Most of our visitors are members of the church, and as much obligated to come to me as I to them. I even heard of one brother who argued that agape love does not necessitate affection. Here is legality gone to seed. The sacrificial selfless nature of agape is far deeper and more meaningful than mere affection, or love of the lovely. But affection. It is the very thing that would make us out—going and eager to cultivate relations we might otherwise ignore. In Rom. 12: 9-10 we read Let love (agape be unassumed . . .. In brotherly love to one another loving warmly. (Philos and phileo in last uses: Marshall.)

We are people; we work with people in our efforts to save souls. There is no perversion of the purpose and work of the church necessitated by our being friendly and courteous to all people everywhere. Particularly should we cultivate this attitude toward saints and non-saints who visit our places of assembly.

As a traveling evangelist I often see rank disregard for this simple courtesy during a meeting. I have met strangers, taken them to local member and introduced them, and soon after leaving them to find others, note that the member has said a perfunctory Hello and then abandoned the visitor. Many brethren seem to have no feeling of obligation to make the stranger feel at home, obtain his name and address for future use, or even show the courtesy we would display in the business world

Perhaps some qualified member should be appointed to make such contacts, and go to the exits early for that purpose. But if we wish to avoid mechanical greeters — if we would develop a genuinely warm church — all members need to cultivate this grace. Your friendly handshake genuine welcome, and personal concern may be the only things, at this point that can prepare a stranger to hear Christ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.IX No.V Pg.5
July 1972

Has God Failed?

Robert F. Turner

To ask the question is to answer it—if we refer to failure due to lack of power. All-powerful is an essential part of the nature of God in the true sense. In the same vein, deceit is no part of the true concept of God, hence, God cannot lie. Childish efforts to trap God in self-contradicting absurdities only show the weakness of the querist.

But God wills things that do not come to pass. In 1 Tim. 2:4 Paul says that God will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. The grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lust, we should live soberly, — etc. (Titus 2:11—12). God wills something, makes it available to all men; but what He wills calls for an exercise of our will — and we do not always do what God wants us to do. Many are lost.

We are discussing a most profound subject — not just the nature of Cod, but also the nature of Gods creatures, made in His own image. God willed that man should have a will and He respects our power of choice.

The will of Christ is contrasted with that of His Jewish brethren, in Matt. 23:37, — how often would I have gathered thy children . . . and ye would not. I would, ye would not. Jesus failed with these people — to their ultimate sorrow. Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. (Vs. 38)

God is — not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. (2 Pet. 3:9) Here again, the will of God is denied by mans will God wants something men do not give Him. True repentance can not be forced upon anyone; and men will remain stubborn, and perish, even while God wills it otherwise.

Certain Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him. (Lu. 7:30) God wanted them to accept Johns preaching — they would not. Obedience, to be valid, and to glorify God, must be from the heart of man. To force such upon man would deny both the nature of God, and the nature of man as God made him. So, God sometimes fails with man — to mans ultimate sorrow and loss.

=When certain Jews rejected the gospel of Christ Paul said, — seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. (Acts 13:45-48) With this for contrast, we should have no difficulty in seeing that certain Gentiles were ordained to eternal life because they willed to accept that same gospel. (vs. 48)

In all of this the sovereignty of God is established, rather than denied. It was Gods will in the beginning that man should be made in His image — having a will. God fails with men on the same basis that He is incapable of lying. He would have to deny His very nature to do otherwise.

It is foolish indeed to continue to sin that grace may abound. God has provided salvation for all; but we must face our own responsibilities and obey Him. (Rom. 6:1-5; 2 Thess. 2:8)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.IX No.V Pg.7
July 1972

?You Know What?

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

 

To what extent is an evangelist in a foreign field amenable to elders of the church which sent him out?

Reply:

What is meant by "sent him outer"???

ROM.10:15 refers to God sending inspired apostles to the Gentiles. (see ISA.52:6-f. which is Messianic) This passage does not say that a church must "send" (authorize, approve) a man before he can go with the gospel.

In ACT.13:1-4 brethren "separated" from their number certain ones, to be "sent" by the Holy Spirit. In "delivering" or "committing" them (ACT.14:26;15:40) they simply acknowledged a mutual trust in the grace of God and His purposes. The K.J. "recommended" here does not imply authorization or "official" sanction. Had the brethren in Antioch refused to "send" Paul and Barnabas, it would only have reflected discredit upon Antioch, and would not have lessened by one whit the right of these men to go. The "calling" or "authorization" was from God (ACT.13:4; GAL.1:11-15-f) and was recognized as such. (GAL.2:7-9)

I find no Bible authority for the popular concept of the local church (or its elders) as the medium of organization or government for the universal church. I believe many are unwittingly establishing a clime for denominational machinery when they insist that local elders (and what other kind are there?) must sanction and approve all evangelistic work, to give it divine approval.

The local church is a "team" of saints, and scriptural elders are the divinely approved overseers for harnessing and directing this collective activity. (1PE.5:2-3; 1TH.5:12; ITI.3:5) But a saint is to "teach others also" (2TI.2:2) by virtue of his standing before God, not on the basis of some supposed "official" sanction from local church or elders. (Fo1lowing great apostasy, where do suppose a Campbell or Stone would get "authority" to preach the truth)

When a group of brethren making up a local church desire to support an evangelist at home or abroad, their overseers should coordinate and lead in this activity. They should determine the ability and soundness of the man to be supported, determine the amount or extent to which the church could support him, and counsel and confer with the man in order to reach such agreements as are necessary to a "sharing relationship" in the work.

If the evangelist does his work in the environs of the supporting church he should be subject to those overseers in the same sense as any other member. If he worships and works regularly with saints abroad, I believe he is subject to the obligations of that fellowship, as any other member there. The source of a mans support does not alter the divine plan

Two-way communications should be maintained between the man abroad and the supporting church -- to enhance and strengthen the fellowship between them; and support should be stopped if the man ceases to work faithfully. This is the moral obligations of supporter and supported. But the MASTER of both parties is Jests Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.IX No.V Pg.8
July 1972

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

There was this Indian who just would not be reconstructed to the new ways. His friends drove new pickups over the Interstate, but he rode his pony up the dry wash. They lived in new government housing, but he stayed with his Hogan — taking beams and rocks from abandoned Hogans to enlarge the shelter for his stuff.

And how the neighbors laughed at the collection. He cared not at all for the in thing, but traded new Levis, obtained from the post, for old worn-out buck-skins — storing these as carefully as others did new suits, and seemed just as proud of them. He would work for a week to make a new katchina doll, then trade it to some child for her old broken one, made by her grandfather — and stack it with his other treasures. No wonder they called him Crazy.

His cache was an unknown cave, somewhere back in the hills. No one bothered to look for it for everyone knew it held nothing but shells, bits of petrified wood or beads which the Indians once used for coin. While others tended cattle or worked the arid land, Crazy Charlie hunted for arrowheads, soapstone pipes, scrapers, or anything out of the past.

Other Indians laughed and wagged
their heads when Charlie talked about retiring on his treasures. His coin was not current, they said. But Charlie had learned that todays gold is not necessarily the gold of tomorrow. What a shame, what a shame, that Charlies perception was not applied to something other than material wealth. The white man who thoughtlessly robbed his ancestors grave could have taught him that tomorrows gold remains behind, and does not accompany the spirit to eternity.

So, Crazy Charlie opened a chain of stores handling Indian Artifacts. He made a pile of bread selling old jewelry, ancient ollas, corn grinders, etc. Worn-out buck-skins brought a fortune on the New York market; and the katchinas, made by early Medicine men, were priceless. I would like to report that Charlie died a happy man: but this tall tale will sound more real if he spent his last days wishing he could again ride the dry wash and live in his mud-plastered Hogan.

For lifes greatest treasures are in the getting, not in the having. And if we have not provided for eternity, even great getting is an empty, meaningless trip. (Matt. 6: 19-34)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.IX No.VI Pg.1
August 1972

All On The Same Team

Robert F. Turner

Much of our failure to reach others with the gospel is due to the great gulf between us. The unconverted senses an aloofness on our part, and we on his. His problems (we are convinced) are foreign to us; and our solution (he is convinced) is for the birds. We widen this gap by housing our solution in a plant in which, should we drag him there with a bulldozer, he would feel totally out of place. Sometimes we seem to think our citizenship is strengthened because he is alien.

And yet, success in reaching our fellow man (a goal we avow) depends largely upon establishing rapport--a sympathetic relationship that encourages communication. We must convince him that we sincerely desire for him the blessings we both sorely need. In a very real sense, we are on the same team--sinful creatures in a great survival drama.

I know there is no fellowship between darkness and light--we can enter no sharing relationship with the worlds sin. But the desire for a one family relationship should strongly motivate our reaching out for every living soul. Can we be less interested in sinking neighbors because we have managed to find some solid footing? If, in our smugness, we refuse to extend a helping hand, we need to restudy Luke 15.

And if there is a sense in which we are on the same team with aliens, how much more is this true with respect to erring brethren. What attitude would we that they should show toward us, should we be found in like position? (Matt. 7:12; 2 Thess. 3:14-18)

I know of no single attitude that could save more souls, or do more for the cause of Christ today, than the proper development of love for all sinners. It would not keep us from preaching truth or fighting error. It would not cause us to share evil, but it would increase compassion and concern for the sin-enslaved. Our efforts would proceed from an open heart, rather than from a clenched fist. For we have known sin, and but for Gods grace would yet perish. And we would long to make our brother in Adam, our faithful brother in Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.IX No.VI Pg.3
August 1972

Third Class

Dan S. Shipley

Recently, I received a third-class letter marked URGENT. Somehow, I doubted that it was. My doubts were confirmed when I opened the envelope to find an amatuerish effort at personalizing a mimeographed letter. Needless to say, this letter was immediately deposited in file 13 — but I couldnt help thinking about how that envelope had revealed so much about its contents. To me, it said, Whats third-class on the outside is not likely to be first-class on the inside, and Whats urgent on the inside wont be found going around in third-class trappings. It occurred to me that what was true of mail can also be true of Christians -- especially since there is a sense in which Christians are letters, known and read of all men, (2 Cor. 3:2).

For this reason (and others), the Christian should be possessed with an abiding sense of urgency that is in keeping with the nature of his calling. He, of all people, ought to be ever conscious of the brevity and the uncertainty of life, the preciousness of souls, the certainty and consequences of judgment and the power of the gospel to save the lost. In becoming a Christian, one identifies himself with vital and urgent issues. To those among whom he is known and read he is saying, in effect, I intend to actively follow Christ; I am seeking first the kingdom of God and His righteousness. His life-letter reads URGENT and he lives what he claims by constantly redeeming the time in faithful and dedicated service to his Lord, (Eph. 5:16). No, urgent mail doesnt go third class —-neither do urgent Christians!

However, the life of the unfaithful is known and read as being something less than urgent. An outspoken atheist is credited with making this statement in regard to the urgent cause of complacent Christians: Did I firmly believe, as millions say they do, that the knowledge and practice of religion in this life influence destiny in another, religion would mean everything to me. I would cast away earthly enjoyments as dross, earthly cares as follies, and earthly thoughts and feelings as vanity. Religion would be my first waking thought and my last image before sleep sank me into unconsciousness. I should labour in its cause alone. I would esteem one soul gained for heaven worth a life of suffering... I would strive to look upon eternity alone, and on souls around me, soon to be everlastingly happy or everlastingly miserable....

This atheist could see what many refuse to see; viz., that many professed Christians are giving third-class handling to what they claim is the most urgent cause in the world. They say that mans soul is his most valuable possession, but live as if pleasures, money or employment were more important. They say the whole world needs the gospel, but will not take it to their next-door neighbor. They say men ought to practice such things as love, patience and forgiveness, but they say and do not—they say URGENT but act third class and sluggish, (Heb. 6:12).

As a letter known and read of men, make sure URGENT, STEDFAST and EARNEST are in context!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.IX No.VI Pg.4
August 1972

What Is "Baptism"

Robert F. Turner

Some years back a cartoon made the round of bulletins -- a drawing of a Bible, immersing a dictionary, with the caption: "Now, that's Baptism". Of course the dictionary gives the meaning of words according to current usage, and must be changed from time to time; but even the dictionary will show the original idea of "dip" or "immerse". The Bible gives ample evidence of God's teaching concerning the subject, element, action, and the purpose of baptism.

Sinners are to be baptized "for the remission of sins" (ACT.2:38), to "wash away thy sins" (22:16); to make the transition from the old, sinful life, into the new life in Christ. (GAL.3:26,27; ROM.6:1-7,17f) This does not concern infants, but responsible adults who are taught, hear, learn, and come unto Christ. (JOH.6:44,45) The "cleansing" is not a physical washing only, to which an unaccountable infant would be limited; but necessitates believing (MAT.28:19; MAR.16:16), the "word" (EPH.5:26), and is a response of the conscience toward God. (1PE.3:21)

The element of baptism is water -- just plain water. (MAT.3:11-17; JOH.3:22,23) Although Jesus baptized certain ones (overwhelmed, immersed) in the Holy Spirit, the baptism of the great commission was an act which men could perform -- a command, and not a promise. Jesus said, "Go," "teach," "baptize." (MAT.28:19) Men could go, teach, and baptize with water; but men can not baptize with the Holy Spirit. Peter "commanded them to be baptized" (ACT.10:48); a foolish and impossible order to obey, if reference was to Holy Spirit baptism which God alone can give. As Philip rode in the chariot with the Ethiopian eunuch "they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what cloth hinder me to be baptized?" Upon confession of his faith in Christ, "they went down both into the water," and he was baptized. (ACT.8:36-38) This is the "one" universal baptism of the Christian dispensation. (EPH.4:5)

The Greek "bapto" or "baptidzo" means "dip, plunge, immerse," as any good lexicon will show. But one does not have to know Greek to understand the action of baptism. Paul says "we are buried with him by baptism into death;" later calling this "planted." (ROM.6:4-5) "Sprinkle" and "pour" are from distinct and separate words altogether, and have nothing but human traditions and apostate church doctrine to back their claims as baptism. The only way either could qualify is for water to be "poured" until the subject was completely immersed -- and then there would have to be a "resurrection." The spirit that causes people to quibble about such plain teachings of the Scriptures, and seek to "get around" them, is certainly not of God. It is of the devil.

One can read this article, and run all Bible references, at a single reasonable study period. In the quiet of one's home, with nothing more than a Bible and the willingness to give the matter serious thought, mature men and women can understand the truth, and desire to obey. If we can assist, please call or write.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.IX No.VI Pg.5
August 1972

Was Jesus A Martyr?

Robert F. Turner

When someone writes an emotional song about "The Man" who was slain, do not jump to the conclusion that the world is turning to Christ. Many couple the name of Jesus with men of history who died because they had strong, unyielding convictions, who are yet far from understanding or accepting the real meaning of the death on the cross. Jesus was not a martyr!

A "martyr" is "one who willingly suffers death rather than renounce his religion". Use of the word has been expanded to cover those who are "put to death or endure great suffering on behalf of any belief, principle, or cause"; and victims of assassination are sometimes called "martyrs" because their public efforts for some cause have made them qualified targets for anarchists.

But martyrs choose to live, in order to continue their work. They accept the end of their work in death only when the alternative is a personal abandonment of principle. To accept this concept of the death of Jesus is to ignore the whole redemptive system of God's revelation, including the divinity of Jesus Christ. This is not Christianity, it is humanism.

The Son of God became Son of Man "in order to die". (HEB.2:9-18; 10:1-f) He said, long before His death, "I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself". (see JOH.10:15-18) Yet Jesus was no "psycho". He faced death with the dread of a perfectly normal man, praying, "Oh my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me." (MAT.26:39)

Nor was the death of Jesus Christ a resignation to fatalism. When the mob came to take Him Jesus said, "Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels". The choice of death, a sacrifice for the sins of the world, was His to make -- even then. But Jesus exercised His will (as Son of Man) to do the will of the Father. (MAT.26: 53-54) He "learned obedience" by the things which He suffered. (HEB.5:8-9) Apparently Jesus deliberately set a stage to teach his disciples the superiority of spiritual to carnal struggle and victory. (LUK.22:36-38; cf., MAT.26:51-52)

The Old Testament prophecies are a monumental testimony to the divine remedial system. Those which point specifically to Christ are backed by hundreds of other references to substitutional offerings for sin. The soul that sins, should die. But an altar was built, by God's directions, and a lamb (or other animals) died instead. All of this pointed, via type, to "the Lamb of God" that taketh away the sins of the world. (JOH.1:29) There is little resemblance between the scriptural picture of the offering of Christ, and the "rocking" martyr picture of today's drama and song.

The younger generation's search for "meaning" in life, their dedication to idealism, is admirable. They have shaken "traditional religion" - and true Christians say, "Amen"! But Christianity is nothing short of the divine Savior, who both died AND NOW LIVES, for you and me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.IX No.VI Pg.6
August 1972

The Two Accounts

Robert F. Turner

Here is a quote from James Orr, The Virgin Birth of Christ, pp. 83f, London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1914. The thought is good, and may prompt more careful study of the Bible text.

If the stories are true at all, there are, in the nature of the case, only two persons from whom they can ultimately have come in their detail, viz.: Joseph and Mary themselves. This...., is precisely the conclusion to which we are pointed by the internal structure of the narratives.

When we look carefully into the two narratives, we find that they have just this character-- that this, indeed, is the most remarkable thing about them-- that the narrative of Matthew is given throughout from the standpoint of Joseph, and the narrative of Luke is from the standpoint of Mary.

In Matthew... the whole story is concerned with Joseph. It tells of his shock at the discovery that Mary was about to become a mother; of his perplexity and proposed action, of which no one could have known but himself; of the divine disclosure to him in a dream; of his taking Mary to wife, his naming Jesus, and his subsequent conduct as the guardian of mother and child. Mary... has no independent place in the narrative She appears only in her relation to Joseph, and as the mother of the babe whose protector Joseph became.. Even the birth of Jesus is not narrated in an independent sentence, but in subordination to the statement of Josephs relation to his wife. (Matt. 1: 24-25) In the incidents that follow Joseph takes the lead. This is the more striking that; quite evidently, it is the miraculous conception and Virgin Birth of Christ which is the pivot on which the whole narrative turns.

In Lukes narrative.., these relations are precisely reversed. Joseph does not appear in Lukes story except incidentally, as the person to whom Mary is betrothed. The story, led up to by the account of Zacharias and Elisabeth, is all about Mary. We are told of the Annunciation to Mary by the angel, and of her reply; of her visit to her kinswoman Elisabeth, and of what passed between the friends; of Marys Magnificat: of the shepherds; of how Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart. (Lu. 2:l9)

It is she that Simeon specially addresses in the Temple; she who when Jesus is found in the Temple with the doctors, speaks the gentle word which drew from Him the answer Wist ye not that I must be in my Fathers house? (Lu. 2:49) And again it is recorded that she kept all these sayings in her heart. (2:51) In these chapters, in short, we seem (to be) looking through a glass into Marys very heart. Her purity of soul, her delicate reserve, her inspired exultation, her patient committing of herself into Gods hands to vindicate her honour, her deep, brooding, thoughtful spirit-- how truth-like and worthy of the fact is the whole picture; how free from everything sensational; how far removed from the legendary Mary of the Apocrypha.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.IX No.VI Pg.7
August 1972

?You Know What?

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

 

Why is kneeling mentioned often in connection with prayer, but standing is never so mentioned? Does not this make the position significant?

Reply:

Mark.11:25 reads, "And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have aught against any;..." The Greek used here for "stand" is also found in MAR.3:31 and JOH.1:26. (See Vine) But I do not cite these passages to defend some particular position in prayer.

The position of one's body while engaged in prayer is, in my opinion, of no more significance than the location of the place of worship. I do not believe that an "upper room" is essential to acceptable worship, even though early Christians met in such a place. When Jesus told the Samaritan woman that "neither in this mountain, nor yet in Jerusalem", should we worship God -- He was not moving the place, but was abolishing such a concept of worship. He said, the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth": thus establishing the fact that the condition of the heart is that which makes worship acceptable. (JOH.4:19-24)

This principle seems to be borne out by the Lord's teaching concerning the Publican who "stood" praying. (LUK.18:11) Jesus commended his humility (vs.14) which is a characteristic of the heart, and apparently was not adversely affected by the position of his body. I might add, the Lord's lesson should not be ignored because He chose to use as an example one who was not "Christian".

Bro. Turner:

Why should my worship be postponed because brother is peeved? Explain MAT.5:23,24 and compare with 18:15.

Reply:

I fear the querist is reading into the text something that is not there. Worship is postponed (MAT.5:23) not because someone is "peeved", but because the would-be worshiper is smitten by the memory (conscience?) of his mistreatment of another. Jesus is saying that while his heart is thus marred by sin he can not rightly approach the throne of God. "Worship" coming from an impenitent heart would be nothing more than an empty form. The brother who "hash aught against thee" has apparently been sinned against, but his "feelings" about the matter are not a part of this lesson.

MAR.11:25,26 also deals with the heart of the worshiper, but differs from MAT.5:23 in that the worshiper has been sinned against, and must forgive before he can be forgiven. Both passages seek to correct error on the part of the one addressed.

But MAT.18:15-f. tells "ye which are spiritual" (GAL.6:1) what to do about a sinning brother. The context seems to indicate that the party addressed has been "sinned against" (cf. ASV footnote) but "hurt feelings" are not a part of either passage. These scriptures call for an objective consideration of our own attitudes, and for genuine concern for the soul of a sinning brother. Pride, peevishness and legal arguments over who should first approach whom, will have no place in the life of the spiritually mature Christian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.IX No.VI Pg.8
August 1972

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

A fellow-Kentuckian told me this story, with its reminder of earlier days and frugal ways. Each fall his father bought a barrel of apples, and placed them in the cellar. There were always a few overripe apples on top, and they ate those first so they would not be wasted. But by the time they went to the barrel again, others were overripe, and had to be eaten. All winter long they ate the fruit with the rotten spots-- and never did get to eat a good solid apple.

The present generation will likely have little patience with this no waste, make-do spirit of the past; but I must not hurry my application. In a day when many had no apples at all, I suppose the overripe apples seemed a greater blessing than they would today. Too, we must not confuse the rotten apple, that could not be redeemed, with something that could be improved and fully used.

But I find a bit of Kentucky philosophy here for all generations. In our reluctance to acknowledge a lost cause -- to pay the piper for yesterdays fling, and move on to better things-- we may spend our lives one step behind. Todays opportunities, and fruits, must be used -- today! Christianity promotes a pecuIiar affinity for today, despite its obvious aim at eternity. Paul discouraged living in the past, saying, Forgetting those things which behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before... (Phil. 3. 13-14) and Jesus said, Take the fore no thought (be not anxious RV) for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. (Matt. 6:34) In each case, our spiritual and eternal well-being (which is the foremost consideration) is best served by a proper use of today. A Christian can forget yesterday for it is forgiven; and is not worried about tomorrow, because he has a solid trust in God.

And I have half-a-notion to say (I do hope I am right in this) that he should go ahead and eat some those good apples, today; and invite the neighbors in for good apples. At the risk of encouraging some to be spendthrifts and wastrels, with the apples; I am trying to encourage all to spend themselves, richly and fully -- today!

Good intentions and rotten apples make poor paving for heavens road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.IX No.VII Pg.1
October 1972

Praising The Ceiling

Robert F. Turner

I wouldnt trade Grampa, I love you! for an hour of oratory. A warm look of trust, or a childs touch, is praise far exceeding mere words. And I am persuaded the heavenly Father would have us talk to and with Him, rather than about Him. Perhaps that is why I am intrigued by a shift of pronouns in the beloved 23rd Psalm.

David begins, The Lord is my shepherd... He maketh me to lie down...speaking of the Lord in the third person. The psalmist is talking about the Lord. He leadeth me...restoreth my soul... etc. This continues through verse three.

Then in verse four there is a change to second person—David begins to talk to or with the Lord. Now it is, thou art with me, thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me. The first portion is a tender testimonial of Davids love for the Lord, and declares the personal relationship of shepherd and sheep. But it is a declaration—it tells others something about the Lord. The second portion loses sight of all others, and speaks directly to the shepherd.

I am reminded of a story, heard long ago, about a social gathering where guests were asked to contribute something to the occasion. Many recited poetry, and one eloquent speaker made a theatrical production of the 23rd Psalm. The next in line was an unlettered man, now greatly embarrassed because the 23rd Psalm was the only poetry he knew; and he was forced to repeat what had just been recited by the talented gentleman.

There was a stir among the guests as he began his halting, unpolished presentation. But my shepherd was more than words to this man; and as he followed David into his close personal relationship with the Lord, he forgot the audience. He ceased to talk about the shepherd, and began to speak to Him. The room grew quiet.

And when he had finished, the eloquent man arose to apologize for his production. I know the 23rd. Psalm well, he said. But this man knows the shepherd.

Of what value is a well-worded prayer—that stops at the ceiling?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.IX No.VII Pg.2
September 72

The Call Of Woe

Robert F. Turner

In a tribute to Thomas Campbell, written in 1853, Edward Orvis commended his example to the philosophic mystics of the day—the superspiritualized, infatuated with self, whose highest evidence of their interest in Christ consisted in their contempt of those who differ with them, and their own self-complacency...That caught my eye—and I hoped the writer was not venting his spleen upon one of his own critics.

In any event, it does seem that some measure their soundness on the basis of their opposition to others. Their evidence is wholly negative. We must be right, for look at all the things we are against! Well, there is plenty of error to be fought but our attitude should never be that of contempt. And how are my own deeds justified by anothers failures. Only the self-deceived see themselves elevated because others are debased.

My attention was called anew to the record of our Lords most severe denunciations. In Matt. 23: seven woes are directed against the Scribes and Pharisees of Jerusalem. They are direct, negative, cutting. But I notice that His concluding statements reveal deep concern. Oh Jerusalem... how often would I have gathered thy children tgether... etc. So, I made a further study of the woes! Barclay says, The Greek word for woe is ouai: it is hard to translate for it includes not only wrath, but also sorrow. There is righteous anger here, but it is the anger of the heart of love, broken by the stubborn blindness of men. Goodspeed translates it, Alas! It is called by Thayer an interjection of grief or denunciation. My Greek teacher said it was onomatopoeic—a word formed in imitation of a sound. Ouai, pronounced as a groan, and often repeated two or three times, suggests despair, grief, or other strong emotions. It sounds of calamity, divine penalty and woe, and indicated Jesus deep feeling for those who rejected Him.

Our interest in Christ is best measured by the extent to which we follow His example (1 Pet. 2:21), and contempt for those who differ is NOT characteristic of our Lord. True greatness is found in sacrificial service to others. (Matt. 20:26-28)

Sin must be fought, and error denounced. Its devastating effect will not be avoided by compromise, under the guise of love. We may, in fear hate even the garment spotted by the flesh (Jude 23), but mercy and compassion for mens souls must prevail. Our woe must be an echo from Jesus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.IX No.VII Pg.3
September 1972

Faith Made Perfect

Dan S. Shipley

Not all faith is saving faith, as the Bible clearly illustrates. John writes of certain Pharisees who believed on Jesus but would not confess it, lest they should be put out of the synagogue (Jn. 12:42). Through James, God informs us of a faith that is without works (2:14-26) and calls it a dead faith. Dead, not in the sense of being non-existent, but in the sense of being non-productive. In v.19 this kind of faith is likened to the faith of demons: Thou believest that God is one; thou doest well, the demons also believe, and shudder. The demons do believe— even to the point of trembling— but not to the point of obedience. So, no matter who owns it or why, God teaches that this faith without works is a demon-like faith.

In addition to being dead, this demon faith is without profit because it is nothing more than words without deeds. Its worthlessness is illustrated in v. .15, 16 where it offers mere words to those who desperately need food and clothing. Words of comfort and encouragement are appropriate at times, but not when offered as a substitute for deeds. Like, for instance, when the ladies visitation committee came calling on a sick sister. Marching right through her unkempt house, past the dirty dishes and unmade beds, past the piles of dirty clothes they came to her bedside where all chatted for a few minutes (mostly with each other), then excused themselves with these comforting words: We do hope you get better— be sure and call if theres anything we can do for you!. With that they marched out to minister elsewhere. What doth it profit??

What is the profit in a faith that is not functional and that cannot be demonstrated? . .show me thy faith apart from works, and I by my works will show thee faith. (v.18). Works show faith; what one does (or fails to do) is a reflection on what he believes. This is clearly demonstrated in the case of the Thessalonians who became ensamples to all believers in sounding forth the word of the Lord. Of them Paul says, in every place your faith to God-ward is gone forth... (1 Thess. 1:8). They showed their faith! So did Abraham: Thou seest that faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect. (Jas. 2:22). The faith that was reckoned for righteousness in Abraham (Rom. 4) was made perfect (i.e. complete) by works. If Abrahams faith was incomplete without works, how much more the faith of others? No, Paul and James do not contradict. When James teaches justification by works he speaks of works that proceed from faith. When Paul teaches justification by faith he speaks of faith that is accompanied by good works. This is the faith that worketh by love, Gal. 5:6.

In view of this, it should be remembered that the demon-like faith of Jas. 2 can never be saving faith. The faith that blesses, saves and justifies is always Abrahamic faith; the kind that is made complete by works. Such is the faith to be rewarded with eternal life in Jn. 3:16 and through which salvation comes by the grace of God in Eph. 2:8. Saving faith and good works are interdependent and inseparably bound by Divine truth. God bids, show me thy faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.IX No.VII Pg.4
September 1972

Mutual Submission

Robert F. Turner

Ephesians 5:21 (ARV) reads, Subjecting yourselves one to another in the fear of Christ. Subject (submit K.J.) is from hupotasso, meaning to arrange under. It is used in the N.T. of Jesus to his parents, demons to the disciples, every soul to higher powers, woman to man, all things (now) to Christ, (finally) all to God, church to Christ, wives to their husbands, servants to masters, younger to older, etc. A casual study of such uses should convince us that God recognizes the need for certain order including some being head over others. Subject to one - another therefore, does not remove the rule of bishops in a local church, properly functioning. But by the same token, this passage must be accepted and applied.

Every one can not be actually arranged under each—other, but that is the very strength of the admonition. It is like Phil. 2:3-4, —let each esteem other better than themselves. This is done in lowliness of mind, and establishes the attitude necessary for the proper functioning of saints in all walks of life.

Among Christians, ONE is our Master, even Christ (Matt. 23:10), and even Christ rules (constrains) by virtue of our love for Him, (2 Cor. 5:14) The idea of whip-cracking, arbitrary rule in His kingdom is contrary to the nature of the system. (See Matt, 20:25-28 2 Cor. 10:1-f.) In final judgement we will see His sovereignty vindicated, but there is neither precept nor example of our Lord to justify the high-handed ruling attitude sometimes seen in husbands, parents, bosses, elders, and teachers among todays saints. There is surely a great need for better understanding and practice of the admonition of Eph. 5:21— Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. (K.J.)

A great percentage of local church troubles can be traced to a lack of mutual submission. Some must maintain their official position, regardless of the cost to the Lords cause; or others refuse to be led or overseen, regardless of the qualifications and tact of the elders, It is obvious that many do not know the meaning of love that seeketh not her own.

Congregational activity (collective action, or team work) can not exist without either forced rule or mutual submission. Most brethren will rightly deny the first, but seem not to understand that some individual identity loss is inherent in the very idea of team work. Someone must decide and call the play. Members of a successful team then drop individual preferences, and function for the good of the whole.

In our service of Christ, we must fill our several roles as unto the Lord. It is with respect to Christ, conscious that He is Master of us all, that we learn a new respect and honor for one-another. The church is subject to Christ-- and the wife to the husband— and the servant to the master— and the child to the parents—as unto the Lord. But, in turn, the husband in like manner dwells with the wife— the master is just and equal— etc., (Col. 3:13-f. 1 Pet. 217-3:8) because Christ would have it so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.IX No.VII Pg.5
September 1972

The Amazing Jesus

Robert F. Turner

It is not too surprising that people of the first century should be amazed at the miracles of Jesus, or astonished at the wonders and signs which God did by Him. (Acts 2:22) The manifestation of Deity in nature is marvelous; and when God shows Himself supernaturally, men are put out of themselves or greatly struck. (Mk. 7:37) It was not for lack of proof that many rejected Him. Astonishment at His works and wisdom was overcome by pride, envy, and prejudice. They were offended and disbelieved because He was a carpenter, one of us, and few of the big shots had believed on Him. (Mk. 6:2-6; Jn. 7:47-f.)

But Jesus astonished both friend and foe with something other than His miracles. There was the content of His teaching, i.e., God is God of the living (Matt. 22:23-33); His zeal in defense of Gods house of prayer (Mk. 11:15-18); and His ability to capture the hearts of those who came to take Him captive. (Jn. 7:32-46)

Even the twelve disciples who were with Him daily, schooled in His idealism, were unprepared for the extent of His teaching. When Jesus set forth the divine concept of marriage-- that which was from the beginning—His disciples say unto Him, if the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. (Matt. 19:3-12) His teaching so shook them that compliance seemed possible only to those who bound themselves in celibacy. But Jesus did not give ground. Devotion to divine principles can do more than the knife or the monastic cell. The true Christian will keep himself for the kingdom of heavens sake. Such teaching continues to amaze the worldly-minded today.

And when Jesus said, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God, His disciples were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? (Matt. 19:16-26) The answer to this question is not to be found in some low gate dodge around the Masters teaching. Jesus said, With God all things are possible. (vs. 26) At this point the disciples seemed not to understand the exceeding value of treasures in heaven, but the time would come when they would amaze the world at their willingness to give all rather than reject the Saviour.

The Sermon on the Mount abounds in enough idealistic teaching to astound anyone, but an additional factor was even more amazing. Matt. 7:28-29 says, —the people were astonished at His doctrine: for He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes. Authority was inherent in the Christ. Although He quoted Scriptures to show the fulfillment of prophecies and to interrelate all of divine truth, He spake as the source of truth. He did not, as the scribes, have to appeal to other sources to prove His statements. Divinity is its own proof. This primacy and ultimacy was so apparent in Jesus Christ that the honest heart could not doubt it. He could ask, Which of you convicteth me of Sin? (Jn. 8:46) and have no fear of a truthful answer.

And, wonder of wonders, this amazing Christ died for you and me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.IX No.VII Pg.6
September 1972

Words Fitly Spoken

Robert F. Turner

How does one explain church to people who have no concept, or a completely erroneous concept of the body of Gods people? Well, this problem is multiplied many times for those who translate the Bible into the languages and dialects of the world.

I felt you might be interested in some examples, from Gods Word in Mans Language, By Eugene A. Nida; Harper & Bros., N. Y., 1952. And-- in the struggle to accurately express faith for some remote tribes of the world, our enlightened civilization might learn a few things.

The Shipibo Indians in Peru say that to believe on God is to be strong on God. This phrase does not mean precisely what it might appear to mean from the literal rendering in English. It actually means that there is no strength at all without Him. That is to say, we are strong only in reliance upon God. One cannot be spiritually strong except by dependence upon God. For the Shipibos, spiritual strength is a completely derived strength. There is no place for spiritual pride about ones personal power. This is ruled out by the language itself, for strength is on God.

The Piro Indians, who live to the south of their Shipibo neighbors, say that to believe is literally to obey - believe. For them the verb believe is too weak to express belief in God, since such a faith could be about the mere truth of occurrence-- just admitting that something did or did not happen. This type of intellectual belief has always been found insufficient to describe the faith in Jesus Christ, which includes not only the intellectual assent to certain facts about the Lord but the opening of the heart to communion and fellowship with one whose Lordship demands complete obedience. Accordingly, the Piros, by means of a compound word, have tried to express this union of faith and works-- believing and obeying, without which there is no reality to Christian experience and no message in the Good News.

The Timorese people of Indonesia have emphasized another aspect of faith. They describe it in the words to conform with the heart. The essential meaning of this phrase would push the reality of faith just a step further than some expressions, It not only implies acceptance of truth, but conformance to truth by the one whose heart responds to its claims. This is in very essence the Christian concept of faith, for without conformance there is no faith. Furthermore, this conformance must not be purely a matter of external practices, but of the heart. The heart determines action and not action the heart.

The Huichol Indians on the western slopes of central Mexico describe faith in somewhat similar terms, but their expression emphasizes the objective more than the subjective aspects of conformity. They say that to believe is to conform to the truth. This is not very different from the Timorese idiom. In fact, the truth of faith might be defined as a blend of both these ideas; conforming to the truth with the heart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.IX No.VII Pg.7
September 1972

You Know What?

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

Is a Christian to give all or load all he has to anyone who asks? Is Matt. 5:42 to be taken literally, or does it teach an attitude of mind?

Reply:

Let us put the passage in its context: Ye have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you, Resist not him that is evil: but

whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man would go to law with thee, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. (Matt. 5:38-42, A.R.V.)

Jesus is teaching against taking vengeance or retaliation. Put positively, Jesus urges mercy, with good grace and cheerfulness in the place of resentment. A Christian returns good for evil, unselfishly.

Extreme literalism would serve neither the contextual purpose of the teaching, nor the actual examples in Scripture. (Pulpit Commentary says, We may notice that while our Lord most perfectly observed the spirit of this command, he did not slavishly follow the letter of it (cf. Jn. 18:22-23). Nor did St. Paul (cf. Acts 16:35-ff: 22:25; 23:3; 25:9-10))

The limited mercy of the tit for tat principle —(and eye for eye was a limitation upon the vengeance which a judge could assess)— was now to give way to the more noble principles of Christ, whereby man learned to practice the agape love which God manifests toward His creatures.

Business loans are not under consideration here. Christ sanctioned the making of money with money— via interest (Matt. 25:27), and in such loans sound business principles would have to prevail. Nor do I believe Jesus was urging indiscriminate giving. Note; 2 Thess. 3:8-10; Titus 3:14. Some are unworthy of our assistance, and we are told not to encourage them in their lazy unproductive ways.

The Old Testament laws regarding usury or interest do not, in my opinion, forbid business deals for such. Special consideration was given the brother over strangers (Deut. 23:19-20), but usury laws were aimed particularly against profiteering on the ill-fortune of others, or so as to make capital of others desire to serve God. (See Lev. 25:35-f. Neh. 5.) Now Jesus goes to the heart of these earlier laws: showing that measured retaliation, and giving (without usury) to brethren is not enough. We are to cultivate a generous, unselfish, 2nd. mile attitude far exceeding anything found in the Old Law.

Give to him that asketh of thee is in the same vein, and teaches the same general truth as Resist not him that is evil... turn to him the other also... let him have thy cloak... go with him two. It establishes an ideal toward which we can spend a lifetime of seeking, pressing, and striving. As certain also of our own poets have said, The gift, without the giver, is bare,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.IX No.VII Pg.8
September 1972

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

One thing is a mail box some where along a country road in northwest Arkansas. There is this tall pole, with one properly placed box, about 42 inches above the road. But fifteen feet above the first box, on a red and white striped extension of the pole, there is a second mail box—clearly labeled Air Mail! It is hard to beat that Arkansas spirit.

And then there is genuine Kentucky country ham. It is something like a spirit, with a soul of red-eye gravy and a tabernacle of soda biscuits: choked from the mother dough, patted into shape, and baked in a wood-burning stove to mouth-watering perfection. For forty years I have eaten cereal every morning, thinking that was breakfast—then this came along. Kentucky ham pushes diets aside, cuts straight through to yesteryear and my early upbringing. It is basic, it is fundamental! Why fight it??

Another thing is a country meeting with singing like you seldom hear any more. Dragging, off-key, and wound pronounced like hound—which, incidentally, makes it rhyme with the companion word, in the song. I stop trying to override the monotone behind me and just sit listening, and realizing that these folk are singing to the Lord. The melody in their hearts is somehow transferred to mine.

And a baptizing! A family man, long deaf to well-meant pleas, now yields to Christ. Calloused hands cover an emotion-twisted face. His voice is low but firm as he confesses his Lord. Friends can scarcely wait to shake his hand. His wife stands to the side, head down, tears streaming. A neighbor says, You all ride with us; and a caravan of cars move up the road to another community, fifteen miles away, where there is a small church building with a baptistry. Oh Happy Day---!!

Out back of the barn a lady calls George! Now where is George? If you see a black pig, George is close by. That pig always stays somewhere near George. And sure enough, we find the, pig and George—a 950 pound Hereford bull—that ambles up to allow the owner to scratch his massive head.

I like to think the Lord saves few spots like this, here and there in Arkansas, Kentucky, Indiana and Pennsylvania (and wherever you live as a kind of left-over from Eden— samples of the better things in life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.IX No.VIII Pg.1
October 1972

Prayer And Fasting

Robert F. Turner

When Paul and Barnabas appointed elders in every church, they "prayed with fasting." (ACT.14:23) In 2CO.6:4-f, Paul wrote of those who were approved as ministers of God in "patience...labors...fastings..." etc. The King James version has "fasting" in 1CO.7:5, saying husband and wife should not stay apart "except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinence."

"Fasting" literally means abstinence from food, not eating; but it also has a religious significance, as seen above. There is no evidence that the ceremonial fasting of Judaism is bound upon the church, but we can see that fasting was practiced by early NT Christians. It seems the reference is to time set apart for spiritual matters, probably including the abstinence from food in this context, so that undivided attention might be focused upon eternal rather than upon temporal things.

The repeated association of fasting with prayer, both in the Old and New Testament, is not without significance. When one takes "time out" to think of God and eternity, what could be more natural than this quiet intimate communication. And conversely, as sincere personal prayer is neglected, fasting would be abandoned.

Some religions have made a mockery of fasting by their "Mardi Gras" (fat Tuesday) -- a day of uninhibited debauchery in preparation (?) for the fast of "Lent". And we suppose there will always be those who "fast to be seen of men." We can only pity such, and pray that our avoidance of such extremes will not be considered valid excuse for doing nothing whatsoever.

Do we fear to be alone with God? Or is it our conscience we dare not face, in quiet meditation? Is this world so important to us that we can not shut it out, even for an hour of Bible reading and introspection?

Public worship, valid and proper, can not take the place of private communion with God. "Enter thy closet" (MAT.6:6) "and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.IX No.VIII Pg.2
October 1972

A Historic Sense

Robert F. Turner

Following a lesson on the SEARCH for truth; a listener told me — in all seriousness — that she had thought Alexander Campbell was the one who unchained the Bible from a pulpit somewhere, and gave it to the people. This was not lack of intelligence.It was lack of information, and an historic sense. Perhaps she had accepted someones idealized and generalized statement as though it was a single specific historic act, but an alert historic sense would prevent this. Many are blind to todays church problems because their vision is limited to here and now. They can not see this generation as a nitch in the annals of time, greatly influenced by the preceding chapters, and doing much to shape the future.

I remember my own struggles with history in high school and early college years. Perhaps the very young are incapable of a very acute historic sense. But it is tragic when people grow up physically, yet maintain their childish self-centered concept of time and events. I am so thankful for the teacher who made history live in my mind—who made the characters and events real live people, doing and feeling even as people do and feel today. History then became more than cold statistics and dates, to be remembered until dutifully recorded in my exam paper, and no longer. They became the molders of today; highly relevant if we would live meaningful and constructive lives.

Written history high-lights events of the past, and we may forget that human nature, needs, and response to situations are much the same in all ages. If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets, or so we may say. But like the Pharisees of Jerusalem, we may be making the same mistakes in principle as did men of old, and thus be children of them which killed the prophets. (Matt. 23:29-32) Someone has said that about the only lesson we really learn from history is that few people really learn from history.

Paul said, I would not that ye should be ignorant of the past. The past was written for our admonition (1 Cor. 10:1-12). Stephens historic sermon (Acts 7), and Pauls sermon at Antioch (Acts 13:16-f), contain much material solely to establish an historic sense — to put the gospel in focus with the over -all picture.

Our day has a yesterday, and we must live with a view to a tomorrow. We must improve our historic sense, both sacred and secular, and quit the delusion that now is forever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.IX No.VIII Pg.3
October 1972

Popular Profanity

Dan S. Shipley

Profanity is more than taking the name of God in Vain. It is all irreverence shown toward God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. It is treating holy things as common, whether by word or by deed. It is essentially an attitude of contempt or disregard for God or the things of God and is well exemplified by those of Ezekiel's day of whom God says, "they have violated my law, and have profaned my holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane.... I am profaned among them". (EZE.22:26) Not only was this true of the priests, for the prophets, princes and the people were guilty as well. Profanity was popular in those days,

But, with the passing of nearly 2500 years, if this profane attitude is sometimes expressed differently, it is no less prevalent, for many are still putting no difference between the holy and profane, even if unwittingly. If God was profaned in the violation of that law given through Moses, how much more in the violation of that law given through His Son? Many who claimed allegiance to the law of Moses had no delight in it and it was as a reproach unto them. (JER.6:10) It is obvious that the better covenant is not getting much better treatment -- even from those who know better. Why? Perhaps because many Christians do not take their sins as seriously as they should. Maybe we forget that God is profaned no worse than when His people deliberately engage in sinful practices. We may be getting a little insensitive to sin-especially our own. Seeing sin from the Divine viewpoint will help.

Take, for instance, the many unfaithful who claim, "I know what I should do", but never seem to get around to doing it. If they do know what they should do, do they really understand what they are doing? -- that they "crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame" (HEB.6:6)?; that they in their unfaithfulness trod Christ underfoot and profane his precious blood?; that they actually do despite unto the Holy Spirit. (HEB.10:26-31) Until and unless such sinners see their profanity in its true light, repentance is not possible. It is more than just offending the brethren or "sinning against the church" as we sometimes put it -- it is, as someone has said tantamount to spitting in the face of God! It is blasphemy; it is mockery; it is saying, in effect, "God, you are not going to rule over me, I'll do as I please"! Any Christian who places his own personal interests above God's will manifests this profane attitude, as he and his brethren need to understand. Jesus only states the positive side when he says, "If ye love me, ye will keep my commandments" (JOH.14:15). Failure to keep his commandments expresses much more than most are willing to admit.

Finally, God says the willful sinner is like "the dog turning to his own vomit again, and the sow that had washed to wallowing in the mire". (2PE.2:22) When the unfaithful and their concerned brethren can see it like God says it, perhaps some can be saved from that "sorer punishment" - and, hopefully, such profanity wiI1 become less popular among the people.

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...