Jump to content

Plain Talk


RETIREDFAN1

Recommended Posts

Vol.X No.II Pg.7
April 1973

?You Know What?

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

We are in process of selecting elders. One man who is knowledgeable, well liked, a good teacher, a good leader, and sound in the faith, would be an obvious choice ---but his son (a few years back) was involved in problems with the law, and this is publicly known. Does this disqualify the father?

Reply:

You said he was a "good leader." Did you forget about his son's brush with the law? Do you think the children's conduct cast no reflection upon the parents? 1TI.3:4 reads, "One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity". TIT.1:6 says, "having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly". These statements of divine wisdom are not to be considered lightly. We would be well advised, however, to note the obvious purpose of these statements. "For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?" (1TI.3:5) The Holy Spirit is revealing guidelines by which we may judge a man's ability to "rule the church of God".

The selection of bishops necessitates the expression of judgment on the part of the congregation. In ACT.14:23 cheirotoneo indicates "to stretch out the hand, to constitute by voting". (cf., 2CO.8:19) The relative nature of many of the "qualifications" is apparent; (is this man sufficiently "apt to teach" to lead this particular church?) and saints are asked to decide -- not the rules for eligibility, but the extent and degree to which certain men qualify by these rules. Churches that ignore God's standards and the tests He gives for applying them, have none but themselves to blame for disaster. "Train up a child in the way he should go, and even when he is old he will not depart from it." PRO.22:6 is not a statement of the impossibility of apostasy, nor is it an absolute standard for measuring parents. After the nature of proverbs, it states a general rule.

Insurance companies use actuary tables to compute risks. These show that a man who has had one automobile accident is more likely to have further accidents than the man who's record is completely clean. The risk increases as does the number of "moving traffic violations". Now, no matter how accurate these tables are in computing the over-all picture, they do not tell us what -a particular case will be. But since there is no way of foreseeing a particular case, it would be foolish indeed to ignore the "general rule;" and even when circumstances seem to indicate an exception to the usual indicators, we should proceed with extreme caution.

The answer to the question must be decided by those who know the man and his family best. Is there sufficient reason to believe that the son's misconduct was due to the father's failure in "ruling well his own house"? A teenager's brush with the law (I have no details of the matter) does not necessarily indicate poor upbringing. But a reputation of failures is a bad sign, and it would be unscriptural for a church to take such a risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.X No.II Pg.8
April 1973

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

When I finished showing some 35mm. slides taken in Australia, with comments about churches and brethren there, one fellow remarked, You know, they are people just like us. He had made a great discovery. Oh, he had known before the pictures that Australians were Anglo, spoke English, etc. But just like us!! That amazing discovery might even amaze some of my Aussie friends. I wonder if some of them have discovered that we Americans are just like them, too.

Archie Bunker, the great all-American bigot, sees himself and his kind as regular people; and is now and then amazed that any other kind (inferior, of course) could have the same emotions, reactions, and especially triumphs, as regular people. There may be more of Archie Bunker in all of us than we like to admit. Even the other kind may build their own walls of self-centered classification.

I once took a childrens Bible class to a destitute home to assist in distributing food and clothing. When we returned to the church building I asked the class to express their feelings about the matter. One boy said, with wonder in his voice, Why, they have the same kind of funny books I have. (There may be several lessons in this episode.) That boy had pictured the poor as a people apart— some other kind perhaps, with feelings, emotions, needs different from his. I hope we taught him to see the less fortunate as people just like himself; and to begin to feel a close with them, rather than a remote, cool, for them.

Who is my neighbor? Are we better prepared by the Lords parable (Lu. 10:29-37) to know the answer? Ah, yes!! But are we any more willing to accept the Lords lesson than was the priest or Levite of the first century? Jesus made the despised Samaritan the hero of his parable— one not their kind to teach compassion and concern for any and all in need. I suspect this, was part of the lesson— to expand their concept of brotherhood in Adam. Our kind are all over Gods earth.

Backgrounds are different. Social standards, deeply engrained, may make for difficulty in communication— we, do not think Oriental nor they Occidental. (Were still working on Yankee-Rebel differences.) But Gods children, knowing all men are made in Gods image, should have no difficulty in seeing our kind everywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.X No.III Pg.1
May 1973

Trying The Spirits

Robert F. Turner

If one wishes to preach a sermon about charismata— see Corinthians! If one wishes to preach a sermon re. church problems— see Corinthians! Is there some sort of message in this?

How could the church that seemed to have the greatest zeal for spiritual gifts, also seem to have the most problems? Well, a study of 1 Cor. 14: will show (a) they failed to understand the purpose of the gifts, their place in the greater goal of revealing truth for the edification of all, (14:1, 3-5, 12, 18-19, 22-26); (b) they acted like children, selfishly content with child-like use of developmental stages of revelation, when they should have been contributing to the maturing process, (14:20, 13:9-f); and (c) they excused themselves on the basis that they were spirit-moved, but Paul said, the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets, (v, 32). Paul further contended that truth is unified, so that each new claim of revelation could be checked against the Apostles teaching, (v.37-38). Truth is objectively determined— not better felt than told. Try the spirits by the word. (1 Jn. 4:6)

Gal. 5:25 reads, If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. According to some, how could one do otherwise than walk in the Spirit if he lived in it? It seems to me Paul is saying that some might think or claim to be in the Spirit when their life proved otherwise. (5:16). Subjective con-clusions— how we feel, or what we think within ourselves— is not the final judge in the matter.

The chief fallacy of the whole Spirit movement of today is its appeal to the individuals inner feeling for authority, rather than an objective appeal to revealed truth.

Paul said, If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord, (1 Cor. 14:37). Genuine Spirit action is not cooled by an objective search for truth set forth in the written word.

In previous generations a direct application of the sword of the Spirit quelled holy-rollerism. It will do the same thing today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.X No.III Pg.2
May 1973

Friend Of Preachers

Robert F. Turner

Funeral services were conducted for Roy D. Spears on Thursday, May 10, in San Antonio, Texas. Bros. Roy Cogdill and W. L. Wharton paid a final tribute to their friend and brother, and spoke Gods comfort to Lola and the surviving family. (Our bro. Dan Shipley is Roys nephew, and their relation was more like father and son.) This is written prior to the service, and it grieves me deeply that I can not be there. My emotions have been stifled so often by the press of duty that I sometimes cry aloud— then ask God for forgiveness. Two small churches in Cal. and Ariz. are depending on me, and Roy would understand. He loved the Lord and His work, and what greater thing can be said.

Roy D. Spears was a friend of preachers! His own explanation was simple and to the point. God has blessed me with some worldly goods. But the greater blessing He gave to men who can go out and save souls. I believe He wants me to hold up their hands in this work. (This is not a quote in the strict sense, but very close to his oft repeated statement.)

He backed the publication of books, tracts, and Bible study material. He financed meetings, preachers in hard places, preachers with emergency situations. He once told me, with a bit of a grin, that certain preachers seemed to have more emergency situations than others. Roy Spears was not blind— he just liked to blink a little, if he felt a man could be lifted to greater usefulness in the service of the Lord.

Roy was deeply grieved by the liberal drift among his brethren. When learned that a drifting preacher was still open to discussion he made all arrangements, drove his car, we traveled five hard days to talk the man. A soul was precious to Roy.

I knew Roy as fellow Christian, elder in Highland Blvd. church (S. A. and business counselor; but our closest personal association was in a pickup truck, hunting in the brush of Texas. He delighted in conversation around a good table (Roy liked well prepared meals, and insisted on the best of camp fare), and the tell of hunting escapades was an annual affair. (We made a few stories together; of coyotes that came to deer offal before we could get away, of the rattlesnake that struck Roys boot, glancing off— those were days.) And every year a private talk, that helped relieve our hearts.

Yes, Roy was a preachers friend. Seems like always, we visited such a short time— then one had to go...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.X No.III Pg.3
May 1973

Bearing Burdens

Dan S. Shipley

As most everyone knows, burdens are a necessary part of life under the sun. Some of them, each individual must bear; others, he may share. Of the former Paul says, each man shall bear his own burden (Gal. 6:5). This burden (Gr. phortion) is merely something to be carried, without reference to its weight. Some have likened it unto a pack such as a soldier might bear. In fact, one version renders this phrase: For every one must shoulder his own pack. This pack belongs exclusively to the individual; it has no handles for helping hands. My burden is non-transferable. It cannot be pushed off on another person, neither can it be delegated to some organization or institution — including the Lords church. Even when the church is doing its work at its best, it in no way lightens this burden which God says each man is to bear.

Accordingly, then, the obligations concerning personal evangelism, growing in the faith, exemplary living, conquering temptations, faithfulness, and other such things are packs to be borne by every single Christian. The responsibilities of discipleship, though properly referred to as burdens, are not burdensome. In extending the great invitation, Christ says that His yoke is easy and His burden is light (Matt.11:28-30). Serving the Lord should be no more oppressive to the Christian than providing for his family would be to a father. Love makes such burdens light. Jesus said, If ye love me, ye will keep my commandments (Jn. 14:15) and John tells us that his commandments are not grievous (1 Jn. 5:3)— not to those who love Him. No burden is so light but that it becomes heavy and oppressive when borne reluctantly and without love. Recall the tender scene depicting a small boy toting another little boy on his back and saying, He aint heavy — hes my brother!? Wouldnt the cause of Christ prosper if every Christian would shoulder his own pack with a similar attitude!

On the other hand, there are burdens that may be shared with others. Bear ye one anothers burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ (Gal. 6:2). This burden (Gr. baros) is that which is heavy and can be burdensome. Generally speaking, this is any burden that may be properly relieved or lightened by the help of others — a burden with handles. Opportunities to help with such burdens are limitless. Weak Christians, for instance, have burdens such as ignorance and inexperience. Certain sins may be difficult for them to overcome. They need help! They need sincere encouragement! Now we that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak... (Rom. 15:1). Young people have burdens too. Helping bear their burdens may help some of us to quit being their burden. Jesus said, ye have the poor always with you — the rich in faith cannot ignore their burdens. Neither can we shun the sharable burdens of the infirm, the aged, the lonely, and the sorrowed. Concerned hearts cannot have idle hands — the law of Christ will not allow it.

Finally, in the Lord all men have a caring and unseen helper with which to share their burdens (1 Pet. 5:7). His invitation still stands: Come unto me...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.X No.III Pg.4
May 1973

Three Songs And Prayer

Robert F. Turner

Todays popular rebellion against the establishment has spawned both good and bad elements. As might be expected, there are some who are genuinely concerned that cold formalism and traditional bindings give way to sincere, spontaneous worship of the true God; and there are those who use current discussions to promote childish emotions and clap-trap schemes to improve the worship ...schemes as much or more mechanical than those they seek to replace. (Stand in a circle, hold hands with your neighbors, close your eyes, turn your faces to God— if you know the direction— and sway gently as you pray. If that does not produce the Spirit let me know, and I will change the recipe.)

There are many who accept the word of God as the means of determining the proper concept of the church, its worship and work; but recognize that many details are left to judgement and expediency. They are re-examining such practices to see if better ways can be found. We should never allow the way we have done it to be accorded the status of divine law, and if someone can find a better arrangement than three songs and a prayer then let us consider it. But dont think a change is better just because it is a change; and if some are tradition bound surely the more mature, spiritually minded will exercise great patience toward all.

Sometimes the changers are neophytes, having zeal without knowledge or experience, who cripple their own plans and the good they could do, by their childishness. I heard of one fellow who thought the contribution should be more distinctly separated from the Lords Supper. This is good thinking, and is implemented in some churches by careful announcement, or different time and ushers. But I was told that this fellow refused to give unless they accepted his reform. In another place discussion of the traditional nature of the invitation song led some to say that a service, was not scriptural unless it contained an invitation song, and others said there was no authority for singing to sinners at any time.

The traditional expediency is often the fruit of years of testing by trial and error, and has endured because it has proven to be workable and good. Change, especially radical and abrupt change, may be distract and produce an effect the very opposite of that desired. It may open the way for problems the traditional method was developed to solve, but of which this generation know nothing.. (See p.5) There is no place in Christianity for anarchal revolution.

And as regards spontaneous worship (everyone hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue— 1 Cor. 14:)—even when such signs were a part of delivery and confirmation of the word of God, Paul called for order (v.40) let all things be done unto edifying (v. 26), and said the spirit of the prophets are subject to the prophets, (v. 32). Team effort (collective action) is opposed to independent action (see dictionary); which means that when the church worships together there must be some regulation. This will not restrict sincerity for those who are truly spiritual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.X No.III Pg.5
May 1973

"New" Teaching Forms

Robert F. Turner

The Bible class was poorly attended, and those who were there showed little interest in the "study", so -- the teacher closed the Bible, told the young people that henceforth the class would have free discussion of whatever came to the minds of the pupils. Interest picked up, attendance increased, the elders congratulated the teacher for having a very popular "Bible Class" -- which did not study the Bible at all. Who are we kidding?

In my thirty-seven years of local church work, I have seen this repeated many times. Sometimes it begins in a genuine effort to make the class "more relevant" to current needs, and that is commendable. But in order to answer those needs with the Scriptures it takes even more research, time and effort, and that is usually what the class and teacher are trying to avoid. Again, who are we kidding?

I have read an article by a young man who advocates "new" forms in our worship. He favored an unplanned, uninhibited service, in which any and all present could take turns "bearing witness" and praising God. Nearly two hundred years of this sort of thing among various denominations has not led them closer to God, nor to a better understanding of His will. It is only "new" to "us" because "we" now have some who make a subjective approach to the Holy Spirit. Among liberal institutional churches there is a rash of such things, which even threatens to become an epidemic.

But for more conservative churches who favor greater participation in the worship, but intend that each one who "hash a teaching" present God's word, objectively approached -- this is no "new" thing. In earlier days it was called "mutual edification" and it had many commendable features not the least of which was the training of gospel preachers. Of course to preserve order (one main point in Paul's letter to Corinth) it was necessary that some sort of schedule prevail. Some solved this by preappointment of speakers, or by the appointment of a "presiding" officer at each service.

As congregations grew the plan became less practical, and some advocates of the system charged that money-hungry preachers (they called them "pastors") killed it. I suspect that the chief reason for its failure was lack of preparation on the part of the speakers. After a prolonged diet -uninformed, opinionated talks that rambled aimlessly through a few pet themes, brethren welcomed even a "pastor" with a prepared subject.

The system contributed heavily to another error -- Evangelistic Authority. A circuit-riding preacher would drop in periodically, and sermon-hungry brethren raised him to a pedestal of adulation. Priestly concepts of authority developed, and spheres of influence became virtual dioceses.

The better aspects of the plan are seen in good churches today, training their men and regularly placing them before the church as teachers. This may not seem "new" and "exciting" but it certainly beats turning things over to a group of uninformed, emotionally motivated folk, guided by what spirit?? (1JO4:1-6; LUK.9:55)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.X No.III Pg.6
May 1973

Testing Our Beliefs

Robert F. Turner

As our regular readers know, this is our Quote page where gleanings from the wide field of literature is presented for your consideration. The job of finding, condensing and copying such material is no easy one, so we truly appreciate the following contribution from bro. Osby Weaver. He says it is adapted from The Mind In The Making, by James H. Robinson.

As we read the material we thought perhaps the writer was being too hard on the public— surely we are not all that defensive of our beliefs. Then we asked ourselves, How often have you made a careful research to re-evaluate some former conclusion you had made, and found yourself wrong? Yes, it has happened, but seldom enough to be embarrassing in the light of Mr. Robinsons piercing analysis. Being wrong is no virtue; but never finding our error may be worse— proof we do not honestly prove all things.

We are incredibly heedless in the formation of our beliefs, but find ourselves filled with a fervent passion for them when anyone challenges or questions them. Obviously, it is not the ideas themselves that are dear to us, but rather that our self-esteem is threatened. We are by nature stubbornly pledged to defend our own from attack, whether it be our person, our family, our property, or our opinion. A United States senator once remarked to a friend of mine that God Almighty could not make him change his mind on our Latin-American policy. We may surrender, but we rarely confess ourselves vanquished. In the intellectual world, at least, peace is without victory. Few of us take the pains to study the origins of our cherished convictions; indeed, we have a natural repugnance to so doing. We like to continue believing what we have been accustomed to accepting as true, and the resentment aroused when doubt cast upon our assumptions leads us seek every manner of excuse for clinging to them. The result is that most of our so-called reasoning consists of finding arguments for continuing to believe as we already do.

This spontaneous and loyal support of our preconceptions— this process of finding good reasons to justify our routine beliefs— is known to modern psychologists as rationalization, clearly a new name for a very ancient thing. Our good reasons ordinarily have no value in promoting honest enlightenment, because, no matter how solemnly they may be marshaled they are at bottom the result of personal preference or prejudice, not of an honest desire to seek accept new knowledge.

In our reveries, we are frequently engaged in self-justification, for cannot bear to think ourselves wrong yet we have constant illustrations of our weaknesses and mistakes. So we spend much time finding fault with circumstances and the conduct of others, and shifting onto them with great ingenuity the onus of our failures and disappointments. Rationalization is the self-exculpation which occurs when we feel ourselves or our group, accused of misapprehension or error.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.X No.III Pg.7
May 1973

?You Know What?

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

How does one prove by the Scriptures that each local church should be independent and autonomous?

Reply:

I have been asking that question for many years, and wondering when my brethren would ask and answer it. Of course some have, but many still affirm independence and autonomy who evince little understanding of them.

Autonomy means "self-rule," so it is immediately apparent that we are not talking about either legislative, judicial or executive authority which belongs to Deity. The church (all of God's people) are subject to Christ---in fact, that is what makes them His people in the first place. The self-rule here is in matters of judgement or expedience left to man's discretion. Did God intend that each church should independently reach these conclusions, or that many should depend on a "sponsor" for such decisions? GOD must answer THIS question. If He answers "INDEPENDENTLY," then we are not free to turn this decision making over to others. One would think, from some arguments about contribution to a "sponsor" arrangement "of our own free will" that God gave us a choice of being dependent or independent.

But how does God answer the question? He answers by defining the limitations or scope of the oversight and means of collective operation.

If God intended the universal body to operate collectively we would have to have universal oversight (in these matters of human judgement) and a universal treasury (the medium of exchange by which many act as one). The Roman Catholics affirm this principle of universal church action---and they have a universal bishop and treasury. If God intended for a plurality of churches to function collectively He would have provided oversight on a "churchhood" scale or scope; and authorized a treasury of the same scope. Protestant denominationalism has the "churchhood" concept, and is organized accordingly.

But God put oversight on a local scale. "Elders in every church" and "tend the flock...among you," (Acts 14:23; 1 Pet. 5:1-3). He authorized no "churchhood" oversight, either for one or many projects. And God put the pooled funds of saints on a local scale, (1 Cor. 16:1-3). Note, it was the Corinthians fund that Paul delivered to Jerusalem, the recipient. It did not lose its identity in some pooled fund of churches.

It is well to note also that IF Paul was an executive officer of some "churchhood" fund, as some claim (see 2 Cor. 8:19 ASV), then we should cease to contend that each church is "independent and autonomous." IF there is authority for executive officers and funds on a "churchhood" scale, then we should devise denominational machinery (which is exactly what some have done) and cease this talk about "independent and autonomous churches."

Proof of "i and a" churches is the all sufficient word of God which authorizes nothing but local church oversight and treasury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.X No.III Pg.8
May 1973

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

At this writing Vivian and I are living in a guest house on Morro Bay: lulled to sleep each night by the roar of the mighty Pacific, and fascinated each day by the coming and going of its great tides. A dear friend opened this retreat to us— a pleasant and relaxing home while I am in Cayucos, Calif. for a meeting.

While browsing through our hostess guest book, I was struck by the comment of a previous guest who had expressed thanks for the opportunity to escape reality. This is often the language of despondency, hopelessness and despair. It may indicate a desire to cop out on life, but a moments reflection will show that the guest had done no such thing. The sand and the crabs, the rocks and surf were no less realities than some former busy life— but they had offered a welcomed change. One reality had been replaced by other realities.

Peace, rest, and contentment are not commodities which may of themselves be given or bartered. We joy, or pain as we provide circumstances which cause these results. We bring most of our restlessness and discontent upon ourselves, with ambitious plans born of selfishness and pride. We place ourselves in circumstances and situations which we think will attain our goals— and we suffer the realities of our own making. Some blame God for their plight, and forget that God made other realities as well (sand and surf, for example) by which, properly used, we may be made calm and rejuvenated.

It is significant that Jesus offers rest to those who will learn from Him the means (yoke) of burden: bearing, viz., a meek and lowly spirit. (Matt. 11:28-30) Jesus gives rest by attacking the causes of unrest. A meek spirit is that by which we accept His dealings with us as good, and therefore without dispute or resisting. It is equanimity of spirit that is neither elated nor cast down, simply because it is not occupied with self at all. (Vine)

There is no escape from reality; the authority of truth forbids this. But we can replace the reality of our humdrum existence with purposeful living; and the reality of a sinful life and its consequences, with the reality of forgiveness in Christ, and the life He would have us live, which produces peace, here and hereafter. God is no less real for being Spirit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.X No.IV Pg.1
June 1973

The Work Of God

Robert F. Turner

When you speak of something hurting the church do you think of a reduced contribution, hurting the public image, or causing some brother to go astray? Honestly now— what is your concept of the work of God?

A visitor in a foreign field asked the preacher if he might inspect the work of the Lord. He expected to be shown the church building, records of attendance, tracts distributed, etc. Instead, he was introduced to a quiet mannered man who was studying the Bible in preparation for a discussion with a neighbor. This man, he was later told, was once a drinking, brawling child of the devil. He is now a respected citizen and servant of Christ. He is the work of God.

Marshall translates Eph. 2:10 For of him we are a product, created in Christ Jesus... Gods work, his love and mercy, his grace, his gift of his Son— all these things produce something, viz., new creatures— people whose attitudes and goals are changed so that now they strive to conform to the divine image. (2 Cor. 5:17; Rom. 8:29) Gods work is new people.

In Rom, 14:15 Paul says, But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. And in verse 20, For meat destroy not the work of God. The weak brother, who thought it was wrong to eat meat, was also a product of Gods labor. He could not be cast aside, nor encouraged to act contrary to his convictions, without destroying the work of God.

A fellow-traveler on a plane once asked me to name the greatest accomplishment of my life as a preacher. I had little to offer, but hesitatingly suggested that perhaps I had been instrumental in changing a few lives. I do not know what he expected, but at this he lost his arrogance, and our whole conversation changed. Frankly, upon reflection, it frightens me to realize that I must try to live up to this boast. We really become co-workers with God when we change people.

Think BIG and Dont allow people to obstruct progress?? WHAT progress? There is nothing bigger than the soul of one made in Gods image!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.X No.IV Pg.2
June 1973

State Of The Union

Robert F. Turner

How is the church getting along? Perhaps because we travel a lot, this is a frequent question. The interest is understandable, and commendable; even though it may reveal a church-hood concept at times. Brethren have a common interest and like to communicate with one another. Isolated churches need encouragement and assurance, to share joys and sorrows.

This was once the role of brotherhood papers —each with its sphere of influence —and despite commercial rivalries, personal bickerings and special doctrinal interests, they served a useful purpose. Some conservative brethren today may desire a strong journalistic center about which to rally our forces, but I think the wind blows differently.

Todays church is a new generation which feels betrayed by the centers of influence of yesterday. The fight against institutionalism has had its backlash on all things promotional and has gendered a fierce independence —of congregations, and of personal Bible study. Sometimes this leads to absurdities in practice and teaching, but as one young preacher put it, I want to make my own mistakes. He will! I only hope he will not confuse freedom with infallibility, nor zeal with knowledge.

The number of conservative churches is growing —east, west, north, south. Most of them are growing in size, and are using much larger contributions to preach the gospel via radio, T. V., publications, pulpit and house-to-house. There is an improvement in interest in sending preachers into other countries (notable work is being done in Mexico, S. Africa, Philippines, Australia, Chile, etc., to generalize) but this work must continue and grow. Some churches took a stand and are still standing because they have not developed a positive attitude toward saving the lost. A few were crippled from the start by predominately elderly members (those babies make a lot of noise, but they sound good to the preacher who can see afar) and even here, some small churches, of older members, are able to supply finances for active works in places with greater opportunities. Efforts must be made to develop aggressive programs to reach young people, even if it means moving to better locations, or the mortician will eventually close those church doors.

A waning interest in schools, papers, and big-name preachers— as symbols of our brotherhood — is not a bad sign in my book. I believe it is replaced by vigorous scriptural independence that is bound to prosper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.X No.IV Pg.3
June 1973

Renewing The Mind

Dan S. Shipley

In NT writings sinners are often referred to as men with reprobate minds (ROM.1:28) corrupt minds (1TI.6:5), defiled minds (TIT.1:15) and as men that "walk in the vanity of their mind" (EPH.4:17). In COL.1:21 Paul reminds some that they were in times past "alienated and enemies in your mind". Such minds reflect wrong attitudes. They show dispositions of hostility and antagonism toward God and the things of God. Making the transition from sinner to saint involves changing such minds and altering such attitudes.

The process by which this radical and essential change is effected is called "renewing" (Gr. anakainosis). ROM.12:2 shows it to be the basis for transforming the life: "And be not fashioned according to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind….." So then, meaningful change -- change of character, involves more than external reforms and outward acts; it means changing the mind (heart) from whence are the issues of life (PRO.4:23, MAT.15:19,20). It means "the adjustment of the moral and spiritual vision and thinking to the mind of God" (Vine). Essentially, to have this renewed mind is to have the mind of Christ (1CO.2:16; PHI.2:5). It is to have and be influenced by the Divine viewpoint instead of the human viewpoint; by the spiritual instead of the carnal. Nothing is more essential to or characteristic of the "new man" (COL.3:10) and his "newness of life" (ROM.6:4) than this renewed mind. And of no less importance is the means of its renewal. How does God seek to change the minds of sinful men? Contrary to many popular concepts, only the gospel of Christ can change and renew the minds of men as God intended. Nothing but God's truth can make believers out of unbelievers. Belief (a function of the mind) comes from hearing Divine testimony (ROM.10:17). This is according to prophecy concerning the new covenant wherein the Lord says "I will put my laws into their mind and on their heart also will I write them" (HEB.8:10). The faith by which men are motivated to "transformed" living is derived from the word of God (JOH.20:30, 31). It is no coincidence that in every case of conversion recorded in the NT, what was done was based on something that was learned and believed.

For example, the obedience of the Pentecostians was in response to what they had heard (ACT.2:37); their baptism was in consequence of "receiving his word" (v.41) and their subsequent activities were directed by the "apostles' teaching" (v. 42). In receiving the knowledge of the truth (HEB.10:26) these crucifiers of Jesus became informed and enlightened in their understanding; thus, believed and obeyed and received the remission of their sins. This corresponds exactly to the description of the saved as given by Peter in which he refers to them as those who "have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of the Lord..." (2PE.2:20).

Yes, their conversion was an "experience" -- but it was an experience with God's truth. And that's the only kind that can renew the mind -- and the life. All men need such experiences-for eternity's sake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.X No.IV Pg.4
June 1973

Do You Know God?

Robert F. Turner

What is it to KNOW the Lord? Most serious students of the Scriptures are aware that there are two words in the Greek for "know", and some interesting distinctions may be seen in Vine's Expository Dictionary or other word-study books. Clearly, there is more to "knowing" the Lord than having knowledge of His existence. Perception and appreciation are advanced stages of "knowing", and God may know or fail to know us, in the sense of approval or disapproval. (See JOH.14:7-9; MAT.7:23; 1JO.2:3-6) One does not really "know" God until he is impelled by the object of his knowledge to conform to, walk or abide in, live a God-like life. All this is taught in the word of God.

The Scriptures also teach that the means of knowing God is -- what else -- the teaching process. (JOH.6:44-45) It is sad that this most obvious truth is ignored by many, and even denied by those who expect some inward experience to bring them into close relationship with God. Jesus said, "Go, teach..." and nothing else will accomplish the end He desires.

In a recent review of Gregory's "Seven Laws of Teaching" I was struck with the likeness of the educator's definition of "knowing", and Bible truths about knowing God. Gregory said, "What men call knowledge is of all degrees, from the first glimpse of truth to the full understanding".

"At different stages the experience of the race, as we acquire it, is characterized by: (1) faint recognition; (2) the ability to recall for ourselves, or to describe in a general way to others, what we have learned: (3) the power readily to explain, prove, illustrate, and apply it; and (4) such knowledge and appreciation of the truth in its deeper significance a n d wider relations that by the force of its importance we act upon it -- our conduct is modified by it. History is history only to him who thus reads and knows it. It is this last form of knowledge, or experience, which must be read into the law of the true teacher." (P.29) My high school geometry teacher told us of an "A" student who climbed a pole, carrying a string by which the length of a needed guy-wire could be determined. The student knew all of the axioms perfectly -- to recite in class. But he did not practice the rule for -determining the hypotenuse of a right triangle -- when a live situation demanded it. He did not, therefore, know the rule. It was not a part of him, readily available and modifying his conduct. The teacher felt that she had failed with that student, and in a sense she had.

Is it not apparent that much of our Bible teaching, and knowledge, is no deeper than the first degree, i.e., "faint recognition". So little of the truth of God has been made our own, it is little wonder we do not know Him as we should. Christ, the bread of life (JOH.6:48-51,63), has scarcely been tasted, much less masticated, and assimilated into our very being. How can we expect God to approve us?

"He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.X No.IV Pg.5
June 1973

The Stars Rebelled

Robert F. Turner

In the U.S. alone, an estimated 10 million people believe that their destiny is determined by the relation of the stars to earth at the time of their birth. They believe that the force of the stars (some consider it a mystic force, others relate it to more modern concepts of radiation) program one's personality. They believe that by correlating one's birth chart with classic histories of others who were so born, it is possible to predict character and potentials.

The prophets of God ridiculed and condemned "the star-gazers, the monthly prognosticators" (ISA.47:12-f) and said that Jehovah "frustrateth the signs of the liars, and maketh diviners mad:" (44:24-25). "Witchcraft" ("sorcery" AS) is condemned as a work of the flesh (GAL.5:20), and "soothsaying" (like sorcery) is cast in an evil light; (ACT.13:8-10, 16:16). We have no reason to believe the modern star-gazer and soothsayer, or their devotees, will fare any better. As Van Baalen put it, "the findings of astrology makes man dependent upon a fate rather than upon God. Obedience to the guiding influence of the Holy Spirit is replaced by abject submission to mute forces in nature." (Chaos of Cults, p. 29.)

Astrology is based on the Zodiac, "an imaginary belt in the heavens, 16 degrees broad, including the paths of the moon and all the principle planets and, as its middle line, the ecliptic, or sun's path". (Webster's) One's birthrate falls within one of twelve divisions of the year, associated with the twelve divisions (and "signs") of the Zodiac; and the relation of the "stars" in that division determine his "fate." But even if the ancient "star-gazers" correctly divined the influence of each planet, THE RELATIVE POSITION OF SUN, EARTH, AND PLANETS HAS CHANGED SINCE THE ZODIAC WAS FORMULATED. From the Houston Post PARADE, for June 3, 73, we quote Mort Weisinger in his article, "Is Astrology a $100 Million Hoax?"

"Professor Owen S. Rachleff, who teaches a course at New York University that debunks the occult arts, invariably convinces his students that astrology is snake oil because it still clings to the ancient belief which erroneously places the earth, not the sun, at the center of the solar system, and which ignores precession, or the regular shifting of the earth's equinoxes. It is precession which has caused each sun sign to fall back about 30 days in the last 2000 years, so that everyone who thinks he's an Aries is really an Aquarius, etc."

We might say (if you are in the moot for it) that the stars would not stand still for this foolishness.

Astrology, and other forms of mysticism, paganism and occult philosophies have grown apace with the rejection of God and His revelation. In their origin many of these cults were "searching for God". Now, their devotees are "searching for answers apart from God". It is sad indeed to find some who claim to be "Christian" who give even half-serious consideration to these pagan superstitions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.X No.IV Pg.6
June 1973

Godly "Morals"

Robert F. Turner

In this day of unbelief the student of Comparative Religion (specially those who are smatterers) may conclude that all religions are but social developments. He sees external points of likeness, and if his grasp of Christianity is limited to ritual and traditional dos and donts he is woefully unprepared to make a true comparison. Couple this with today's wide rejection of established religions, and it is easy to see why our youth, without chart or compass, have turned to pagan forms of Animism (spirit worship) and like cults.

But careful students of pagan cultures, where the light of Gods revelation has not shown, see a different picture. We quote from The Worlds Religions, edited by J.N.D. Anderson; Eerdmans Publ. Co., p. 21-f. In the chapter on Animism the author examines the effects of man-developed morals (having no higher source than man) upon life patterns. The complete absence of any conception of love on the part of the spirit world or the spirit worshipper deprives the individual of any of the consolations of religion. You may go through heathendom anywhere, in the Indian Archipelago, in New Guinea, in the South Seas, and in Africa, and you will nowhere find humanity, mercy, kindness and love. Selfishness reigns nakedly everywhere, and self-complacency is boasted of as a virtue. For the old and infirm life has few comforts; once they have become useless to the tribe, their existence is only just tolerated, and nothing is done for their comfort in sickness. Death holds only terror for the living, for it is a passing into the darkness of the unknown. A vague and shadowy, dismal existence is envisaged without any certainty of meeting again the loved ones left behind on earth. The spirit-worshipper is without hope.

Some primitive tribes are remarkably free from lying and stealing as a general habit, and adultery is a crime often punished with death. Superficially, one might conclude that here is a clear differentiation between good and evil; but on closer examination one finds that practices which would tend to break up the social life of the family or clan are taboo for that reason, and are not a sign of intrinsic virtue. Adultery is not viewed on criminal or moral grounds, but because the wife is the purchased property of the husband and probably of the family into which she has married. Custom and taboos are the binding factors, but the idea of morals is entirely absent. While adultery among Jinghpaws is regarded as a heinous crime, promiscuous intercourse among the unmarried youth is not only condoned, but encouraged by the elders of the tribe. There is no sense of sin; yubak really means punishment— the consequences of mis-behaviour. Misfortune may be regarded as a crime, for death in childbirth or by accident is treated with horror as though the victim was responsible in some way for inflicting this manner of death on the community. Sin is offending against tribal custom or taboo, and what is morally evil may be regarded as good if it does not transgress tribal law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.X No.IV Pg.7
June 1973

?You Know What?

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

May I kindly request you to explain DEU.10:5 and DEU.31:24-26. Our Adventist friends are placing a distinction between the Law of God (10 com.) and the Law Moses.?

Reply:

The Ten Commandments were written on two tables of stone and places in the ark of the covenant (10:5), while the details and expansions of the law (being far more bulky and of necessity more often consulted) were places in a more accessible place beside the ark (31:24-26). The simple facts, as expressed in the passages, need no special explanation. It is the artificial distinction, read between the lines by special interest groups, that needs much more "explaining" than the Scriptures afford.

Both "books" were from God, and were considered as one. In NEH.8: we read that Ezra brought "the book of the law of Moses" before the people. In verse 8 it is called "the law of God," and verse 14 describes it as the law "that Jehovah hat commanded by Moses". In verse 18 it is called "the book of the law of God".

While it is true that the Ten Commandments are the core or skeleton on which God's law to Israel was built, and by metonomy often stood for the whole covenant (as "Constitution" may represent the whole legal system of the U.S.A.) there is no Bible justification for making the Ten Commandments and the Covenant two distinct things -- one of which may be "taken away" (as a covenant with Israel) and keep the other (as "law" to all men.)

The two tables of stone which were in the ark, were called "the covenant" Jehovah, which He made with our fathers, when He brought them out of the land of Egypt". (1KI.8:9,21) The "Law of Moses" was commanded at Horeb (MAL.4:4), not at the time of Moses' last address (DEU.31:); and this is "the tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant," (DEU.9:8-11), which God made only with Israel (DEU.5:1-3). The sabbath is singled out as having special significance to the Israelites (5:15) and is called a "sign" between God and them. It, of all the ten, is the only one that is limited in duration to their "generations" (EXO.31:12, 16-17). It was "perpetual" and "forever" as related to that dispensation. (30:6-10)

In HEB.8:7-13 the "new" covenant is said to replace the "old". Paul was minister of the "new" testament ("covenant" AS) which was more glorious than that which was "done away" (2CO.3:6-11). But artificial distinctions will not help the Adventist cause. The "law" which had to die so that we could be married unto Christ (ROM.7:1-4) is identified in vs.7, as that which said, "Thou shalt not covet". While it is true that we are not under a "system of law" when Christ became our High Priest he brought His own law with Him (HEB.7:12), a "law" not related to the earlier priests. We can not be under both laws, for this is spiritual adultery (ROM.7:7).

Such references can be easily multiplied. Hence, we beg our Adventist friends to "cease and desist" making these artificial distinctions, and to find completeness in Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.X No.IV Pg.8
June 1973

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

In the summer of 1929, after a $100. contest, the city of Reno, Nev. chose its famous slogan, The Biggest Little City In The World. And if that didnt begin the trend, it certainly helped it along. Peanut Capital Sweet-Potato Capital Hand-Wrestling Capital (Petaluma, Calif., in case youre interested) and thousands of others have made their bid for fame and fortune.

In April, 73, the Austin paper reported that Bastrop, Texas, must be the Derailment Capital of the World for there had been five train derailments there since Dec. 31, 72.

I got the idea for this article when I saw a San Antonio truck bearing these words, BEST PLUMBER IN THE WORLD. It was only when I got closer and read the fine print that I realized this fellow was trying to be an honest man. Sandwiched between BEST and PLUMBER were the words, Little Greek. It makes a lot of difference.

So, I began to keep records. (Aspiring writers should note that it takes a lot of research to put out this kind of material.) Stopping for gasoline in Wilcox, Ariz., I noticed a poster for the Cinco de Mayo (5th of May) parade in a small desert community. It read, Longest Parade in the Shortest Town in the World. When I began to copy this into my note book the station boy wanted to know why. I told him I was making a collection of such; and after a few minutes of thinking that one over, he said, I think you ought to know that you are right now in the Cattle Capital of the World. Another notation.

Why do they do it? Well, bro. N.B. Hardeman used to say, He that tooteth not his own horn, the same shall I not be tooted! But crass egoism is not the universal answer. Sometimes there is justifiable pride in attainment, and the slogan writer just gets carried away with his job. Like the Texarkana bully who shouted, I can whip anybody in this town— in this county— in this state— in the state of Texas— whereupon a lanky cowboy crossed the line and flattened him. The bully later excused himself by saying, Well, I just took in too much territory. Selah!

Dont be too hard on the Capital of the World slogan writers. Maybe there is another explanation. You see, there is just a little bit of Texas in us all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.X No.V Pg.1
July 1973

Ahithophel

Robert F. Turner

Ahithophel was a statesman and counselor of kings, who enjoyed such great fame and popularity that his advice was as if a man inquired at the oracle of God. (2 Sam. l6:23) But Ahithophel was an opportunist. He had been advisor to King David, until Absalom stole the hearts of the men of Israel (15:6), and then he gave his allegiance to Absalom, apparently in the belief that he would overcome David, He conspired with Absalom, so that David prayed, Oh Jehovah... turn the counsel of Ahithophel into foolishness. (15:31)

It was Ahithophel who advised Absalom to spread a tent upon the top of his house, and to go in unto thy fathers concubines before all Israel— i.e., to publicly insult David, and ridicule decency and honor (16:20-f.). This was a bit of psychological warfare. Then, as if that were not foolishness enough, he seemed to forget the strong-hearted character of David, and advised a military operation that promised to frighten and overcome David, and bring his followers to their knees before Absalom. He was shooting for the big one now, and he had the court smiling and nodding at his brilliance. (17:4)

But David had a friend among the court counselors who said, The counsel that Ahithophel hath given this time is not good. He reminded them of Davids strength, and the unlikeliness of catching him off-guard. And he urged Absalom to personally lead a force against David. More intrigue, but thats another story. (2 Sam. 18:)

And when Ahithophel saw that his counsel was not followed, he saddled his ass and arose and got him home unto his city, and set his house in order, and hanged himself.. . (17:23) He is the only suicide mentioned in the 0. T., except those in warfare. He was apparently a childish, unstable person; trying to play the odds to elevate himself and feed his pride, with little regard for moral principles of right or wrong. He flashed across the pages of history, misusing his talents, dying in shame. And his name means Foolish.

I got the idea for this article while watching Watergate testimony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.X No.V Pg.2
July 1973

"Digging Theology"

Robert F. Turner

We (my fellow-preachers and I) are not theologians— and no apology is due for that. We are not professional men; and although I have long urged those who would preach to train themselves in every facet of their chosen work, many are doing an admirable job without benefit of special training in historic theology. But their lack of familiarity with classic schools of thought, and their lack of a historic sense of theology leads some to accept the theories of commentaries and contemporary religious writers without realizing that they are nibbling at the bait of a weathered theological trap.

In earlier days the ever-present battle with denominationalists, with formal and not-so-formal debates, served to keep preachers informed in the basic tenets of various faiths, and in answering their arguments we developed a theology of scriptural answers, even though they were not so methodically formulated. Perhaps some were reaction answers, but the earlier contenders for the faith saw the trap and had sense enough to react. Today many are wide open for an invasion of neo-Calvinism —and some not so neo —because they do not know the background or the consequences of the arguments they are making. This is especially true in studies on Grace and Holy Spirit. A favorite sermon topic of years past was, Is the Gospel God Gave Suited to the Man God Made? Answering Yes, the preacher discussed the nature of man: a free-agent, capable of understanding Gods word, of coming to God, and held individually accountable for his response to the Lords invitation. He knew, and pointedly explained that this was in contrast to the popular theology which taught that genuine free-agency on the part of man was contrary to the sovereignty of God, and that Adams sin was inherited by all men, so that man was incapable of understanding Gods word and coming to a saving faith, except as Gods Spirit acted directly upon selected individuals, removed their depravity, and brought them to a salvation they could not then lose. (Oh yes, it took more than fifteen minutes to preach this.)

Is all this irrelevant today? The words have changed somewhat, and there are few formal discussions on these topics, but the basic errors are deeply ingrained in modern theology, experiential religion, direct indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and some of the new (among us) concepts of grace. So, dont be surprised if we publish some studies in moss-covered theology, with application for today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.X No.V Pg.3
July 1973

"Get Away" Weekending

Dan S. Shipley

I am concerned about the increasing number of Christians who appear to have little sense of obligation to the local church of which they are members, especially with reference to being present for regular assemblies. To be sure, most of us will find it necessary to be away on week-ends occasionally, which is understandable. But, the problem lies with those who deliberately and frequently seek to get away on week-end pleasure trips without seriously considering the consequences, either to themselves, to their family, or to the church. And just finding some place to worship while traveling, even with faithful brethren, doesnt resolve all of the problem. The get-away week-ender may be getting away from more than he intends or realizes.

In the first place, the absentee member and his family get away from all the advantages afforded in a regular Bible class attendance. In most Bible studies the element of continuity means much to the learning process. If skipping over certain passages or even chapters in a haphazard manner is poor teaching, what makes it good learning? Yet this is essentially what happens in the case of students with irregular attendance. Such gaps, plus the forfeited study and preparation that should precede these classes, are bound to seriously affect ones learning and growth, not to mention his attitude. Frequently interrupting studies practically guarantees an impairment of interest. Viewed thusly, it is not hard to see the adverse snow-balling effects of irregular Bible class attendance— and the real costs of week-end pleasure.

Furthermore, what absenteeism does to Bible class interest, it also does to spiritual interest generally. Less involvement with the local work and worship not only expresses a lack of concern, it perpetuates it in self as well as in others. Are not we, as the Thessalonians, ensamples to all that believe? (1 Thess. l:7) If all members followed the example of the week-end get-away brethren, what would become of the local church? Surely what is right (?) for a few cannot be wrong for many. Mature Christians cannot ignore the influence of their example, especially among weak brethren. If its not important for them to be here, why do I need to be here?—can become a big question for the babe in Christ —and a legitimate one. When our getting-away means getting away from being a good example and the right kind of influence, it involves immeasurable costs —the kind that cannot be compensated for with pleasure.

Accordingly, the place of every single member is unique and important as a part of the church (1 Cor. 12) —God says so, and the effectiveness of any local church depends on its members seeing this as so. As a God-ordained relationship, it is not one to be discounted —or to get-away from. Let the teacher and student be prepared and in his regular place at the appointed times. Let all members work and worship together as often as possible, being tenderly affectioned one to another; in honor preferring one another and we will be mutually encouraged to quit this getting-away from our responsibilities —and from the rich blessings associated with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.X No.V Pg.4
July 1973

Fundamental Principles

Robert F. Turner

In a tract on "Grace" a brother introduces his argument with what he calls "Two Fundamental Principles". Apparently he considers these almost axiomatic, self-evident, but I have serious doubt about one of them.

"God, because He is God, must both hate and punish sin." Yes, God is light (lJO.1:5), and the works of darkness are contrary to His essential nature (DEU.32:3-4). He is JUST and because He is Just He must punish sin. Such justice is inherent in God.

But the second "principle" placed on a par with this is "Man, because he s man, sins". The writer offers ROM.3:23 as text, but the proof does not fit the proposition. "All have sinned" -- even all do sin -- is far from saying that man sins "because he is man". Men have "turned aside" and have "become unprofitable" (3:12) but that implies a better condition from which to "turn". We must remember that God made man, in His own image, and said that His creation was good. God made man "but little lower than God" and "crownest him with glory and honor" (PSA.8). Despite the universality of sin, I must deny that "man sins because he is man".

There is more involved here than meets the casual eye, and surely more than the tract writer intended. This second "fundamental principle" even casts a doubt upon the first, for how could a Just God condemn man for doing what his inherent nature demands? The writer later says that God does not make man sin, and "God did not create him so that he had to sin"; so I conclude he is unaware of the implications of his "principle" and is swimming on the surface of a pool whose depths he has not plumbed. The nature of man -- his God-given inherent capabilities; his freedom to think and act; to examine his past course and determine to change it; his spirit which may be responsive to God's Spirit and yet retain individuality; capable of conforming to the Divine image, or turning again to "wallow in the mire;" -- the nature of man is one of the most basic and fundamental factors in understanding the scheme of eternal redemption.

The early Protestant swing from Catholic concepts of "works" to an antithetical concept of "grace" gave rise to the theology of our fathers. Man was viewed as incapable of understanding God's word, except it be seen through "Spirit" glasses which God must give him. The "call" of the gospel, The Lord's invitation, the message of the Spirit (in the Word) -- were powerless. Man waited passively at the altar, or cried in agony, for something God had freely offered, and pleaded with man to accept.

Man trusted his feelings, purely subjective, for proof that God had "come into his heart," and then proposed a mystical concept of the "new creature" with a directly in-dwelling Holy Spirit to further guide him (More subjectivism!). And the whole erroneous package was labeled "Grace".

Do you see why I am concerned when a tract on "Grace" begins with a concept of man which, unintentionally or otherwise, is so dangerously loaded?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.X No.V Pg.5
July 1973

I Believe Testimony

Robert F. Turner

Do you sing, "You ask me how I know He lives? He lives within my heart."? Well, place that beside the statement of John, "Many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." (JOH.20:30-31, emph. mine.)

Yes, Paul said, "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life that I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me" (GAL.2:20). Isn't it obvious that here Paul is not testifying of the bodily resurrection of the Lord, but of his own spiritual life in Christ? But the song has to do with Christ's bodily resurrection.

What was Paul's testimony re. the bodily resurrection? "He was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time." (1CO.15:5-8). The bodily resurrection is an historic event, occupying a point in time and space. The resurrected Lord was seen, talked and ate with people, and even made a special point of showing his wounded body to one who had doubted (JOH.20:26-29). The proof here is not a subjective "in my heart".

When Peter and the rest of the apostles testified of the risen Lord they first spoke of "a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by Him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know" (ACT.2:22). Note, the miracles were actual events, subject to witnesses and testimony. Then, when Peter added, "This Jesus bath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses" (v.32), he put the bodily resurrection on exactly the same basis as other events in Jesus' life. It is not a mystical "resurrection" of spiritual principles in the lives of His disciples, it is not a subjective experience of faith, it is not a blind "leap of faith" by desperate misguided souls. An empty tomb and many reliable witnesses make it an historic event, which I accept in the same way I accept other such events.

The whole subject of "faith" is under serious attack today by modern theologians, who accept subjective "feeling" or "experience" as evidence for their brand of "faith"; and by a revival of Calvinism, whereby "faith" is considered a gift from God. When these later say "faith is the work of the Holy Spirit" they do not mean via the written word. Calvin wrote, "We have said that perfect salvation is found in the person of Christ. Accordingly, that we may become partakers of it, "He baptizes us in the Holy Spirit and fire" (LUK.3:16), bringing us into the light of faith in His gospel…." (Institutes; Bk. 3, p.542)

The modernist accepts the testimony of the written word only as it accords with his "experience;" while Calvinism makes some direct operation of the Spirit necessary before we can truly believe. But faith comes by hearing the word of God. (ROM.10:17)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.X No.V Pg.6
July 1973

Iii Illustrations

Robert F. Turner

In May 17,73 TRUTH Magazine, bro. James Adams reviews Carl Ketcherside re. Unity in Diversity. We here summarize Adams expose of fallacious examples used by bro. Ketcherside.

Ketcherside employed a group of singers and a symphony orchestra to illustrate the validity of his unity in diversity concept in religion. He correctly noted that singers sing different parts, even sounding different notes, in unison and that instrumentalists play different instruments sounding different notes in unison, yet there is harmony or unity in effect. What he does not emphasize is the fact that all singers or players sing or play the same piece of music which has been written and arranged by an expert in the -field so as to produce the harmony and unity of effect.

The next example employed by Ketcherside is the planetary system.... He calls Aristotle to witness to their unity of movement though diverse in size, shape, speed and power of attraction in his classic phrase, the music (symphonia) of the spheres... (But) The planets.. . function in strict conformity with Divine law, the law of the universe, hence their marvelous unity.

Next, our effervescent brother cites Pauls use of the human body to illustrate how unity can exist in diversity (1 Cor. 12).... In discussing the matter, he recognizes that Pauls point lies in the fact that all members have not the same function. Function, brother Ketcherside, function -- not faith and religious practice. Paul teaches that Christians must be united in faith and practice, but that each child of God has his own peculiar function, determined by his abilities or gifts, in implementing their collective practice based on their faith.

Will Ketcherside please advise us how (1) the doctrines of salvation by faith alone and the impossibility of apostasy, (2) the impostures connected with so-called glossolalia and divine healing, (3) the practice of monthly, quarterly, and yearly communion along with the use of mechanical instruments of music in Divine praise plus (4) the multitude of other divergent beliefs and practices among immersed persons who believe in the deity of Jesus can logically or scripturally be shown to be analogous to the diverse abilities or spiritual gifts to which Paul referred in his body illustration?

Joseph Fletcher (in Situation Ethics) takes border-line cases in the realm of where only a choice between two evils exists and makes sweeping generalizations on the basis of principles he imagines exists in them Ketcherside employs cases involving differences over matters of mere opinion such as eating meats and observing days (Rom. 14:8), then makes sweeping generalizations regarding the toleration of aberrations in matters of faith, doctrine, worship, organization, and work. He takes principles that involve the private practice of individuals and applies them to the collective work and worship of the saints.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.X No.V Pg.7
July 1973

?You Know What?

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

Will you please comment on ROM.5:12-21. How are all condemned in Adam??

Reply:

In this text Paul presents a magnificent summation of the theme, spiritual condemnation and redemption, objectively considered. Many of our difficulties in interpretation arise because we try to particularize and make individual application out of generalized statements. But Paul answers the question in v.12: "for that all have sinned". (My sin damns me!)

(12) One man sinned, and one man died -- spiritually. All die, "for that all have sinned". But Adam initiated sin into the world so his sin is representative of all that follow, and his death becomes THE death, considered abstractly, which envelops mankind.

(13-14) Adam sinned by violating a positive precept, and the giving of THE Law, through Moses, gave "occasion" for more of this type of sin, making the need for forgiveness the more apparent (3:19, 5:20, 7:8-13); but where there is Divine authority there is obligation -- and sin, even in the absence of codified law (2:14-f).

(15) A contrast in magnitude -- the offense of one, which extended unto many (v. 12) is "much more" overshadowed by the grace extended through one to the many (who accept Him).

(16) A contrast in results -- condemnation versus justification.

(17) THE death (see Greek) considered abstractly, initiated by one (Adam), is counteracted by THE righteousness (also considered abstractly) which was initiated by one (Jesus Christ). (18) The universality of death having been affirmed ("for that all have sinned") he also affirms the universality of the remedy. (In general context, we should remember that he is saying Gentiles have the same opportunity to life as do the Jews.)

(19) AS one man brought sin into the world, and as many as were influenced thereby (and thereby sinned, v.12) were made sinners; SO, one (Jesus) was obedient (unto death, PHI.2:8-f; HEB.5:8-9) and as many as are influenced thereby may be made righteous (through the forgiveness of their sins, 3:25, 4:5-8).

At the foundation of Paul's complex argument in the Roman letter is a simple theme. Sin is the disease, and all have it, because all sin. The gospel (good news) of Christ is the remedy (He died for us, ISA.53:) and this remedy is for all (Jew or Gentile) who will call on Him.

Someone else's sin is not placed upon me, so that I am counted a sinner because he sinned ("everyone of us shall give account of himself to God" ROM.14:12) nor is someone else's righteousness placed upon me, so that I am counted righteous because he is righteous. (See 1JO.3:7) Adam's sin affects my condemnation only in a secondary sense -- as sin in the world influences my conduct. BUT DON'T SELL THIS SHORT! The consequence of Adam's sin is so great that it relates to Death as Jesus Christ relates to Life.

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...