Plain Talk

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.X No.V Pg.8

July 1973

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

The antics of liberal brethren are seemingly without limitation, and now that the newness has worn off they have to be rather startling to even get billing in conservative papers. But ACTION came through again. Many brethren have told me about the May-June issue article on Bus Ministry which grew and grew, as some church gave the riders soft-drinks, cupcakes, and finally (for the all-time high) a pre-Halloween Party. By sheer determination they had averaged 21 pickups-- until they gave the drinks (31), then the cup-cakes (41, 54), and the party drew 74.

The part that caught my attention was the writers attempt to justify these antics as reward motivation for which he cited such scriptures as 1 Cor. 9:25, 2 Tim. 4:8, etc. Can you imagine the incorruptible crown of eternal life in heaven being cited as justification for cup-cakes on earth? And to think that all of this started with letting a non-member have a sip from our water-cooler. Just how ridiculous can we get?

I dont know, but I will test it. In the name of good business sense, and economy of both time and money (we must not waste the Lords money) why do not these brethren just cut through the red tape and PAY folk to attend their services? (I mean good luke-warm inflated cash!)

Think of the messy bus, spilled cokes, ruined clothes, and frayed nerves it would avoid. The time spent making those cup-cakes could be used at another Book Review. With a bit of ingenuity, a magnetic I.D. card could be issued to each rider —later to each church member —so that one has but to insert the card in a machine at the entrance to the bus or church building and the account is properly credited. The treasurer could then make but one check per quarter, preferably at the time a drive is being made for more money, and the church would stand a good chance of getting their money returned. A fringe benefit would be the automatic count of all those in attendance.

Scripture? Why, of course. It is the reward motivation taught in 1 Cor. 9:25 and 2 Tim. 4:8. Keep them over in the epistles so they wont run across John 6:26-27 —Jesus reprimand of those who sought only loaves:. and fishes.

How long, how long brethren??

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.X No.VI Pg.1

August 1973

Thanking God -- Really

Robert F. Turner

It is not uncommon to hear small children confuse "Thank you" and "You are welcome" -- sometimes asking which is which -- and I suppose it is to be expected that beginners in public service will also get confused. But it seems that after a few years of practice grown men should be able to "Thank God" for the Lord's Supper.

Jesus "took bread, and blessed it, ...And he took the cup, and gave thanks" (MAT.26:26-27, MAR.14:22-23); "And he took bread and gave thanks... Likewise also the cup" (LUK.22:19-20) "Took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it....After the same manner also he took the cup" (1CO.11:24-25). Is there any lack of clarity in this information and instruction? The "blessing" and the "giving thanks" amount to the same thing, as seen by a comparison of all passages. In any event, if Christ "blessed" in any efficacious sense, we could do no more than give Him thanks for it. Are we not united in the knowledge that we should "give thanks" for the bread and for the fruit of the vine?

Then why do so many fail to do it? Listen carefully to the wording of prayers at the Lord's table. We ask God to "make us worthy" or "aware of the significance" or "help us partake in a worthy manner" or even "forgive us of our sins as we partake" (and some may attach an unscriptural significance regarding forgiveness) but more and more frequently I listen in vain for "Thank you for this bread".

The problem is not lack of knowledge, but lapse of attention -- and that is why this article is on the front page. We urge you to enter into worship with a prepared mind and to sing, pray, etc., purposefully. How else can our worship be sincere? How else, indeed, can it be worship?

This is not a plea for a particular "formula" or memorized prayer. We do suggest that before you pick up that plate you say to yourself, "I was helplessly lost in sin, but Jesus died for me". Then look at that bread and fruit of the vine as the body and blood of your Savior, a memorial of His sacrifice, and I think you will have no difficulty in praying, "Oh, thank you Lord, thank you".

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.X No.VI Pg.2

August 1973

Little Old Ladies

Robert F. Turner

Many churches have some dear old lady, converted late in life, who persists in introducing the preacher as my Pastor. You can preach on the role of the preacher, the meaning of pastor and its proper application to each of the overseers, and you can quote the Greek. You may get so far as to confuse the aged sister, but chances are she will smile sweetly or nod her head— and at her next introduction, again call you my Pastor.

Dont flip your lid, denounce her publicly, or threaten disfellowship. Calmly ask yourself why she does it. She spent most of her life in a religious institution where the man who occupied the pulpit was called The Pastor. Your explanation about shepherds of the flock may be counteracted by the fact that she sees in the role of shepherd —prominent public role, coordinator and director of practically every church function in which she has a part, and the one who came to teach her about the word pastor. Perhaps she has little reason to think of others as the pastors of that flock. (Hmmmm!!)

The years have dulled her perception, and in the self-consciousness of a formal introduction she falls back upon familiar terms. Even if she knows (so she could repeat the facts) about the meaning of "pastor, she does not know this in the sense that it is her own —a part of her thinking process, modifying her life. Be gentle with her, and patient. Remember that she is a child —in Bible understanding. Look for different ways to instruct —new illustrations. Ask one of her close friends to help.

And do not think for one moment that I have written this for little old ladies alone. Nor am I overly concerned about someone calling me their pastor. The church is filled with little old ladies, and men, of all ages who are confused about pastors, baptismal formulas, the Lords Supper, fellowship, institutionalism, Holy Spirit, and you name it. Many of them, of whatever age, are just as much babes in need of patient, loving attention, as any little old lady you ever tried to teach.

There are two main routes to take. You may indoctrinate them in our terminology —by intimidation, weight of numbers, party loyalty, preacher adulation, etc., —so that they talk like all good Church-of-Christers; or, you may accept the slow, difficult, and often failing task of really teaching them the truth. The first is the easier course —and produces sectarianism par excellence. In the second, you travail in birth until Christ be formed in them. (Gal. 4:19)

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.X No.VI Pg.3

August 1973

Testing Testimonials

Dan S. Shipley

Testimonials represent an effective method of advertising. Experts have learned that a public statement of recommendation by a well-known (or even unknown) personality can sell a lot of merchandise. Even such important considerations as price, quality and other related facts are apt to be forgotten in the hearing of a persuasive testimonial about some product. As intended, we easily relate ourselves to a TV testimonial, for example, to the extent of acquiring an unfounded confidence that, 1ike theirs, our wash will be whiter, our teeth brighter, and our itching feet relieved when we use what they use. Fortunately, it only costs a little money to learn that all such testimonials are not reliable.

But, in matters of religion, it's different. Though a lot of it, like merchandise, is promoted through testimonials, its purchase price may be wrought with eternal consequences. For this reason, every such testimonial should be tested. Souls are at stake and we must be sure. Chance and experiment may have their place with toothpaste and soap, but not in determining one's eternal destiny. At a time in which feeling and experience oriented religion is increasing in popularity, its voice and promoter the testimonial, needs examining.

Accordingly, one of the first tests to which religious testimonials should be subjected is the purpose test. What purpose does the testimonial serve that is not already served in the gospel? What message would God convey to man experientially that has not already been expressed in words? God says the gospel is capable of furnishing men unto all good works (2Tim. 3:17), bringing men to faith (ROM.10:17) and saving their souls (ROM.1:17). Can testimonials direct men to something better? If not, what purpose do they serve except to detract from the gospel that must be known and obeyed unto salvation?

In addition, such testimonials need to be examined from the standpoint of subjective evaluation. The spiritual significance of the "experience" upon which the testimonial is based is totally dependent on personal impressions. Thus, "God's leading" is subject to man's interpretation -- which makes it man's leading and man cannot direct his own steps (JER.10:23). Because men are not infallible, they are apt to be mistaken, not only in evaluating their "experiences" but even in attributing them to a Divine source.

Finally, these testimonials and those who make them should be subjected to a truth-test. Do their recommendations differ from gospel truth? (GAL.1:8,9) Are they presently abiding in the doctrine of Christ? (2JOH.9). If not, it is unthinkable that God would contradict Himself by experientially blessing those who reject His written word. It is inconceivable that God would give a "Holy Spirit-experience" to one who has no regard for Holy Spirit-revealed truth. When men are influenced to truly serve God it will be through Divine testimony and not human testimonials! "And now I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace..." (ACT.20:32).

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.X No.VI Pg.4

August 1973

In The Absence Of Elders

Robert F. Turner

When Paul told Titus to "ordain elders in every city as I had appointed thee": and then gave qualifying marks of these bishops (1:5-f.), it seems evident that in the absence of qualified men there should be no "ordaining". Brethren logically affirm the existence and functioning of local churches prior to the appointment of overseers (ACT.14:23); and a "business meeting of the men of the church" has become the traditional substitute for "scriptural organization". But brethren tend to misuse "organized" and "unorganized" status.

There being no hierarchy among the saints (MAT.23:8), and each saint being a "priest" (1PE.2:5,9); bishops are not "officials" in the usual ecclesiastic sense. Therefore all scriptural elements of "organization" are present when the men of a congregation meet, plan and execute in orderly fashion the scriptural functions of saints working collectively. Perhaps "scripturally unorganized" etc. is justified as an euphony, but it may have caused some to develop an erroneous concept of organization and "officialdom" in the local church.

Qualified bishops exercise an experienced oversight and "shepherding" of the flock that is missing in a church operated by "business meetings" but the latter is no less a church. In fact, in this preliminary and developmental stage the brethren may learn some vital lessons about working together, submitting to one-another appreciating the problems of planning and financing the Lord's work. More members may be involved in drawing up the "common mind" by which the team will operate -- with attendant greater confusion, less "getting to the point" and less promptness -- but once a plan is approved, there is no less need for all members to drop individual preferences, and work together toward the common goal.

Some seem to think that in absence of elders "the women" and "all members" can be heard. I believe that with elders all should be heard. The basic characteristics of successful "team work" are not changed whether the signals are called in the turmoil of inexperienced "business meetings" or by seasoned qualified bishops. All good overseers have learned that information, consultation and a fair hearing of all is essential to confidence, and real "working together". But women are no more leaders "over man" (1CO.11:3; TIT.2:12), and children and novices are no more qualified to direct the affairs of the church in the absence of bishops than they are in their presence.

"We are members one of another" (EPH.4:25), and are ever "Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God" (5:21), with the service of our Lord Jesus Christ as the controlling factor in our conduct. This principle forbids all "one-man, one vote" politicing to "have our way" in the church. The executive (police) force of Christianity is each saints humble submission to God's will, in recognition of His love and our need for Him (2CO. 5:14). Self is buried.

And submission to God's will means that we work diligently toward the day of "elders in every church."

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.X No.VI Pg.5

August 1973

Is Ignorance Bliss?

Robert F. Turner

Is there really a blessing in not knowing? Are we better off to tend to our own affairs and pass through life blissfully unaware of facts and obligations that might bother us? Many have this selfish attitude, and some even offer scriptural proof. (It is nice to know just enough to know one does not have to know.) But we (nosey) must examine their proofs.

Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth. (Jn. 9:39-41) The lesson is related to the healing of a man born blind, who had never had the capacity of sight. One mentally incapable of knowing would not be accountable, so, would have no sin. But when Jesus said (v. 39), 1 am come into this world that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind; he referred to (1) meek and humble people who had never had the opportunity to perceive truth (Matt. 11 :25), whose eyes would now be opened; and (2) those like the Pharisees, who had the opportunity, but who refused to see. Haughty self-righteousness (Vs. 23,34) compounded their sin and blinded them to truth.

Lu. 12:48 reads, But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. This is a portion of a parable re. slaves and masters, when cut asunder and beaten (v.46), were practiced. The purpose of the parable is clearly stated, viz., For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required or, accountability goes hand in hand with opportunity. (See Matt. 25:14-f) The slave who failed his master was not free of guilt. He was worthy of stripes. As Gods creatures, pilgrims through this life, we have obligations to our Maker and fellow-travelers— to know, and accept our fair responsibilities. In a real sense, the parable teaches that one who fails to use opportunities to learn truth and obey, is worthy of many stripes.

Paul obtained mercy, because he did it ignorantly in unbelief. But 1 Tim. 1:13 does not equate ignorance with justification. In v.15 Paul says he was chief of sinners. He just says his was no presumptuous or highhanded sin (See Num. 15:27-31). His railing and persecuting was done in good conscience (Acts 23:1) in keeping with what he verily thought to be right (26:9). The mercy he obtained is available to us in the person of Christ, who died for those who will do what Paul did when he learned the truth (Acts 22:16).

Peter writes of those who willingly are ignorant of Gods power and judgement (2 Pet. 3:5). He admonishes, Be not ignorant— (v. for though God is long-suffering, we must all stand before His throne. (2 Cor. 5:10) Beware presumptuous ignorance!

Finally, If any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant (1 Cor. 14:38) is an admonition to deliver to Satan—cease to cast pearls before one who obstinately rejects the unified revelation of Gods Spirit. Let them alone (Matt. 15:14), from such withdraw thyself (1 Tim. 6:3-5). There will be no way to ignore eternal condemnation. (Please read Rev. 6:12-17).

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.X No.VI Pg.6

August 1973

"Bapto" In God's Book

Robert F. Turner

In 1843 Alexander Campbell met Mr. N. L. Rice, a Presbyterian preacher, in public debate. The discussion took place in Lexington, Ky., beginning on November 15, and lasting 16 days. The battle was hard-fought, with Campbell dealing in comprehensive principles, while Rice picked at details. Of the six propositions four related to baptism, one to the Holy Spirit in the written Word, and one to human creeds and their influence. Rice was perhaps the most difficult opponent that Campbell met in his debating career, and the metal tested in this forge earned its proof-mark. This is the setting for this months quote material.

Our source is Alexander Campbell by Benjamin Lyon Smith; The Bethany Press, St. Louis, Mo., 1930. From pp. 226-228, we reprint an interesting comment on Alexander Campbells confidence in his research of the Greek lexicons, and the principles learned there. In a sense this is also a test of his confidence in the uniformity of truth set forth in Gods word.

A brilliant example of the soundness of Mr. Campbells scholarship and the deductions he drew there from occurred in this debate. Dr. Rice had him in some difficulty in an argument over the possible meanings of the Greek root bapto, showing that in both the Syriac Version and in the Latin Vulgate of Jerome, and also in Origen, there was evidence which seemed to show that the root could have the connotation of sprinkle. Mr. Campbell was convinced from all his study that in spite of this indication the root bapto and its derivatives could never justly be translated sprinkle and he therefore insisted that in the original manuscript from which the Syriac Version was made and from which Origen quoted there must be a different reading—that the word which was translated sprinkle in the Syriac was not a derivative of bapto but of some other root.

There was no manuscript known at the time which gave this reading, and Dr. Rice rather ridiculed Mr. Campbells idea, which indeed had already been advanced by others. But twenty years later, when the two protagonists in this debate were old men, the scholar Tischendorf actually discovered in the monastery of St. Catherine at Mount Sinai a complete copy of the New Testament on vellum, which proved to be one of the oldest and most authentic manuscripts in the world, and which confirmed all of Mr. Campbells arguments. The reading of the disputed passage sustained his argument that the Syriac Version had followed a manuscript which gave a derivative of raino, to sprinkle, instead of bapto, to dip.

We feel it is in order to warn the tyro about making such arguments as did Mr. Campbell. The lexicons are tools which often require a skillful user. How many foolish conclusions are drawn by one who sees (in one or two authorities) that which he has predetermined to see. And uniformity of truth does not mean my preconception of truth. The hard passage may be the head-knocker that can turn an honest man to Gods truth.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.X No.VI Pg.7

August 1973

You Know What?

Robert F. Turner

Dear bro. Turner:

Will you please examine in You Know What? the article you wrote in July 73(I Believe Testimony in connection with Eph 3:16-19. I believe you were a little too hard on those of us who sing, He Lives. In other words, is the song really unscriptural? BD

Reply:

First, thanks for writing. It was not my intention to be hard on anyone. Actually, I am often a bit put out with folk who are picky about songs, allowing no poetic license; but I do believe our songs should convey thoroughly scriptural concepts.

The article to which you refer was aimed at subjectivist, who look within themselves for evidences which are to be found outside, in the word of God. The song (a beautiful one, which most people like to sing) was only my example of how easily we can fall into the subjective way of thinking. There is truth in the idea that God the Son (and God the Father, and God the Holy Spirit) live in the hearts of Christians, but this is not Gods way of producing faith in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Read the article with care, especially paragraph two, and note that I cite Gal. 2:20 in recognition that Christ lives within the Christian. Eph. 3: says Christ may dwell in our hearts through faith (a faith produced by written testimony) but both passages deal with mans spiritual life in Christ, rather than with the means of teaching the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. There are thousands of people who could sing the song He Lives with misguided sincerity, and yet deny that Jesus literally arose from the grave.

The subjectivist finds evidence for his faith in his inner feelings. Now such feelings vary with each individuals experiences, for to a great extent we think and perceive with past experience as a guide-line. But when we accept nothing but that which accords with our experiences, or allow our feelings to become a more powerful authority than what God has written, we make ourselves judges of God, and superior to Him. (See Jas. 2:10-12, 4:10-12). This is the basic fallacy of much of todays indwelling Holy Spirit testimony. A man becomes convinced that his feeling is superior testimony to that of the written word of God.

The unity of Christians will influence the worlds thinking, but men believe on Christ through the word. (Jn. 17:19-21). Again, These (signs) 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. (Jn. 20:31) God has couched His truth in testimony, confirmed, preached to all nations, written so as to be understandable (Lu. l:1-4 Eph. 3: 2-6 Rom. 10:14-17); all of which argues that this word is capable of producing in mans heart the faith that can save. You ask me how I know He lives, and I will produce Gods testimony.

But that song asks one to believe in a risen Saviour on the basis of subjective testimony.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.X No.VI Pg.8

August 1973

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

It is the little things that get under ones skin that really trouble us in this life. Like little foxes that spoil the vineyards (S.S. 2:l5), the effect is out of proportion to the initial cause. When we react in an exaggerated manner our response cultivates the soil, waters and fertilizes the seed, and thus contributes to greater problems. And if some friend reminds us that scratching only increases the itch, we tell him to mind his own business, our blood-pressure increases, and so does the effect of the little things that get under our skin.

I have seen grown men, strong in body and mind, capable of standing unflinchingly against brute force, personal abuse, financial reverses or doctrinal onslaughts of the Devil; who will squirm and twist or stoop to degrading practices when some mites get next to them. We must continue to war against the giants in the land, but surely there is reason to drop all pride, and admit that we need a better defense against chiggers. (What did you think this was about?)

The wise man said, There is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother. (Prov. 18:24b) The metaphor is a good one, but black-berry vines harbor something that gives friend or brother a real challenge. What about closer than a chigger? (I just itch to make my point.)

If there is anything closer, more powerful for his size, easier to acquire, harder to put off, or more democratic in his fleshly taste than a chigger, I do NOT want to know or have anything to do with it. One can rub down with turpentine, grand-mas lye soap, and gobs of modern chigger medicine, only to make his flesh more inviting for the invisible red-bugs that are waiting, who knows where, for him to prepare the feast.

An Arkansas farmer told me the best remedy was scratch him till ye bring the blood; but how can I tell when a chigger is bleeding? I have resigned myself to kerosene, a good wifes sympathy, and the job of making some kind of point out of my misery. Oh, to get out of a chigger just a fraction of what it gets out of me!

So, if one must be philosophical about chiggers, just remember what I said at the first: It is the little things that get under ones skin that really trouble us in this life.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.X No.VII Pg.1

September 1973

Sin Is "Against God"

Robert F. Turner

If you steal my rifle, you will do me a grave injustice. Realizing this, you may decide to return the rifle and ask my forgiveness. You may throw in a new scope to make me happy, but you have not paid your just dues.

Perhaps you think I mean your debt to society. Well, we have obligations to our fellowmen, and the courts may exact a fine, or place you in jail for stealing the rifle. But you could completely satisfy me, wipe clean the records of the court, and still fail the obligations of justice. In fact, we have not yet given consideration to the primary matter.

In the initial act of stealing the rifle you not only did me an injustice, you not only sinned against our society -- far more important, you failed your intended purpose and rejected the authority of your Maker. You have sinned against God! This is the fundamental factor in sin, yet it is the part very often ignored -- both in recognizing sin, and in "making things right". God existed prior to society, and deserves the prior consideration. All sin is against God! David got right to the point when he prayed, "Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in thy sight" (PSA.51:4). On this basis God was just in condemning and David looked to God for forgiveness. We need many Davids today.

Christ has the prodigal son confess, "Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight." (LUK.15:21). The order is significant. Twice this statement is made in the parable, and always, "against heaven" first. How differently we might look upon our sins if this order would prevail.

Paul says "godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death" (2CO.7:10). It is not enough that we "regret" (see AS) our sins. Such regrets may stem from getting caught. Our sorrow must be in recognition of our failure before God, and our turning in keeping with His will. It is this concept of sin that makes us aware of its depth, and of our complete dependence upon God for forgiveness. Next time you sin don't "look out" -- LOOK UP".

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.X No.VII Pg.2

September 1973

"Loosing From Texas"

Robert F. Turner

The Lord willing, by the time you read this, bro. Harry Pickup, Jr. and I will be in Australia for a series of gospel meetings. Plans are to begin our work in Sydney, Sept. 30, but before we head for home Dec. 18, we will have preached in 18 missions as the Australians call them, and conducted special training classes in two other places. Our work will take us to many parts of Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia, and Tasmania. We hasten to acknowledge our fear and trembling at such a formidable task, and ask your prayers in behalf of our efforts.

Following my fifteen week tour of missions in Australia in 1971 many additional contacts have been made, and PLAIN TALK goes to a goodly number of homes there. Faithful American preachers in Australia encouraged the return trip, as did several faithful Australian preachers and brethren. We are deeply indebted to bro. Bill Hall (now in Birmingham, Ala.) and bro. Tommy Poarch (now in Rome, Ga.) for their assistance and encouragement in this undertaking; and to bro. Philip Morr (still in Sydney) who arranged details and made many personal contacts on our behalf. The Oaks-West church, Burnet, and the Spring Branch church, Houston, are my chief financial supporters, year-around; and they continue their support in this effort. Several other churches and individuals sent travel funds to me, as they did to bro. Pickup. Harry is bearing a large portion of his own personal support.

Our years are slipping away and I feel compelled to use every opportunity afforded to preach the gospel of Christ. In addition to this necessity (1 Cor. 9:16-17), I feel drawn to the side of my faithful brethren in Australia who struggle to firmly fix the cause of Christ there. In later reports I will try to tell you Lore about them.

Bro. Dan Shipley will edit Plain Talk in my absence, and continue his excellent writing. Bro. Jim Everett will assist in the writing, and the size of their load will be reduced by reprinting some of my earlier works. (In nearly ten years of publication we have had no reprints, but the press of this situation seems to justify it now. We are selecting reprint articles from early volumes of P.T.)

———————————————

From CHRISTIAN JOURNAL, Ft. Worth, Aug.73, we quote (p.4) W. F. Cawyer, former elder of Highland, Abilene and former promoter of Herald of Truth. Take a sober look at what can happen to a sponsoring church— and weep.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.X No.VII Pg.3

September 1973

Cleaving That Counts

Dan S. Shipley

When Barnabas came up to the great pagan city of Antioch (Acts 11), he found there a young church made up of Jews and a great number of Greeks that believed and turned unto the Lord (v. 20, 21). Antioch was noted for its vice and immorality, much of which was promoted in the name of religion at the temple of Daphne, a popular Greek goddess. Such surroundings, along with the continual opposition from hostile Jews, would make loyalty to the Lord a difficult task for these first-graders in the faith. They had made a good beginning, for which Barnabas was glad (v. 23), but now they were faced with the matter of perseverance, the perennial problem for all of Gods people. So what teaching could have been more pertinent to their needs? ... and he exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord (v. 23).

Cleaving that counts is with purpose. As someone has put it, a purpose is the eternal condition of success. It is most certainly a condition of faithfulness. Cleaving unto the Lord (lit., abiding with) is a matter of planned persistence; it is premeditated perseverance. Every act of faithfulness should be the result of careful deliberation. Worship, for instance, becomes more meaningful for those who have mentally prepared themselves to participate in spirit-with reverence and attentiveness. In fact, whatever one does as a matter of cleaving unto the Lord is something that deserves to be done with purpose and preparation. Perhaps one reason why we dont stay with the Lord better is that we dont plan to! God deserves something better than an aimless, drifting, off-the-cuff, extemporaneous kind of obedience— and that something better involves a purposed cleaving —and more.

Barnabas adds another important dimension to this cleaving by relating it to the heart; it is to be a heart-purposed kind of faithfulness. Therefore, it involves sincerity like the obeying from the heart of Rom. 6:17 —as opposed to merely professing a purposed cleaving. As man wills with the heart (mind), it also connotes an attitude of willingness, an essential element of steadfastness. Also, purpose of heart relates to the understanding and intellect. Abiding with the Lord is intelligent cleaving based on what one knows and believes. Viewed thusly, we get down to the real heart of purposed cleaving —and see the folly of half-hearted efforts in that direction.

Still another important part of cleaving that counts is that it is Lord-oriented; unto the Lord. Faithfulness is not a matter of loyalty to the church or to a majority of the brethren! In fact, cleaving with men may result in leaving the Lord (as the Corinthians learned, 1 Cor. 5). And the reverse is just as true. Because we are the Lords (Rom. 14:18), every relationship and activity is essentially as unto the Lord (See Matt. 25:45; Eph. 5:22; Col. 3:23). How this needs remembering We live unto the Lord (Rom. 14:18) —which shows the constant and comprehensive nature of this cleaving. See why the good man included purpose and heart? Good men still do.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.X No.VII Pg.4

September 1973

Brother Cawyer Bleeds

Robert F. Turner

See Page 2 For Source Of Following:

My heart bleeds when I think about a once strong church, which enjoyed the complete confidence of a proud brotherhood, that today is floundering on the brink of Pentecostalism, the rankest of which you ever heard. I fought hard for the truth against Calvinism as it slowly but surely crept into the Highland Church in Abilene, Texas. There was a time, looking back to the yesterdays, when Highland was a united church, perfectly joined together in doctrine and in practice. But today it, the Highland Church which sponsors the Herald of Truth is no longer worthy of the fellowship and confidence the brethren have had in her. It is about to split right down the middle over the direct operation of the Holy Spirit.

Not one elder opened his mouth against that false teaching and as mentioned it has become progressingly worse, even to the defending of speaking in Tongues, secret meetings with lights turned low, etc. It could not be stopped and that is one of the reasons for my resigning the eldership at Highland. My resignation was written and handed to the eldership, which was never read to the congregation, not even till this day.

Im inserting a copy of the written resignation I gave them. Dear Brethren, due to lack of unity in teaching, policies, plans and procedures, please accept my resignation.

On another occasion a deacon came before the elders and argued that there were Christians in all denominations. Bro. Art Haddox was chairman and he went around the table asking if any elder had anything to say. Not one elder (other than Cawyer, rt) objected to his line of thought.

A sermon was delivered in the Highland pulpit to which I seriously objected and I took it to the elders and they. . . said the sermon was 0. K., that it was I who was out of step..

(Later) I then said to the eldership If that sermon is 0. K. then let us publish it and give the brotherhood I the benefit of it. At this point I was told by an elder, If you publish that sermon we will withdraw fellowship from you. I did not publish

The error that was in the sermon was this: He had made the statement that there was not a verse of scripture telling people how to become a member of the church. Second, that the church was not a blood bought institution, and thirdly, the idea of people being added to the church was absurd. Now this particular preacher went to Bro. E.R. Harper and said to him, I do not object to what Frank did, I do object to the way he did it. But he further added that if that sermon was published, it would ruin him as a gospel preacher.

A Bible teacher in an adult class held up his Bible and said, You must have something more than this. This is not sufficient, referring to the Bible.... When elders are so spineless as to permit without censure a young hippy in the pulpit at Highland who starts a prayer, Hi Dad! it is a lot later than some people think. (Digest of much longer article.)

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.X No.VII Pg.5

September 1973

We Also Bleed

Robert F. Turner

It gives us no pleasure to publish bro. W.F. Cawyers account of digression in the Highland church, Abilene. It gave us no pleasure to discuss the error of the Herald of Truth arrangement with bro. Cawyer some 12 or 15 years ago, when he traveled in the interest of that project; nor to warn bro. Williford that their course was attracting the liberal, not the conservative, well-grounded brethren. We knew, 25 years ago, the agony of decision such as bro. Cawyer must have recently made; and our hearts ached because men like bro. Cawyer, E. R. Harper, James Williford, and others seemed blinded to the almost certain outcome of the path they followed.

And our hearts bled, and continue to bleed, for the hundreds of churches divided over such projects; the sincere Christians contemptuously branded Anti, and cast aside because they can not conscientiously support such; the souls LOST in the Herald of Truth issue. (We bleed too, believe it or not, when we see an ungodly spirit manifested on the part of some who oppose these multi-church arrangements, with their unscriptural human institutions. (As the Highland debacle unfolds we will see further evidence that H. of T. is an institutional entity, not the church alone.)

Bro. Cawyer says, Your money is being spent by staff members going all over the nation defending the irregularities of the program, instead of preaching the gospel, the purpose for which you sent your money. This is not NEWS bro. Cawyer. Every open-eyed observer of history and human nature knows that the institution is usually defended above the gospel. How do you think the H. of T., the general welfare institutions, the Colleges, etc., pushed their way so effectively into church budgets? By open financial records? By honestly facing issues? By scriptural justification in honorable discussion? No, bro. Cawyer, it was by policy that sacrificed Gods plan in order to defend man-made arrangements.

In your article you say, We built an image for the church only a part of which remains until this day. And I suspect this is a big part of what trapped Highland. For several decades the image-builders have been busy, determined to impress this materialistic age with— what else— a materialistic image. This spirit has built unnecessarily ornate buildings, softened the preaching, encouraged the social gospel and promoted a public-conscious rather than a God-conscious church. It has been a big factor in the development of churchhood WORLDWIDE projects— and I write with no desire to detract from the many who sincerely desired to save souls. But our institutions had to be protected— and this meant dont rock the boat. So, quarantine the objectors, build an unrealistic public image, court big-moneyed churches even if you do not like their modernistic trappings. And Highland was corrupted by the forces she sought to use. The world flavored the salt because of policies of men rather than of God.

We bleed for bro. Cawyer, for the Highland church, and for hundreds of churches influenced to ignore this nightmare and continue in error.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.X No.VII Pg.6

September 1973

Show Us Your Religion

Robert F. Turner

In Doctrinal Discourses (p. 205f) R.L. Whiteside quotes from the April, 1854 issue of Millennial Harbinger; a quote from Rupps History of Denominations in this Country. This is so many quotes removed from the original source that there is little hope for verification —in fact, the very nature of the material suggests a bit of moralizing, perhaps in the account in Rupps history— but there remains a striking lesson in the story. For whatever it is worth:

As a striking instance of the necessity and importance of the proposed reformation, we present the following extract from the Boston Anthology, which with too many of the same kind that might be adduced, furnishes a mournful comment upon the text-- we mean upon the sorrowful subject of our woeful division and corruption. The following reply to the Rev. Mr. Cram, missionary from Massachusetts to the Senecas, was made by the principal chiefs and warriors of the Six Nations, in council assembled at Buffalo Creek, State of New York, in the presence of the agent of the United States for Indian Affairs, in the summer of 1805.

I am come, brethren, said the missionary, to enlighten your minds, and to instruct you how to worship the Great Spirit agreeably to his will; and to preach to you the gospel of his Son, Jesus Christ. There is but one way to serve God, and if you do not embrace the right way, you can not be happy hereafter.

To which they replied: Brother, we understand your religion is written in a Book. You say there is but one way to worship and serve the Great Spirit. If there is but one religion, why do you white people differ so much about it? Why not all agree, as you can all read the book. Brother, we do not understand these things.

We are told your religion was given to your forefathers. We also have a religion which was given to our forefathers. It teaches us to be thankful for all the favors we receive, to love one another, and to be united. We never quarrel about religion. We are told you have been preaching to the white people in this place. Those people are our neighbors; we are acquainted with them. We will wait a little, to see what effect your preaching has upon them. If we find it does them good, makes them honest and less disposed to cheat Indians, we will then consider again what you have said.

We may further water-down this story by calling attention to the fact that the Senecas mentioned only some good features of their religion; overlooking the tribal wars, low estate of their women, and the hopeless promise for eternity; while calling attention to division among those who profess Christianity, but a division which is actually non-Christian.

And we are still faced with the practical application of unity to the faith, or lack of faith, in the world; and the awesome responsibility of all saints to demonstrate Christianity.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.X No.VII Pg.7

September 1973

You Know What?

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

What is taught in Rom. 7:7-f.? Will you please discuss in Plain Talk. JG

Reply:

The theme of the Roman letter is that we are saved by Christ, not by a system of law. This does not negate existence of law, nor the need obedience; but since all sin are therefore guilty before God I can be free of guilt (justified) only through forgiveness, made possible Christs obedience unto death, 20-26, 5:19). The contrast of the system and the new is furthered saying that it is the inward Jew, circumcision of the heart, that really counts. (2:28-29 7:6)

Rom. 7:7 asks, Is the law sin? and following verses answer, NO; the law is holy, just and good. The Old Law, law, makes men aware of sin (vs. 7, 8, 13), and emphasizes the need for Christ. With the old law removed, we are now subject to Christs law (v.4) are no less in need of forgiveness for our will to serve God does not, itself, guarantee sin-free flesh.

We must put the blame where it belongs: not on law, old or new, but upon sinful fleshly appetites which in-dwell us (vs. 17). Verses 14-23 recognize the dual nature of man and depict the conflict between our flesh and our spirit. This shows conclusively that desire alone, however controversial, is not enough.

In this highly controversial passage I believe Paul is dealing with principles of law, sin and justification as they apply to all fleshly oriented creatures. He writes in the first person hypothetically —using himself as an example. Before he was accountable (v.9) He was without sin, but when he became subject to law sin sprang to life. (See Jn. 9:11,15,18 where the prefix an (re-) does not necessitate the meaning again. Also check Arndt & Gingrich; Whiteside.)

Since Paul writes to Christians and includes himself in the struggle, some traditional errors are refuted. (1) A new birth does not remove the bent to sin--- the inclination of man to rely upon human reason, a facility highly programmed for self-service therefore prone to make flesh-pleasing choices. (2) The desire to do differently does not remove responsibility for the things done in his body (2:6 2 Cor. 5:l0). In 7:23 Paul writes of being brought into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. Forgiveness, through Jesus Christ, is the only possible answer.

Rom. 8: then moves the argument one step further by showing that this forgiveness (no condemnation) in Christ demands walking not after the flesh but after the spirit i.e., not only having the desire to serve God, but following, that desire. Gods Spirit dwells in that kind of person, subject to their will and endeavor to follow Christ. Christ reads the heart and intercedes for that kind of person— yea, all things of God, the whole scheme of redemption, are marshaled to bring that kind of person to ultimate glory.

Rom. 7: explains the inner conflict in saints, and their need for Christ.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.X No.VII Pg.8

September 1973

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

It begins innocently enough, while checking homework of a VERY BRIGHT grandchild (here, see his picture!) you notice instructions: Describe in your own words lower latitudes . To this he has written, Low ground between two hills.

Tactfully you suggest this answer needs revision, and he wants to know what is wrong with it. You explain that latitudes are imaginary lines, circling the earth, marking degrees of distance north and south from the equator. Lower latitudes would be those lines, or the area they define, closest to the equator.

With equal tact he praises you for knowing what the book said (he emphasizes deliberately), but the teacher said, Answer in your own words.

Good joke! You laugh, tousle his head, and marvel at that sharp Turner wit. (Well give his dad credit some other time.) Well, boy, you just put down there, land close to equator.

He is very patient with you, since you dont understand these matters, so he says simply, Grandpa, those are your words, but the teacher wants me to put this in my words. Hmmm, Yes! Have an apple son, and Ill figure this out. Now the boy is brilliant, so— of course— only nine years old and already he has grasped the very essence of todays philosophy. All truth is relative and subject to each individuals interpretation. I read the book with my background, he reads it with his. What is truth to me may not be truth to him. After all, the teacher said In your own words. Only a Grandpa who does not understand this generation would make a fuss over that.

His mother notices the silence and wants to know whats holding up the homework. Well, you can explain. If the teacher is sufficiently filled with love she will accept this answer as genuine self-expression. We must be careful about adverse criticisms— starting negative vibrations, and all that stuff. Besides, you do not know all there is to know about latitudes, or latitudinarians. Here is opportunity to practice unity in diversity.

Then mother comes in swinging a globe like a female Atlas. That smart grandson hurries to his room to correct his homework; Grandpa returns to his paper, and mother to her ironing. Mothers are like that, yeah they are!

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.X No.VIII Pg.1

October 1973

Purposeful Preaching

Robert F. Turner

Nathan's subject was adultery, murder, and kindred lusts; but he spoke of a little ewe lamb which a rich man took from the bosom of its owner. (2 Sam. 12:) The problem was that of application-- getting the audience to apply to self the standard by which others were readily condemned.

Nathan's audience deplored "sin", and could list many sins. Nathan's courage as a preacher" was little tested by a rip-snorting sermon on, "Adultery"; but when he told the King "Thou art the man"-- aye, here was his moment of truth.

John (the Immerser) could decry the awful sins of the times, and call upon people to "REPENT!"-- out there in the wilderness-- and King Herod be unmoved. But John said unto Herod, "it is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife." (Mk. 6:18)

Several years ago one of "our" ultra-liberal preachers criticized John's direct "approach"-- suggesting John need not have "lost his head." In a sense he was right about that. John could have spoken in generalities, kept his head, and perhaps his "job''-- but he would have failed his appointed purpose, lost his soul.

Nathan and John used different ways of reaching their targets; and different means of presenting truth are needed today. But both presented and applied the truth. When they were finished the audience knew what was wrong, and felt the sting of rebuke.

Today preachers speak of "sectarianism" without explaining that this spirit lives in the "party" concept of the church. They cry for "unity" but refuse open discussion of issues that divide, with God's word the final authority. This is hypocrisy.

Tell the people they must Do Bible Things In Bible Ways -- and they will love you. Tell them a church-sponsored skating party is not a Bible Thing; and church support of human institutions is not a Bible Way; and you may lose your "job", but you will have served your purpose as a preacher.

Oh, John!! Nathan!! Your kind are sorely needed in this generation!!

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.X No.VIII Pg.2

October 1973

Luther's Goose

Dan S. Shipley

Wildlife has no better friend than our brother Luther Baker, well-known and respected in these parts as a self-taught naturalist. Among the objects of his beneficence are the thousands of wild ducks and geese that make Luthers pond their fall stop-over for rest and refreshments. Where else could a travel-weary and gun-shy goose find such accommodations? In addition to the ponds relative safety, Luther sprinkles its surface with store bought grain often enough to tempt the shyest of hungry birds. Youd think such a fowl-haven would soon be filled with permanent boarders, but the wild birds soon get itchy wings and move on, leaving the little oasis to Luthers small flock of domesticated ducks and geese.

All move on, that is, except this one Canadian goose who, a few years back, apparently decided that integration was better than migration. A decision that was, no doubt, influenced by an injured wing. So Lessie, as Luther calls her, stayed on even if with reluctance at first. By the time her wing healed, Lessie was on pretty good quacking terms with the little flock of strangers she had once avoided. Flights of wild birds still come and go, but Lessie stays— now as much at home with the tame as once with the wild; now a friend to strangers and a stranger to friends. Like Luthers goose, Christians are apt to light among strangers and circumstances that could hinder their heavenward journey. Not that necessary associations with the ungodly are wrong (1 Cor. 5:10), but even these can easily become unnecessary but desirable alliances to tempt and weaken Gods people. Through persistent and indiscriminate mixing with the ungodly (including the moral ungodly), the once-reluctant saint comes to feel more at home where he shouldnt. Gradually, but surely, the words and examples of worldly associates exert their weakening influence. Getting along in this crowd is no problem— so long as you leave spiritual values and subjects at home; so long as you dont let your light shine (Matt. 5:16; Phil. 2:15).

Meanwhile, having made friends with such strangers, the Christian Lessie now becomes as a stranger to his godly friends. He may tolerate, but does not appreciate their warnings of concern and is likely to be critical of Gods people while defending Satans. Such has been the end of many good brethren who ignored Gods warning: Be not deceived: Bad company corrupts good morals (1 Cor. 15:33, NASV). Lets learn a lesson from Lessie!

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.X No.VIII Pg.3

October 1973

Lest We Drift

Dan S. Shipley

Even when it may seem otherwise, the transition from faithfulness to complete apostasy is usually a deceptively gradual process— one the Bible likens unto drifting (Heb. 2:l). Because drifting is deceptive and because it is something to which every Christian is susceptible, the need for warnings and self-examination in this area are matters of continuing urgency. We are made to wonder how many apostates could have been saved had they been warned earlier— or had they taken an honestly critical look at themselves sooner. In drifting, as in some dread diseases, by the time the true condition becomes apparent it is almost too late to do anything about it. That means constant heedfulness is a must among those who consider themselves faithful, lest they fall (1 Cor. 10:12). It also means trying and proving ourselves, whether we are in the faith (2 Cor. 13:5). To be sure, most of us know of others who would do well to take heed, but unless we see self as having the need to heed, we are most vulnerable— and may even already be drifting.

In this connection, think of our giant airliners that fly over great distances. Why are they staffed with navigators who continually check their charts and instruments? —even when they may think theyre on course? To make sure they keep on course so as to arrive at the right destination! They know they could drift, and if they do, they want to know it and to correct it as soon as possible. Here, neglect can be disastrous. How much more so for those seeking a heavenly destination where souls are at stake? Knowing that we could drift from the faith, we should want to know when were getting off course. Those who want to be right want to know when they are wrong! . .he that doeth the truth cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, that they have been wrought in God. (Jn. 3:21) Such an attitude is essential to staying on course and avoiding the perils of drifting. So, the discovery of drifting in our lives, whether it be through being warned or through introspection, ought to be appreciated and corrected as soon as possible.

Above all though, we must see the great sin of the drifter as being that of neglect. It becomes the raft upon which the sincere and well intentioned drift away from God and truth. It is why men who know better dont do better (Jas. 4:17). The word itself means to be careless of (Vine). It begins with a careless attitude toward some of the things that were heard in the gospel. If continued, it manifests less respect for more truth and worse, for its author. Not only does the drifter forfeit his fellowship with Christ (2 Jn. 9), he finally trods Him under foot (Heb. 10:29). Not that he intended to; he had intentions— only he neglected and drifted. Surely such neglect, more than most other sins, causes men to crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame (Heb. 6:7).

Even when drifters and their brethren treat their neglect lightly, God sees it as sin in which the great salvation is slighted— at the cost of awful and inescapable consequences (Heb. 2:2,3).

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.X No.VIII Pg.4

October 1973

Cyprians Death

Jim R. Everett

An edict was issued from Decius of Rome that anyone who would not worship the Roman Gods would die (ca. A.D. 249). Hence Roman citizens viewed Christians with suspicion. If the empire had been afflicted by any recent calamity, by a plague, a famine, or an unsuccessful war; if the Tiber had, or if the Nile had not, risen beyond its banks; if the earth had shaken, or if the temperate order of the seasons had been interrupted, the superstitious Pagans were convinced that the crimes and the impiety of the Christians, provoked the Divine justice, (Gibbons Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, p. 149).

Cyprian, who is referred to as being the bishop of Carthage, came under fire as a result of the clamoring multitude who demanded he be thrown to the lions. Prudence suggested the necessity of a temporary retreat, and the voice of prudence was obeyed, (Gibbon, op. cit., p. 150).

But Cyprian redeemed himself by coming out of hiding seven years later. Paternus, proconsul of Africa, summoned Cyprian to appear before him in his private chamber. Paternus advised Cyprian of the edict and called upon him to return to the Roman religion. Cyprian replied that he was a Christian and a worshipper of the one true deity. He was banished to Curubis.

Within a year he was recalled from banishment and things seemed favorable until Galerius Maximus, the new proconsul of Africa, received the Imperial warrant for the execution of all Christian teachers. Cyprian was sensible that he should be singled out for one of the first victims, and the frailty of nature tempted him to withdraw himself, by a secret flight, from the danger and the honour of martyrdom; but, soon recovering that fortitude which his character required, he returned to his gardens, and patiently expected the ministers of death, (Gibbon, op. cit., p. 151).

His friends visited with him during his last elegant supper, while the streets filled with a multitude of concerned brethren. They were aware of his impending fate. The next morning, he appeared before the tribunal of the proconsul who called upon him one last time to reflect upon his disobedience and to offer sacrifices to Roman gods. Cyprian firmly refused. The sentence was pronounced: That Thascius Cyprianus should be immediately beheaded as the enemy of the gods of Rome, and as the chief and ringleader

He was accompanied to the place of. execution by his brethren who assisted him in laying aside his upper garment. The martyr then covered his face with his hands, and at one blow his head was separated from his body, (Gibbon, op. cit., p. 152).

Cyprians courage seems, at times to have suffered at the hands of his own rationalization. And, while no Christians are dying today because of their faith, it seems that we have lost the martyr-spirit —we are not willing to give ourselves body and soul to Christ. If we suffer, we shall reign with him: If we deny him, he also will deny us. (II Tim. 2:12) Give me courage, Lord.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.X No.VIII Pg.5

October 1973

"B'twixt Saddle & Ground"

Robert F. Turner

"Yep," an old-timer tells me; "the light hit him, and he was converted b'twixt the saddle and the ground."

Believe it or not, we are talking about the conversion of Saul (later the Apostle Paul) not a western movie. No amount of Bible reading can change my friend's conception either. With him it is "b'twixt Saddle and ground" or nothing. I try to tell him the Bible says nothing about a saddle, but he replies, "Any fool knows he'd have a saddle on his horse." I surely hate to admit that this fool can't even find the horse.

The text is in triplicate: Acts 9:1-18 22:1-16 26:12-20; and one must assemble the facts from each account to get the full story.

It pleased God to make Paul an Apostle (Gal. 2:15) and this required witnessing the resurrected Lord. Paul did not see Him at the "due" time, i.e., before the ascension; (1 Cor. 15:4-10) but the Lord appeared unto him to make him "a minister and a witness," not to save him. (26:16)

The Lord spoke to Paul, not to assure him of salvation, but to send him to one who would tell him what to do. (9:6 22:10) This does not refer to his preaching mission, for Jesus had already told him of this. (26:17f)

Some say the light, the appearance of the Lord, the voice, etc., all are assurances that Saul's (Paul's) sins were forgiven. If so, he is the most dejected and sorrowing "saved" man of history. "He was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink." (Acts 9:9) During this time he was praying. (9:11) And Ananias said, "arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." Even the old-timer should admit this is hardly the thing to say to one who is saved— with sins forgiven. (The old-timer is quiet at this point.)

Saul's conversion, like others in the early days of the church, was surrounded by circumstances related to the times. Because of his appointment as an Apostle, there are elements in the account not directly a part of the conversion itself. Remove these, and his conversion was not unlike any other "turning to the Lord" recorded in New Testament history.

He had to learn of the Lord, (note Acts 7:58); believe in Him, repent of past sins, and obey Him in baptism. He placed his trust in Christ and the salvation made possible by His death; and this faith was such as to lead him to "obey from the heart that form of doctrine" (the death, burial, and resurrection) "being then made free from sins—." (Rom. 6:16-18, 3-5)

Remember, it was this same Paul who wrote Rom. 6:3-f. "so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death."

But my friend, the old-timer, is not yet convinced. "Don't talk to me about baptism," he shouts. "How in this wide world are you going to baptize a horse??"

Hmm! I'm going to study on that.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.X No.VIII Pg.6

October 1973

140 Years Ago

Robert F. Turner

In March, 1827, five or six couples formed "a society for the investigation of Scripture subjects." They were Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, and noncommunicants. I must condense their story, found in History of Disciples on Western Reserve,, by Hayden."We assumed that the Christian religion, in its fullness and perfectness, was recorded in the N. T., and what could not be there found was no part of Christianity. We also assumed that this was an intelligible document, for, if not adapted to the common intelligence of mankind, it could not be received as a revelation from God to man."

"Sometimes we discussed the intelligibility of the Scriptures, their all-sufficiency for the purpose of enlightenment, conversion, Christian perfection, church government. Then the 'special call' to the ministry: how does faith come; how many kinds of faith; which is first in order -- or repentance; can a sinner believe and obey the gospel ... without some super-added spiritual influence from above; should an unbeliever pray for faith; is the gospel a dead letter, or does it possess quickening power; when, where, and by whom was the gospel first preached. The difference between the first and second commission which Christ gave to his apostles; apostolic succession; the abrogation of the Mosaic dispensation; the subjects, mode, and design of baptism; should a sinner be baptized on the confession of his faith in Christ, or on an approved experience. All of these subjects were under earnest discussion for about one year.

These were great questions, and on account of our old theologies, they were exceedingly perplexing. No doctrinal standard was appealed to. All human authorities were ignored. The Bible was our book; Jesus Christ and his apostles were our umpire; and our work was personal in its object. We were sick of denominationalism."

"We had but two alternatives between which to choose; either to transmit religious partyism, with all its bitter fruits, to our rising families, and live and die in that state of doubt and uncertainty, vascillating between hope and fear, the inevitable result of a mixed profession; or to find relief by going back to the old record, to 'look up the old paths and walk therein."'

"In the month of May, 1828, we determined to enter into church relations." Two preachers, concurring with our principles, were asked "to preach for us, and administer baptism, and assist in a formal church organization on the N.T. basis. On Saturday preceding the second Lord's day in June, 1828, these brethren came. Before preaching, a few were baptized, and more on the day following. Then thirteen 'gave themselves to the Lord and to one another."'

Thus began the Deerfield church of Christ in the Western Reserve-- a section now known as Ohio. These people had honest hearts, faith in God's word, and courage to stand by their convictions. Where is their kind now?

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.X No.VIII Pg.7

October 1973

You Know What?

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner;

What arguments can you offer for the frequency of your partaking of Lord's Supper? Why observe this every week? WT. Mississippi

Reply:

I offer three arguments: scripture, reason, and historical precedent. If the first is valid, the others are not really necessary.

The early Christians met on every first day of the week.(1 Cor. 16.2)(KATA MIAN, every first day; KATA POLIN, every city, KATA MENA, every month; etc. Acts 15.21; Rev. 22:2)

I 1 Cor. 11:20 Paul censures what these Corinthians did "when ye come together" (every first day, a6:2) and explains what they should do, viz., partake of the Lord's Supper. (vs23-). It's a "left handed" argument, but it is clear and strong. (See ARV)

Acts 20:7 says the disciples met upon the first day of the week to break bread. "The" is definite article, expressive of a stated or fixed day. There is certainly no authority for the L.S. on any other day. Further, here is equal authority on each and every "first day" that rolls around. (Example: "Remember the Sabbath..." Ex. 20.8. WHICH Sabbath Day? The Jews had no difficulty in recognizing that this was authority for every 7th day that came>) These are scriptural arguments which I hold to be sound.

Reasonable evidence is found in the fact that all commemorative intitutions which God ordained in prior times (Law of Moses) had a fixed and regular time for observance. (The Passover, Feast of Tabernacles, Purim, Pentecost, etc.) If the Lord's Supper is not to be observed every first day there is no way to determine a fixed time (within divine authority) and this vital memorial (1 Cor. 11:23-f) is left to wander aimlessly.

Finally, secular history vindicates our conclusion. For the first three centuries all the churches broke bread once a week. The weekly communion was prepared in the Greek church until the seventh century. We give one quote for those interested:

"But every Lord's Day do ye gather yourselves together, and break bread,... etc." (From a writing called, "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" dated about 120 A.D. Taken from Vol. 7 p 381, Ante-Nicene Fathers.)

Why do I observe the Lord's Supper every Week? Because the Word of God which makes it clear that this is God's will for His people.

Now, be honest with yourself. Can you give as good a reason for observing this memorial less frequently?? And how can you justify the common Thursday night observance?? ------------------------------------------

Your questions and comments are truly appreciated. We will get to the questions as rapidly as possible. If you reside in the vicinity of Burnet we would be happy to come to your home for a private Bible study. You are always welcomed at all services of the Oaks-West church.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.X No.VIII Pg.8

October 1973

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

There it was, in bold letters:

GATEWAY TO HEAVEN!

The burial plots about the sign were beautifully kept, and the whole setting produced a calming effect.

Then this pointed head had another thought: viz- WHERE IS THE OTHER GATE?

I looked all around that cemetery without success, and as I drove down the highway my failure deepened. Here was Memorial Garden Peace Park and Glen Rest but no other gate.

Gates Ajar provoked my curiosity but closer investigation showed all parties involved had the first place in mind. The memorial tablets carried nothing but praise for the citizens of this city.

I was reminded of the Chinese tale of the emperor who asked his wise man to devise a plan for national improvement. One genius suggested that he kill all citizens then living, and resurrect the illustrious dead to take their place. All the dead were wonderful people, according to the tombstones. Wishful thinking must be a universal substitute for reality. Must we be so cynical? Believe me, dear ones, it is an effort to bring you to a better hope. I know the desperate grasp for peace, when there is no peace; for assurance, when our hearts are heavy.

But where is that other gateway? IT MAY BE RIGHT THERE IN THAT FIRST SIGN. In empty words, in soothing assurance that comes from sympathetic friends (whom we appreciate) but who have neither right nor reason to offer such hope.

Have these blinded us to the truth of our situation? By taking reality out of Hell—in essence, by denying its existence when the real show down comes, have we reduced Heaven to a verbal tranquilizer for the bereaved?

I have never known anyone to object to the preacher saying a loved one had gone to heaven; but cant you hear the angry cries that would go up if he said they went the other way.

Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Matt. 714. Check your ticket! You may be holding a pass for the wrong gate.