Plain Talk

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XI No.VII Pg.4

September 1974

The Natural Man

Robert F. Turner

The "natural man" of 1 Cor. 2:14 is the man who refuses to accept anything as true which he cannot prove with human resources. Put another way, he will not accept the word of inspiration accounting it true because of its source. He "cannot" know spiritual things — not because the human mind is incapable of believing truth made available through inspiration —but because he refuses to walk by faith — he insist on accepting only that which his human experiences will approve. To him truth is subjective.

Look at the context! In 1 Cor. 1:17 Paul says he preaches "not with wisdom of words, least the cross should be made of no effect". Then follows a series of statements which contrast what men count great -- worldly wisdom, philosophy, pomp and worldly glory -- with the debasing servitude of Christ to mankind, by his death on the cross. v. 28 says God chose this course that "no flesh should glory in his presence." God is not a pawn of mans research — He cannot be "found" in our laboratories — God must come to us. But how does He come to us? Paul says (1 Cor. 2:) he declared the testimony of God. Pauls preaching was not with mans wisdom, "but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: that your faith (emph. mine, rt) should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God" vs. 4-5). God is presented to man in the inspired message, delivered and confirmed by the Holy Spirit. God is accepted or received to the extent that man relies upon the revelation, rather than upon human wisdom for his information. "Faith cometh by hearing" (Rom. 10:17).

The same mental facilities and capacities are used to accept revealed information, as are used to accept the conclusions of human research. In both cases the "natural" (i.e., the inherent) capacities of man are applied. This "natural" man is preached to, hears, and obeys Gods truth. The gospel God gave, is suited to the man God made. But the "natural man" of 1 Cor. 2:14 is the "foolish" man of chapter one. He is the man who, being preached to, will accept and believe only that which his (or human) experiences approve.

"Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard" (2:9-f)..." But God hath revealed them unto us." The "us" and "we" of these verses are distinct from those to whom "we" preach, (compare Ch. 1). The reference is to inspired men to whom God delivered truth. These men speak "not in the words which mans wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth;" and there were two classes of hearers: (1) those who received it as the word of God (1 Th. 2:13) and whose faith, therefore, stood in the power of God; and (2) those who measured the message by human standards, found it "foolish," and rejected it. The later is the "natural man" here the "we" and "us" are identified as apostles and prophets in Eph. 3:2-6.

Those who make "spiritually discerned" a mystical confirmation of truth via an "inner themselves as the "spiritual" ones, they accept a type of reasoning by which they brand light" or "feeling" actually make man the final standard. In their misguided zeal to picture themselves the "natural man" of 1 Cor. 2:14.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XI No.VII Pg.5

September 1974

Church Autonomy

Robert F. Turner

"Autonomy" is a compound word, composed of autos, meaning "self," and nomos, meaning "law." An ordinary dictionary will tell us the word means "self-ruled," so that an autonomous church is "self-governed, without outside control.

"There are those who reject the concept of God and revelation, saying ultimate authority is in man. To them there would be no limitations placed upon self-rule. Of course most of our readers accept Christ as King, and know that a church which wishes to exercise "self rule" in all things is not the church of Christ. But our brethren are far from clear on the legitimate (scriptural) field of self rule, and how this affects the relation of one church to another. Some seem to think "autonomy" means the right to devise organizational arrangements for which there is no N.T. authority; while others think calling attention to such error violates the "autonomy" of the erring brethren.

A church can not "rule" on the importance of Christ' death, the necessity of faith, the meaning and purpose of baptism; for these are legacies of truth which Christ gave the world and by which we are called. The church is the product of the gospel, not its author. One would not violate some church's autonomy by teaching along these lines, for no church as a legitimate "say" in such things.

Does God give a local church the right to decide the day of worship? May they "rule" on the need for assembling, or the so-called "items" of acceptable worship? It is not clear that even in those things assigned as church (team) activity, a distinction must be made in that which is part of "the faith, once for all delivered unto the saints" (over which the congregation has no rule), and such details as are left to human judgement. The field of church autonomy is that of human judgement, and that only.

As an example: God's word indicates the day on which saints are to partake of the Lord's Supper—but it does not specify the time of day. The time is left to human judgement, and therefore to the "rule" of brethren. A church exercises autonomy when it sets its own time of assembling—and we might add, that time rests upon human authority, not upon divine mandate. Each church has this same right and may choose different times. If one sought to unduly influence or alter another's time of meeting, this would be interfering with "autonomy.

"But if one church should declare Thursday the Lord's Day, others could seek to teach them more perfectly the way of the Lord—and violate no legitimate "autonomy" in doing so—for no church has the scriptural right to "rule" in matters God has settled.

When brethren have honest differences in their understanding of what God has said, one church may believe their "ruling" is done in matters of judgement, while another may believe they violate plain teachings of God. If both parties are equally interested in serving God, neither will rest the case in "our rights," but will be happy to study God's word together so that God can rule supremely in all.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XI No.VII Pg.6

September 1974

Manumission

Robert F. Turner

From LIGHT FROM THE ANCIENT EAST, by Adolf Deissmann, P.320-f., we have plucked scattered quotations re. an early social practice, which helps us understand many scriptures. The book (Baker, 1965) may be hard to find.

Inscriptions at Delphi have been the principle means of enlightening us concerning the nature and ritual of manumission with a religious object in ancient times.... Among the various ways in which the manumission of a slave could take place by ancient law we find the solemn rite of fictitious purchase of the slave by some divinity. The owner comes with the slave to the temple, sells him there to the god, and receives the purchase money from the temple treasury, the slave having previously, paid it in there out of his savings. The slave is now the property of the god; not, however, a slave of the temple, but a protg of the god. Against all the world, especially his former master, he is a completely free man; at the utmost a few pious obligations to his old master are imposed upon him.

An inscription of 200-199 B.C. on the polygonal wall at Delphi may serve as an example: Date. Apollo the Pythian bought from Sosibius of Amphissa, for freedom, a female slave, whose name is Niaea, by race a Roman, with a price of three minae of silver and a half-mina. Former seller according to the law: Eumnastus of Amphissa. The price he hath received. The purchase; however, Nicaea hath committed unto Apollo, for freedom. —Names of witnesses, etc.,follow. St. Paul is alluding to the custom referred to in these records when he speaks of our being made free by Christ. By nature we are slaves of sin, of men, of death; the Jew is furthermore a slave of the law, the heathen a slave of his gods. We become free men by the fact that Christ buys us. And He has done so: Ye we bought with a price, says St. Paul in two places, using the very formula of the records, with a price. Again For freedom did Christ set us free, . .ye were called for freedom. — In these words of St. Paul we have literally the other formula of the record.

Numerous manumissions, again, expressly forbid, sometimes under heavy penalties, that the enfranchised shall ever be made a slave again. We now see how wicked is the intention of those who. . . spy out our liberty, which we have in Christ Jesus that they might bring us into bondage. And we understand warnings like this in the letters: For freedom d Christ set us free: stand fast therefore, and be not entangled again in yoke of bondage, and the still more moving exhortation: Ye were bought with a price, become not slaves of men.

We omitted scripture citations for want of space, but they are familiar and easily found. Much light is cast upon scriptures by better understanding customs and terminology of the first century. The historic setting forms a part of the context and should be remembered in interpreting current articles as well those 2,000 years old.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XI No.VII Pg.7

September 1974

?You Know What?

Robert F. Turner

Dear Bro. Turner

Please explain how the Holy Spirit can be an intercessor (ROM.8:26) ("mediator," Webster) and yet we have only "one mediator," Christ, (1TI.2:5)? Are not both Christ and the Holy Spirit called "paraclete"?

Reply:

I doubt that ROM.8:26 refers to the Holy Spirit (perhaps our spirit, sincerely reaching out for God but if H.S. under consideration, the idea is communication of our desires, not that of answering for us in justice before Gods throne. ROM.8:34 says the crucified and resurrected Christ does that. He alone is qualified to perform this priestly function. (See HEB.7:25-28) The "mediator" of 1TI.2:5-6 "gave himself" as our ransom.

"Parakletos" is the Greek translated "Advocate" in 1JO.2:1, and "Comforter" in JOH.14:16,26, 15:26, 16:7. This word literally means "called to ones side." It has the wide or ordinary sense, therefore, of "succorer, helper, assistant;" the technical sense of "lawyer- defender" (rare); and it is applied to Christ when the problem is sin, and the need is for one qualified to appear before the Father in our behalf. This priestly function is indicated by the context of 1JO.2:1, including the designation of Jesus Christ as "righteous." ("The adjective is not a simple epithet but marks predicatively (being as He is righteous) that characteristic of the Lord which gives efficacy to His advocacy of man." Westcott). Application of this word to Christ and to the Holy Spirit does not imply identical functions. Jesus promised certain disciples "another Comforter" (JOH.14:16). In his personal association with them He had been a Comforter — "by their side, helper, defender" — in the ordinary sense of the word. (He had not yet become their Advocate in the priestly sense, hence the Holy Spirit could not be "another" such Comforter.) The Spirit would perform some function He had performed personally; and the passages clearly show the "helper" role to be continued, had to do with their knowing and teaching the truth.

JOH.14:16-17 calls that "other" Comforter "Spirit of truth". JOH.14:26 says, "He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." "He shall testify of me: and ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning" (15:26-27). "And when He is come, He will reprove the world..." (16:7-f.), and this was done through teaching. There is nothing here to justify the conclusion that this "other" Comforter was promised to any but those whom the Lord had taught personally — His chosen and inspired Witnesses. There is nothing here to warrant people today claiming "comfort" by the Holy Spirit in a direct, mystical sense. These passages certainly do not teach that the Holy Spirit is another intercessor or mediator like Jesus Christ.

Yes, we may walk in the comfort of the Holy Spirit (ACT.9:31)— and of the scriptures (ROM.15:4), and of love (PHI.2:22), and of brethren (COL.4:11), etc.; but if one feels that "inner light" flickering, such truths do not "comfort" him.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XI No.VII Pg.8

September 1974

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

This summer I hunted in the woods of Kentucky. Kith and kin of a Casey County Kentuckian named General Washington Luttrell made up the hunting party and we looked for a home-made grave marker —throwd into the woods years earlier, when it was replaced by a regular stone.

In 1939 I had visited Wash Luttrell in his bachelor cabin. We talked Bible, traded rifles, and inspected a ginseng and golden seal garden. But gentle Wash spoke little of himself. A neighbor told this touching story.

When Washingtons unmarried sister had died in 1921, there was no money to buy a head stone for her grave. So Wash canvassed the country for zinc fruit-jar lids, melted them down, and beat the metal into plates which he used to weatherproof a heavy oak timber. Somehow, he lettered the marker and set it up. Now, 35 years later, I sought this symbol of family devotion.

Some spit and whittlers directed me to a man I had once known; and after we had howdied and recollected for quite a spell he took me to the country cemetery. We found Washingtons grave, and that of his mother and sister; but no home-made zinc marker. We visited some Luttrell kin who lived near by, and found what first seemed a strange reluctance to discuss the marker. Folk came to see and talk about it, she said. They talked about that bonnet on it. And then I realized that these very proud people were ashamed of what, to them was something less than the regular stone due their family name.

My desire to search the woods was discouraged—its probably covered with dirt and growd over— until my sincere appreciation of Wash Luttrells deed became apparent. Then we all slowly, hesitatingly walked into the heavy undergrowth. Its not that way, the lady corrected; so we held back, and she led us to our goal.

A foot piece was on the surface, but we had to dig the head marker out of the red clay. It was almost like.. perhaps it was a resurrection of understanding for the tender heart of a once-lonely man. Cleansed and brought to the sunlight, there lay Wash Luttrells work of love. We straightened the bonnet (a zinc hood above the lettering) and chalked the raised words for a better picture. And then, we carried the markers back into the woods and leaned them against a tree.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XI No.VIII Pg.1

October 1974

Give 'Em Heaven!

Robert F. Turner

Have you ever heard someone say, Give em Heaven, preacher!! It is likely you have heard the opposite— and maybe there is too little warning and rebuke from some pulpits. Fear of punishment is a legitimate prod, used by our Lord and His apostles. But we may be overlooking the power of hope and encouragement to motivate people.

Jesus said to the woman taken in adultery, Go, and sin no more. He did not condone her former life, but pointed her to a better life. I have often been impressed by the blending of severe warning and encouragement in the Hebrew letter. How shall we escape? (2:3), followed by a reminder of Christs sacrifice for us that He might bring many sons to glory and succor them that are tempted. Let us fear (4 : 1), Let us labor (v. 11), Let us hold fast (v. 14), followed by Let us come boldly to the throne of grace that we may obtain mercy—, (v. 16).

The terrible charge of crucifying the Son of God afresh (6:4-8), is followed by Beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and by the two immutable assurances (Gods oath and promise) by which we may have hope. This is the pattern of the epistle.

The hope is not a childish wish, nor unconditional pie in the sky. Each time it is coupled with demands for obedience, for service, and pleas to hold fast your faith without wavering. The warnings are drastic; but each seems to be followed by some encouragement: If any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul. (Heb. 10:38-39). Surely there is a valuable lesson here.

The gospel of Christ is the power of God unto salvation, not unto damnation. (We are condemned because of our sin.) Those who know truth should be emissaries of light, joy, peace. There are people who do not recognize their lost condition, but there are also many many people who groan under their load. They may not understand what brought them to this state, and they may take some convincing — but, Oh, my brother, give em Heaven!!

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XI No.VIII Pg.2

October 1974

From My Note Book

Robert F. Turner

Remember the old Mack Sennett comedies? Five policemen, start out chasing one crook, but as the race continues other crooks join their buddy and are chased-- until there are more crooks ahead than cops behind. Then, the crooks turn around and chase the cops. Well, we found something like that in Mexico. A preacher went on a disfellowshiping binge. One by one, those disfellowshiped gathered at a second church (whose practices they did not approve) until most of the first church were there. Then they went to court and asked that their original property be restored to them. The request was approved; they ran the preacher off; and moved back into their building. I intend no cops and robbers parallel; just thought you would be interested. Have you noticed how many small struggling churches are built around one man? Perhaps he started the work, or for years has held it together, and deserves credit. But now he resents active newcomers, or even some original members who have matured and would like to be active in service. They threaten his place. We are twice sad because: (1) too little respect is given to age, experience, and honorable past service; and (2) it seems so difficult for patriarchs to pass their wisdom, experience, and yes, their place on to the new generation — who will take it anyway.

We stopped at a roadside church for evening worship and heard a young preacher give forth this startling thought teaser: If it were not for Christians, the church would have a hard time getting along. Yeahhh!!

Talked with a recent corner to mid-western country churches, who thought Evangelistic authority was a new, up-and-coming issue. He was amazed as we reviewed its past history— amazed that any church would allow one to so dominate them. We have come a long way in reasserted congregational in-dependence, and in teaching preachers their place as servants of the Lord— with no clergy-laity distinctions. But there is a continuing need for well-taught elders and preachers who will take their duties seriously.

Imagine the nerve, gall, you-name-it, that it took for the Gospel Advocate Co. to list Highlights of the Douthitt-Warren Debate in their new catalogue as A thirty-seven paged booklet on this debate on the subject of Anti-Class, Anti-College, and Anti-Located Preacher advocates. The debate was actually a discussion of church organization and institutionalism, such as orphan homes.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XI No.VIII Pg.3

October 1974

A Forgotten Alternative

Dan S. Shipley

In dealing with the problem of lawsuits between Christians Paul introduces two alternatives to seeking litigation in pagan courts. First, if disputes between brethren deteriorate to the point of requiring arbitration, let them be judged by saints (1 Cor. 6:1-5). After shaming the Corinthians for not having done this, Paul confronts them with an incriminating question: "What, cannot there be found among you one wise man who shall be able to decide between his brethren .... ?" (vs. 5). Not that this wise brother was well versed in civil law, but that he knew and reverenced a higher law, the divine law by which he continually renders judgments concerning all matters of life. Judges render verdicts in keeping with law. Why would those who have committed themselves to the observance of a better law willingly submit to judgments based on an inferior law? Doing so surely reveals defect (vs. 7).

The second alternative and the one with which we are primarily concerned here is considered by many to be the court of last resort — that is, if considered at all. Paul states it like this: "Why not take wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?" (vs. 7). Yes, even when you know you have been mistreated, even defrauded, there are times when staying right with God means suffering wrong from men. It is better to take wrong than to do wrong (1 PE. 3:17). In this case, lawsuits between Christians is the wrong under consideration; even the winner loses in such litigation. Better suffer the wrong than to sin is the principle — a principle needing application to other problems as well. For instance, taking wrong is better than seeking revenge. "Getting even" has a way of becoming a demon-like obsession which begets many sins. Remembering and rehearsing our ill-treatment makes it grow all out of proportion in our own minds. We must be vindicated, we feel — a feeling prompted mostly by pride. God says that Christians are not to pay back evil with evil (ROM.12:17). "Avenge not yourselves, beloved, but give place to the wrath of God: for it is written, Vengeance belongeth unto me; I will recompense, saith the Lord." (ROM. 12:19). So, take the wrong and leave it to the Lord to settle the accounts. No wrongdoer will escape His judgment, yours included.

But taking wrong is more than just refraining from vindictive acts. As Lenski puts it, "Simply to suffer the wrong, the injustice, or the injury does not occur to many Christians. The least they do is to set up a loud complaint and then continue complaining and ill will. To forgive at once and to forget so thoroughly as to make no complaint at any time, is an unknown ethical practice even to brethren who think they are wise, well read in the Scriptures and rather advanced Christians." (Interp. of 1 COR., p. 245. Emp. mine, dss) Jesus taught this positive side of taking wrong: "Do good to them that hate you, bless them that curse you, pray for them that despitefully use you" (LUK. 6:27,28). This is not a code for cowards; it neither excuses nor encourages the wrongdoer. Being right means rightly taking wrong as did our great Example (1 PE. 2:21-24)

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XI No.VIII Pg.4

October 1974

Succession In The Seed

Robert F. Turner

The central idea of restoration is faith in the word of God as the seed of the kingdom (Lu. 8:11). When others were vainly trying to establish an unbroken line of succession of Popes, Bishops, Churches, or Evangelists; restoration preachers were saying, Succession is in the seed.

If a Jay bird carried an acorn into a field and dropped it, the resultant growth would be an oak tree, not a Jay-bird tree. The seed determines the plant, not the sower. That was one of bro. N. B. Hardemans favorite illustrations. Or another: if a New Testament were cast from a ship, and drifted to the shores of some far off island; it could be translated, studied, obeyed — and would result in N. T. Christians who, working together, would form a N. T. church. Of course the idea is that divine authority is resident in Christ; and is expressed in His word, set forth by inspired apostles and prophets in the N.T.

The antithesis of this is that Christ relinquished his authority (by delegating power of attorney to the apostles and their successors) who then act and speak as though they were Christ. (A variation of this is the claim of continued inspired revelation.) These men of authority must administer baptism, the Lords Supper, etc.; and these things have no validity or benefit except by their, or their successors hands.

Succession in the seed was readily accepted by restoration pioneers, pleading the all-sufficiency of the Word and struggling against tradition to establish N. T. churches; but as we have grown more numerous, and have established our own traditions, some seem to think maybe there is a sort of authority resident in the great middle-section of the church, or big-name preachers, elders, etc.

We have been told that an evangelist can not go-preach except he be sent by some church; that to question the elders judgment is to reject the will of God; that the Lords Supper is not valid except it be sanctioned or set by the church; and that baptism is not valid unless administered by a sound preacher, or at least a true saint . I think such conclusions come from people who have not thought through to the logical end of their arguments. Is succession really in the seed, or have we just invented this to satisfy early needs?

I believe it would be a mistake (as respects influence, discipline of sinners, etc.) to ask a known backslider and reprobate to serve at the Lords table — but I do not believe this would invalidate the memorial to those who partook of it properly. I would seriously question the propriety of asking a man (or woman) off the Street to baptize a candidate; although I believe the validity of baptism is not dependent upon the character of the one who performs the act. Surely we need not abandon sound Bible principles in order to act with restraint and decorum.

Deity has not abdicated the throne for any man or group of men; the Word will completely furnish us unto all. good works; and succession is, indeed, in the seed and unrestricted.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XI No.VIII Pg.5

October 1974

The Aeolian Harp

Jim R. Everett

The Aeolian Harp was a stringed instrument incased in a wooded frame which was open at both ends. Its strings were tuned so that when it was set in a window the wind would stimulate harmonious vibrations soothing to the ear. Is man like the Aeolian Harp? Is he a will-less instrument which gives glory to God only as God chooses to vibrate him by the Spirit? Or, to put it another way, is monergism or synergism true?

Monergism is, "the doctrine that regeneration is the work of the Holy Spirit alone, and that the human will, having no inclination to holiness, is incapable of assisting or cooperating ," Websters Unabridged Dictionary, p. 1160). As opposed to monergism, synergism means that man has a will and cooperates with divine grace in accomplishing his own salvation.

If man is as the Aeolian Harp then God places him where HE wills, does with him as HE chooses, and picks out and individually vibrates a mans spirit to salvation without any consideration for mans will, belief, or aspiration. Such a view postulates Gods will as monothetic — i.e., that Gods will is the single, essential element. Logically, it also makes man a mere puppet who dances when God pulls the strings.

God made man a free, moral being with a will and right of choice. The historical account of mans creation and fall so affirms (GEN.1:26-27, 3:1-ff). However, in order to create man with the right to choose either good or evil, God had to impose upon himself certain restrictions in dealing with man. To deny that statement is to make Adam's sin the result of Gods will Therefore from the beginning, God has expressed His will for the good of man and when man orders his life in conformity, God is glorified. But, God neither forces man to obey or disobey His will.

After Christ died to atone for mans sin, Paul expressed Gods will thusly: "Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth". (1TI.2:4). Later, in the N. T., Peter clarifies Gods longsuffering as His willingness that none perish, but all should come to repentance (2PE.3:9). To make Gods will monothetic would mean that all men are going to be saved — God willed it. Such a conclusion contradicts Jesus statement that few would be saved (LUK.13:23-24)

Christs death was for all men but not all will choose to avail themselves of such benefits. God is longsuffering not willing that any should perish, but many obstinately misinterpret His patience. God would have all men to be saved, but serving God is not the will of the multitudes. You see, man is not like the Aeolian Harp, for, even as our beloved brother Paul says, man must actively seek God and His will. "To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish..." (ROM.2:7-9)

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XI No.VIII Pg.6

October 1974

Seeking Truth In 1514

Robert F. Turner

From History of the Reformation, by J. H. DAubigne (1847); we quote re. Ulrich Zwingli (1484 - 1531) and his regard for Scripture. Zwingli preached restoration instead of reformation. He is particularly known for teaching that in the Lords Supper the true body of Christ is present by the contemplation of faith, and not in essence or reality.

Zwingli went farther than merely acknowledging at this early period the grand principle of evangelical Christianity— the infallible authority of Holy Scriptures. He perceived moreover, how we should determine the sense of the Divine Word: They have a very mean idea of the Gospel, said he, who consider as frivolous, vain, and unjust, all that they imagine does not accord with their own reason. Men are not permitted to wrest the Gospel at pleasure that it may square with their own sentiments and interpretation. Zwingli turned his eyes to heaven, says his best friend, for he would have no other interpreter than the Holy Ghost himself.

Such, at the commencement of his career, was the man whom certain persons have not hesitated to represent as having desired to subject the Bible to human reason. Philosophy and divinity, said he, were always raising objections. At last I said to myself: I must neglect all these matters, and look for Gods will in his Word alone. I began (continues he) to earnestly entreat the Lord to grant me his light, and although I read the Scriptures only, they became clearer than if I had read the commentators. He compared Scripture with itself; explaining obscure passages by those that are clear. He soon knew the Bible thoroughly, and particularly the New Testament. When Zwingli thus turned towards Holy Scripture, Switzerland took its first step toward the Reformation. Accordingly, when he explained the Scriptures, every one felt that his teaching came from God, and not from man.

Zwingli did not, however, contemn the explanations of the most celebrated doctors: in after-years he studied Origen, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, and Chrysostom, but not as authorities. I study the doctors, said he, with the same end as when we ask a friend: How do you understand this passage? Holy Scripture, in his opinion, was the touchstone by which to test the holiest doctors themselves.

Zwinglis course was slow, but progressive. He did not arrive at the truth, like Luther, by those storms which impel the soul to run hastily to its harbour of refuge; he reached it by the peaceful influence of Scripture, whose power expands gradually in the heart.

Zwingli was not fully converted to God and to his Gospel until the earlier years of his residence at Zurich; yet the moment when, in 1514 or 1515, this strong man bent the knee before God, in prayer for the understanding of his Word, was that in which appeared the first glimmering rays of the bright day that after wards beamed upon him.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XI No.VIII Pg.7

October 1974

?You Know What?

Robert F. Turner

Dear Bro. Turner:

Have we "caused division" with anti-class brethren over an expedient? When (if ever) should "individual scruples" be ignored for the good of the majority? T.L.S.

Reply:

Those who promote the class method of teaching act upon what they believe to be divine authority. They believe such specific methods of teaching are authorized in the generic command to "teach," in the same way travel via plane is authorized in the generic "go". (Neither "teach" nor "go" can logically authorize a method of organization.) The expediency involved is, to them, that of finding the best method of doing Gods will.

There probably have been unwarranted divisions caused by adamant attitudes and determination to either have classes, for classes sake; or to keep them out for no better reason. If both parties consider the matter one of expediency or judgement rather than one of faith, then qualified and accepted elders can decide the outcome and brethren will submit to them (1TI.5:12-13), and to one-another (EPH.5:21), for the Lords sake, and for peace. With or without elders, majority opinion should be considered.

When matters of indifference are (by former training) to some a violation of conscience (ROM.14:), those with "scruples" are to be received — treated as brothers — though they will not attend the classes. The same passage teaches that they are to receive as brothers those who have classes. "Let not-him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him" (vs. 3). Note: the "meat" and "days" of ROM.14: were things planted in the conscience of some by training other than from NT sources. They did not claim NT authority for their ideas.

Should such "scruples" determine the course of a congregation? ROM.14:22 says, "Hast thou faith? Have it to thyself before God". We should not try to force a brother to act contrary to his conscience, nor should we try to force a congregation to act on his level of "scruples". Only in collective work (where brethren must act as a team) must an arrangement be found whereby each could "keep faith" (conscience) while respecting the other. (The "no class" man could stay at home until "worship" time) Only when each party respects the convictions of the other, can there be a harmonious relationship. Instead of seeking the "good of the majority" should we not seek the glory of Christ and His cause? This is the basis for unity.

"Parties" (in the sect sense) usually form with a minimum of individual conviction, and a maximum of allegiance to persons and prejudices. But should we grant an honest, objective endeavor on the part of all to learn Gods will on some subject; and should this result in two groups, each convinced that theirs was the only divinely authorized course, we still should have no bitterness and personal animosities. Let them separate, with an equitable division of the property they once held in common. And let each continue to seek truth.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XI No.VIII Pg.8

October 1974

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

Preachers are asked out to many homes, and when there are small children in the home, we can picture what takes place before we arrive. Mother has prepared her favorite fancy foods plus some new recipe she wants to try on the preacher. She has borrowed a lace table-cloth, with the uneven knobs and swirls; and perhaps some dinner candles, to cast shadows. She gets out her best dishes, the tall stemmed water-glasses, the best silver. The top-heavy water glasses balance precariously on the knotty lace cloth; grape jelly is put in a cut-glass bowl, and one is expected to fish the jelly across that lace cloth with a tiny glass spoon. The gravy bowl is a booby-trap: sometimes it is attached to the plate below, sometimes it is not. Woe is me!!

The children are then washed and polished, and given a little lecture. The preacher is coming to dinner, and I expect you to sit at the table like little ladies and gentlemen. You are to mind your manners: say Yes Sir, Please, and Thank you. Keep your fingers out of the food; and if you get one drop of that grape jelly on the table cloth, if you make one bobble, so help the, Ill skin you alive and send you straight to bed.

The kids may as well take their licking and go on to bed. There is no way they can make it through the meal— she has put them under the curse!!

Would you believe that Paul wrote about this to the Galatians? Well, would you believe this illustrates something about which he wrote?

Gal. 3 :10 reads: For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is everyone that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. He does not blame the law (Rom. 7:12-f), nor can we blame a mother for wanting her children to be perfect. But do. .all has an ominous sound to those who recognize their bent for failure. In a system of law (nothing but law and the penalty for failure) there is no forgiveness — and mother laid do the law with no hint of mercy.

But Christ became a curse for us when he died on the cross (Gal. 3:13-) so that through faith in Him, we who strive but fail may be forgiven. The demand to sit up straight is still there, and a spill is a sin; but our hope is in Him who understands and forgives those who come to Him.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XI No.IX Pg.1

November 1974

All We Are People

Robert F. Turner

The husband may be a highly educated scientist, brought up in a city. The wife may be a country girl (met him when she came to town to take nurses training) who understands the man even though she doesnt understand his job. They appreciate one-anothers strengths, and supplement one-another in times of weakness— because they love one-another, and the home they share.

The son is a husky eighteen: football star, self-confident. The older daughter is an uncertain thirteen: so bashful— lady-like one day and all giggles the next. And there is the two-year-old: exasperating, into everything, spoiled, spanked, loved. But together they make a family. The child experiments; mature ones correct and guide. One frets, another forgives. There are storms, but in a pinch they pull together.

These, and greater differences are overcome in order to weld families, teams, businesses, and even nations into useful units of society. If you are successful in business, government, sports, or family life it is probably due in great measure to your ability to adapt to and work with the heterogeneous society of our day. If you are a failure in life, check your ability to get along with folk.

And if the church of which you are a member is plagued by chronic frictions, before you blame it on insurmountable doctrinal differences take a good look at your ability and willingness to get along with people of different social, economic, and domestic backgrounds.

We are not suggesting a course of petting, flattering, or compromising ones convictions. We are aware that genuine issues may divide brethren, and that our individual obligation to God must come first. But dont expect to teach another, in a single lesson, what you learned over many years.

The church is country-city, well-educated and no education; people who have grown up in the church and others who but recently learned Christ in a non-sectarian way. But love for the Lord, and one-another, in that order, can weld us into a close family.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XI No.IX Pg.2

November 1974

Young People's Program

Robert F. Turner

In the small town of Sundridge, Ontario, Ca. 300 miles north of the U.S.— Canadian border, the young folk of a small congregation (45-50) put many of their U. S. counterparts to shame. They are High School and under: with the same love for and participation in sports, parties, etc., that is common with this age. But they also—and preeminently— love the Lord.

They sat together, listening to my sermons and taking notes. Thats fine stroking for a preacher. But it became apparent they had more serious things in mind than pleasing a visiting speaker. I began to hear of their teaching sessions at school and in their homes. They had taken aim on this or that boy or girl, and were working to convert them to Christ. On one occasion I went to a home for a meal, and was told to bring information on the Jewish Sabbath, etc., for a young man would be there to talk about this. I made some notes, and as I began to present them, I found only a few things in my outline that had not already been worked out by the young people who were interested in teaching their Adventist friend. It was gratifying to see the mutual respect shown in such studies. When the prospect showed signs of having had enough for the time, they let up. Let it cool awhile as one of them put it. Older folk should learn that. I heard them speak of a young man who was much interested in the gospel of Christ, but whose parents were opposed to his being baptized. They had a feeling for the boy, and for the parents too. There were rumors the boy would have to leave home if he obeyed the gospel, but one night he walked boldly down the aisle and confessed his faith in Christ. We went to Lake Bernard for the baptizing. As car lights played on the fog-shrouded waters, and a wild duck swam small circles in the edge of the light, the boy and the preacher walked into the cold waves, and we witnessed a burial and a resurrection. Joy swept the band of witnesses like an electric current, and as they sang Oh Happy Day— there was scarcely a dry eye.

It was only after the baptizing, that I learned that the boys parents had been present at the service, and showed approval of the deed. The new brother was welcomed into the circle of Christian boys and girls, and soon I heard they were taking aim on another lost soul— using their fresh reinforcement.

Want the punch line? This church has no Recreation Hall or other Unauthorized church socials. It has, instead, converted young people.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XI No.IX Pg.3

November 1974

Are You Good?

Dan S. Shipley

One of the things that makes good men good is their humility. They know that they are not as good as need to be. Making no claim to perfection, neither blaming others for their imperfections, they continually seek to do and to be better. While such good men are not always right, they ever want to be right— and what one sincerely wants to be speaks volumes about his character. Let it be said to the credit of the weak and sin-plagued Corinthians, they earnestly cared about their condition and sought to clear themselves (2 Cor. 7:11). Good men are never indifferent to their spiritual condition— they seek to be clear (pure); they hunger and thirst after righteousness (Matt. 5:6) because they are truly concerned about their standing with God.

Accordingly, the good man, having recognized that right is not relative and that the way of man is not in himself (Jer. 10:23), turns to God for his direction and standard of right. Good men become godly men; they come to have that piety which, characterizes by a Godward attitude, does that which is well-pleasing to Him (Vine). As the Psalmist puts it, The steps of a good man are ordered by the Lord; and he delighteth in his way. (Ps. 37:23). Lifes journey without God is dark and dangerous. Knowing this, the good man does not look within himself, but to God and His word which becomes a lamp unto his feet and a light unto his path (Ps. 119:105). Thus, we see the strong correlation existing between good men and truth. Good men want to be right; truth determines right; therefore they reverence Gods word which is truth (Jn. 17:11). Hence, it is the honest and good (heart) that will hear the word, hold it fast and bring forth fruit (Lk. 8:15). Some prove themselves to be less than good by refusing to hear the word of God. Good men are not ruled by prejudice. Instead, they are ever willing to come to the light that their works may be made manifest (Jn. 3:21). Good men are not only willing to prove themselves, whether they are in the faith (2 Cor. 13:5); they likewise respect Gods admonition to prove ALL things in order that they may hold fast to that which is good (1 Thss. 5:21).

Hearing the word is one thing—Jesus says the good man will also hold it fast or accept it (Mk. 4:20). In Proverbs this is called buying the truth (Prov. 23:23). Paul showed the Corinthians how that salvation depends on holding fast the word (1 Cor. 15:3). Accepting truth means turning away from wrong; it means change. Good men are willing to make whatever changes are necessary to put them right with God. Some otherwise good men allow pride to hinder needful changes. Holding fast to friends or tradition becomes more important to them than truth. Like others, they exchange the truth of God for a lie (Rom. 1:25) to their own eternal detriment.

Consequently fruits of righteousness are brought forth by such good men as hear and hold fast Gods truth. Herein is God glorified (Jn. 15:8) and man saved. Being counted as good by men is not good enough. Unless were good like God wants us to be, what have we profited?

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XI No.IX Pg.4

November 1974

Failures Of Disciples

Robert F. Turner

When Jesus sent the twelve to introduce the kingdom of heaven he commanded, Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils. . . (Matt. 10:7-f.) But on one occasion they failed in this work.

Lu. 9:40 says, I besought thy disciples to cast him out; and they could not. When Jesus had cast out the demon embarrassed disciples asked, Why could not we cast him out? and they were told, This kind can come forth by nothing but by prayer and fasting. (Mk. 9:28-29) Matthew says Jesus also charged them with unbelief (17:20).

Jesus sought to teach his disciples re. his coming death (Lu. 9:44-f; Mk. 9:30-f.) but they did not understand— language that is very clear to us. And they feared to ask him.

The disciples disputed among themselves who should be greatest, and Jesus had to rebuke them for their lack of humility. (Lu. 9:46-f; Mk. 9:33)

John sought to evade the force of rebuke by telling how he had forbidden one to work miracles in Jesus name because he followeth not with us (Lu. 9:49-f; Mk. 9:38-f.); and Jesus had to further rebuke John for his sectarian spirit. Truth and the promotion of Christs cause are the standards of judgement, not ones social or party relations. John had the cart before the horse.

And then John and James became so indignant because the Samaritans refused to extend hospitality unto the Christ that they suggested, Lets burn them up, or words to that effect. (Lu. 9: 51-56) This just wasnt Johns best day. Jesus rebuked them, saying, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.

Now consider carefully! Disciples of the Lord failed repeatedly, and for reasons that may affect our work today. They failed in their work because they lacked dedication. (Faith, prayer, and fasting— a setting aside of time for spiritual matters.) They failed to understand clear teachings of the Lord because preconception or prejudices re. the kingdom blinded their eyes to truth. (Cf. Matt. 16:21-23; Acts 1:6 ;Matt. 13:13-16) They accepted many truths re. the kingdom but that Jesus should be crucified—never!! And such prejudices made it easy for them to fail with respect to the needful humility. Misconceptions concerning the kingdom led them to want to be big shots.

A man could do a miracle, in the name of Christ, to promote the cause of Christ— worthy of no censure from the Lord— but be rejected by John on childish and sectarian grounds: he followeth not us, i.e., does not travel in our party. Then James and John seemed to think they could serve the Lord with a vengeful carnal spirit. They failed to distinguish carnal and spiritual warfare.

If those who walked with the Lord literally, hearing him teach and seeing his wondrous works— if they could fail in these ways, and for these reasons— what about us?? Do we allow a carnal spirit, selfish ambitions, a sectarian concept of church, prejudices, and lack of dedication—to mar our life with FAILURES?

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XI No.IX Pg.5

November 1974

Are God's Ways Equal?

Robert F. Turner

This page may prove me no classic theologian, but I believe the ordinary reader can get my points. It is high time we asked ourselves a few basic questions about the man God made, and how God deals with him.

Did God make Adam so that he was incapable of doing rightly? If so, is not God responsible for his sin? In fact, is not mans capacity to willingly serve God the very basis for divine justice in condemning man when he sins? The consequences of Adams sin, passed upon succeeding generations by environment, is not here under consideration. We ask, is it inherent in the God-made nature of man that he will sin? The concept is contrary to revelations of divine truth.

Does God impute the sin of one man to another? Ezekiel answers: The soul that sinneth, it shall die: the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father Etc., (18:19-f.). Then where do we get this ...disobedience of Adam is imputed to the whole human race...? (Way of Salvation, K. C. Moser) Is it the inherent nature of men to die spiritually because Adam sinned? Rom. 5:12 refers to a death that is passed upon all men, for that all have sinned even though some sins were not after the similitude of Mans. . there being no codified law from Adam to Moses. THAT I have sinned, is not the basic question here. Rather, does God count me a sinner because of my own sin, or because someone else sinned? The same justice of God that condemns sin will, in principle, hold a man guiltless until he sins. If not, why not? Ezekiel concludes his arguments on the fairness of God by saying, Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord Jehovah. (18:30) In the New Testament we are assured of the righteous judgement of God who will render to every man according to his deeds, (Rom. 2:5-11; 2 Cor. 5:l0).

From childhood I have been taught that mans righteousness, no matter how wonderful, is inadequate. He does sin, and must depend upon the Lamb of God, offered for sins, as Savior. No ordinary man has lived so as to merit justification— freedom from guilt. He is washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. In 40 years of preaching I have never been conscious of teaching salvation in any way other than through trust in Jesus Christ. Ill continue to do so.

But where do the scriptures teach that what man does in submissive obedience to the Lord, is filthy rags? Not Isa. 64:5-f., which begins thou meetest (sparest, f.n.) him that... worketh righteousness. Note Phil. 3:9, which contrasts the self-sufficient concept of righteousness (Do. .All of Gal. 3:10— freedom from guilt via perfect life) with the righteousness attainable through trust in the crucified Christ for forgiveness. God does not disparage whatever righteousness man can do. He commends this kind of life (1 Jn. 3:7).

Brethren are now being taught concepts of grace which find their basis in false doctrines of inherited depravity — denying the free agency of man and the fairness of God.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XI No.IX Pg.6

November 1974

Thirty Years Ago

Robert F. Turner

Browsing some 45, 46, 47 editions of Truth in Love (Alabama), it is clear that often those who warned of digression in the organization and work of the church, did not grasp the extent of coming digression nor some fundamentals needed to stop it.

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

Garvin M. Toms (T.I.L., June 47): It should be borne in mind that each congregation is an individual entity. Although it is a part of the body and is related to every other congregation, yet it is independent of all others so far as its government is concerned and is subject only to its Head. The members of Christs body are not congregations, but saints. (1 Cor. 12:l2-f) The sister churches concept was the basic fallacy of Alex. Campbell, and led to the missionary society then, and to the multi-church arrangements of today.

Toms, again: One congregation might assist another in a good work; and several churches may unite their efforts to accomplish more as did the churches of Macedonia in contributing to the poor saints in Judea. But the New Testament authorizes no organization larger than the local congregation or smaller than the church as a whole for either missionary or charitable purposes. (1) When churches send independently to the same need, (as did churches of Macedonia and Corinth— study 1 Cor. 16:1-3 each does its own work of sending alms to the needy church. If unite their effort means pooling funds at the disposition of an executive board or sponsoring elders, (2a) this is not what the Macedonian churches did; and (2b) in such we have formed an organization larger than the local, church. Highland in Abilene is not a church in need, yet her elders oversee and spend the funds of thousands of churches. It is the organizational medium for the contributing churches radio and TV work. The N. T. does not put local elders over brotherhood work.

Glenn L. Wallace (T.I.L., Mar. 45) says, There is as much authority for a United Christian Missionary Society in the Church today, as there is for some editor, some school president or some preacher to name himself the organizer and the solicitor for missions among the Churches. Glenn had made reference to the late chief of missions much in the news of 45. Is there any more authority for some sponsoring church to name herself the organizer and the solicitor for missions among the churches? None!!

Billy H. Hood (T.I.L., Dec. 46): Let it be clearly understood that the work of the church is not simply to entertain: it is not to compete with the organizations of men, the modern theatres, and places of amusement. Further it is not to do the work of the Community Chest or the Red Cross. The work of the church is much greater than any human organization. It has a work that no human institution in the world can do. Its primary work is to teach and preach to men and women the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ by which they are to be saved. . . Amen! But I would cut out the word simply. Other than that— if bro. Hood is still living today, I wonder what he thinks of the current social work of some churches?

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XI No.IX Pg.7

November 1974

?You Know What?

Robert F. Turner

Dear Bro. Turner:

Please explain ROM.4:5........"to him that worketh not ... his faith is counted for righteousness."

Reply:

Paul is contrasting two systems by which a man is justified, i.e., justly acquitted of sin, there being no guilt. Via "law" or "works" only, one could be free of guilt only by breaking no law, doing all that perfectness requires. When he says (vs. 4) "to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt" he is supposing someone could "work" perfectly all that was required of him— thereby earning his freedom from any guilt. This is clearly a theoretic supposition, for arguments sake, for he has already shown (3:23) that "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." So, "to him that worketh not" does not mean to one who renders no obedience whatsoever, but points to the man who realizes the inadequacy of relying on a system of works, and turns instead to trust in Christ.

"God imputeth righteousness without works" — not by clothing us with something not ours, but by forgiving us of something that is ours, namely, our sins. ROM.5:9 says we are justified by Christs blood. ROM.4:6-8 is not disparaging such "work" (obedience as one may render) but teaches that our hope lays not in perfectness (via system of works) but in Gods promise to forgive — in Christ.

In our emphasis upon obedience and over-simplification of "the gospel" — as though it consisted of "steps" of obedience — we have likely under emphasized the true significance of the cross, its vindication of the justice and righteousness of God, etc.

We may be encouraged and rejoice that many younger preachers are "digging in" to such matters, and seeking to make our faith in Christ more meaningful. But the commentaries and theological source books for much of this "fresh", "new" (to us) thinking, are steeped in Calvinism or like reasoning. While searching for better ways to express our dependence upon Christ, many are being "sold a bill of goods" on grace, imputation of righteousness, etc. The word "faith" is being given Calvinistic flavor, and I catch the scent of inherent depravity and a direct operation of the Holy Spirit.

As "works" in ROM.4:5 refers to a system of works, so "faith" is used in the broad sense of trust in Jesus Christ for forgiveness and eternal life. The contrast is in a system of works or law (exemplified by the Old Covenant, through Moses) and in the system of faith, or New Covenant. The Apostle is not saying that one who does not obey —who believes but does not obey — will be counted righteous. Faith in Christ embraces a submission of our will to His, and a sincere effort to obediently serve Him. But having recognized our own inadequacies — realizing that to seek justification via "works" is to be "under the curse" (GAL.3:10-f); we are constantly aware that our trust must be in Him (where there is forgiveness rather than in our imperfect "law keeping."

"Law" (the generic authority of God in Christ) is "established" not destroyed by faith in Christ. (3:31)

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XI No.IX Pg.8

November 1974

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

Remember the midnight ride of Paul Revere? Of course you do— for most of our readers live south of the Canadian border. Dashing bravely through the night, he warned American patriots The British are coming, the British are coming! I Perfectly natural!

But how many of you have heard of Laura Secord? Laura who? Laura Secord, the Canadian patriot. American troops were billeted in her home at Queens-town, Ontario (or Queenston). Having overheard plans for an attack on Beaver Dam, she walked twenty miles to warn her countrymen. She escaped detection by driving a cow ahead of her as though taking the cow home for milking. Her cry was, in effect, The Americans are coming, the Americans are coming!! In the battle, June 23, 1813, the British surrounded American troops and tricked them into surrendering. It all has a strange sound to us doesnt it? It isnt strange here.

This is being written in Bancroft, Ont., ca. 200 miles north of the U.S. border, where I am in a gospel meeting. This work has taken me through the Niagara Peninsula, and to Sundridge (150 miles N.W. of here), where we have been royally treated by fruit-growers, mechanics, lumbermen — folk rich and poor. No one wants to continue the War of 1812. I only want to impress you with how differently matters look from this side of the line.

Most of us give lip service to the importance of walking in the other mans shoes but we make little effort to practice this attitude when we are involved in differences. It is hard enough to get opponents to try to understand one-anothers position, much less to appreciate how and why the position is attractive to anyone. Yet, even gross error is best overcome when it is properly understood and arguments can be intelligently directed. How many of you have read debates only to see what your man said — just skimming through the opposition? I have been badly misrepresented by opponents who had my works on their desk, but who obviously had studied only what was said against me.

It is good for us to know about the Laura Secords of other countries. Their brave deeds are appreciated, even when threatening our cause, because they were done for love of country. Makes me regret this last ironic note. The long cow-drive was not necessary, for Indians had already told the British of the coming Yanks.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XI No.X Pg.1

December 1974

Spiritual Warfare

Robert F. Turner

Ask me about the needs among our brethren, and you may get an answer that seems contradictory. We need to stiffen up, take a more firm stand against error, fight the good fight of faith; and we need to develop more compassion, humility, a greater respect for others, including enemies.

To some this is like recommending a soft, musical battle cry; like trying to teach a dog to fight another dog without growling, bristling, or showing the teeth. As a battle tactic the soft approach is difficult to maintain— heap coals of fire so we can enjoy watching him squirm — but we have nothing like this in mind. We are talking about really loving our enemies— treating them fairly as we would that men should do to us. It seems a contradiction of nature does it not? And it is that— a paradox.

How can one be GREAT in the role of a slave (Matt. 20:25-28)? Or Lord and Master as a washer of feet (Jn. 13:12-17)? How can one save his life by losing it (Matt. 10:39)? Tell me how one could become Savior and King by hanging upon a cruel cross??

It is not difficult for me to comprehend the bewilderment and frustration of the apostle Peter. His confidence that Jesus would not be slain was rebuked as Satan and thou savourest not the things that be of God but those that be of men. (Matt. 16:) Peter was willing to fight for the Lord, but it was hard to grasp the nature of the battle to be fought. We have much the same problem today.

Undoubtedly, genuine strength begets confidence, poise, and a certain magnanimity of soul. A man rarely barks back at a dog. When the argument is weak we pound the pulpit; but a solid grasp of truth makes its own emphasis when directly presented. If we could only believe in the power of the gospel to the extent we claim!!

What seems, and probably is a contradiction of fleshly nature, is wholly in accord with the spiritual nature which God would develop within us (2 Cor. 10:3-f). Some of us need to stand more firmly; some need to trim their volume and their spirits; but all need to rely more upon God than upon horse and carnal armor.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XI No.X Pg.2

December 1974

I See In My Notes

Robert F. Turner

As we travel through the country my eyes and ears are open — saw 17 geese as we crossed the Tennessee rv. in northern Alabama — and we share these vignettes of life with you in our effort to keep our work people-oriented. Now, from our note-book:

Somewhere I read a formal marriage announcement which said: Believing that marriage is ordained of God, Mr. and Mrs. ***** and Mr. and Mrs. ***** request the honor of your presence at the ceremony in which their children: ** and ** will become one in Christ.

That stopped me! First thought — his must be a unique way of telling about a baptizing. But no — it was a marriage announcement — and continued by saying, This celebration of love will be at **** Church of Christ. It is further proof of the appalling ignorance of some who claim to be members of the Lords body. (We charitably assume that had they known better they would never have said such.)

But common sense and emotions do not always mix well, and the outcome may be bizarre. My note book also has an entry concerning the couple who wished to be baptized together (enter and leave the same tomb); so the preacher somehow managed to stand them side by side, say whatever he said, and then immerse them with the same motion. Touching, isnt it? But emotions and superstition may have overruled the individual aspect of obedience — or this may just prove how cranky an editor can be.

Middle Tennessee is buzzing. When W.S.M. (Channel 4, T. V., Nashville) sent reporters to do a story on the Tennessee Orphan Home (Spring Hill, Tenn.) they found unfavorable conditions. The news cast did not suit the TOH officials, and they took on WSM which was a whoppin Saturday night blunder. WSM dug up and broadcasted that TOH has large cash securities drawing interest instead of being used to provide for the needs of the children. Hmmmm!!

Parents, have you any idea of how. many students get lost when they go away to College? One study in an Ala. city shows that of those from liberal churches, only about one in ten are regularly faithful in worship; three in ten come once or twice a yr. Those from conservative churches did but little better; about three in ten were regularly faithful, while Ca. six in ten worshipped once or twice a month. The pattern is: (l) cut out church associates, (2) experiment with other religions, (3) date non-Christians, (4) in trouble. We had better work harder here at home.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XI No.X Pg.3

December 1974

Sorrow That Saves

Dan S. Shipley

God tells men they must repent in order to be saved (LUK.13:3; ACT.17:30, e.g.). Some say this is the hardest command to obey. I dont know whether they refer to changing the mind (heart) or changing a practice, but suspect the latter. The man who would alter his life-style without altering his attitude faces an almost impossible task. On the other hand, changing the will not only helps, it almost assures the outward change.

But, as the starting point of repentance is not changing externals, neither is it in the changing of the mind, though both are vital to true repentance. Even behind these there must be godly sorrow, the seed of character alteration. "For godly sorrow worketh repentance..." (2 COR. 7:10). Such sorrow is as necessary as the repentance it produces. Only the contrite heart is changeable, and even then its sorrow must be of the "godly sort" (2 Cor. 7:11). Not all sorrow that pervades and influences the heart is godly. Paul writes of a sorrow that is "of the world" and which "worketh death" (2 COR. 7:10). Worldly sorrow does not accomplish godly ends. Sinners may be genuinely sorry for their wrong-doing and for the shame and disgrace it has brought to them and their family WITHOUT BEING PROPERLY CONCERNED ABOUT SINNING AGAINST GOD!! They may confess and lament their sins, even "come forward" in tears — but without Godly Grief! Their response is not Godward; it is not in reference to God; it is not out of regard for God; therefore, it is not approved of God. Only godly sorrow can change mans heart and life in the way that is "unto salvation." In commenting on godly sorrow, Albert Barnes says this term "shows the exact nature of that sorrow which is connected with a return to God." (Barnes on the NT, 2CO.-GAL.). He continues by showing it to be the kind of sorrow approved by God; the kind which is exercised toward God in view of sin; and the kind which leads to God in seeking forgiveness. Joseph saw a connection between sin and God that all men need to see. When tempted, he asks: "How then can I do this great wickedness and sin against God?" (GEN. 39:9). David came to see sin as Joseph had seen it and his prayer in PSA.51: plainly indicates his godly sorrow. No man partakes of the divine nature while being indifferent to sin. "The fear of the Lord is to hate evil..." (PRO.8:13). The God we sin against is the One we are to love above all. He so loved us that He gave His Son to save us from sin (JOH.3:16). The cross shows the magnitude of sin — but it shows the magnitude of Gods love as well. Learning of both helps one to come to that godly sorrow that works repentance — a repentance, as Paul says, that "bringeth no regret".

How true! The godly sorrow and all that it leads to — the changed mind, the reformed life, the salvation — has never brought regret to a single soul! Reams have been written about the regrets of men, but the first sentence is yet to be written of any regret in turning to God. Where is the man who was ever sorry for having been reconciled to God or having served Him too faithfully or too long? Youll never find such a man — and youll never be one either!

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XI No.X Pg.4

December 1974

Extra-Biblical Adjuncts

Robert F. Turner

I am told that in the ACC Preacher - Elder workshop some last-generation arguments were resurrected in defense of the sponsoring church arrangement. The missionary society is an extra - Biblical organization, we were told, but the sponsoring church creates no extra - Biblical organization. I have a feeling this generation can see right through that. Government, business, and churches have pushed credulity to the saturation point by offering the same old institutional or bureaucratic mess under a new name — or as a subdivision of some highly respected branch of the establishment.

What was the missionary society in the first place? A means or medium through which a plurality of churches could function as one— in evangelistic or benevolent projects. The executive board received funds in trust and dispensed those funds for the proposed work. That was its essence; but its domination of the churches (which so many preachers parrot when condemning the society) are abuses of its intended role. Today the sponsoring church arrangement is just another means or medium through. which a plurality of churches function as one. Even abuses are alike, as one can see by the recent history of the Highland church in Abilene.

Elders of the sponsoring church occupy a Biblical role while overseeing their own flock and dispensing the funds of that flock in scriptural work. They take on an extra-Biblical role when they become the executive board which receives and dispenses funds of contributing churches for some proposed churchhood work. In this role they are the heart of an extra -Biblical organization — and the error is not erased by virtue of their continued role as local elders.

By law, the jurisdiction of our local sheriff is Burnet county. If the law is ignored, and our sheriff either takes or is given state-wide functions, do we change the facts of the case because he continues as the Burnet County sheriff? Until the law is changed, he would be guilty of extra-legal (or, more bluntly, of illegal) activity.

All attempts to find diocesan or brotherhood project elders in the scriptures have failed. Alms sent to a dependent church (needy saints, 2 Cor. 8:) is certainly not the same as funds pooled in an independent church, whose elders serve as executive board for a world-wide work; and thinking people can see that. But the blind and/or weak-hearted are being led (by prejudice and false argument toward a restructured church.

I do not mean this is a conscious goal of institutional brethren generally. Most of them would recoil at such a charge — and rightly so. I do not believe our brethren of the last century deliberately led the church into what this generation developed. But zeal without knowledge, or without a willingness to apply the basic principles of congregational independence to their inter-church plans, prepared the way for the restructured Disciples denomination. And sure as God made little green apples todays sponsoring church multi-church projects are extra-Biblical and wrong.