Plain Talk

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.III No.X Pg.6

November 1966

As Historians See It ---

Robert F. Turner

From Philip Schaff's HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, Vol.2, p.19-f.

----------------------------------------------------

"It is a remarkable fact that after the days of the Apostles no names of great missionaries are mentioned till the opening of the middle ages, when the conversion of nations were effected or introduced by a few individuals as St. Patrick in Ireland, St. Columba in Scotland, St. Augustine in England, St. Boniface in Germany, St. Ansgar in Scandinavia, St. Cyril and Methodius among the Slavonic races. There were no missionary societies, no missionary institutions, no organized efforts in the ante-Nicene age; and yet in less than 300 years from the death of St. John the whole population of the Roman empire which then represented the civilized world was nominally Christianized.

To understand this astonishing fact, we must remember that the foundation was laid strong and deep by the apostles themselves. The seed scattered by them from Jerusalem to Rome, and fertilized by their blood, sprung up as a bountiful harvest. The word of our Lord was again fulfilled on a larger scale: "One soweth, and another reapeth. I sent you to reap that whereon ye have not labored: others have labored, and ye are entered into their labor." (John 4:38)

Christianity once established was its own best missionary. It grew naturally from within. It attracted people by its very presence. It was a light shining in darkness and illuminating the darkness. And while there were no professional missionaries devoting their whole life to this specific work, every congregation was a missionary society, and every Christian believer a missionary, inflamed by the love of Christ to convert his fellow-men. The example had been set by Jerusalem and Antioch, and by those brethren who, after the martyrdom of Stephen, "were scattered abroad and went about preaching the Word." Justin Martyr was converted by a venerable old man whom he met walking on the shore of the sea. "Every Christian laborer," says Tertullian, "both finds out God and manifests him, though Plato affirms that it is not easy to discover the Creator, and difficult when He is found to make him known to all."

Celsus scoffingly remarks that fullers and workers in wool and leather, rustic and ignorant persons, were the most zealous propagators of Christianity, and brought it first to women and children. Women and slaves introduced it into the home-circle.

It is the glory of the gospel that it is preached to the poor and by the poor to make them rich. Origen informs us that the city churches sent their missionaries to the villages. The seed grew up while men slept, and brought forth fruit, first the blade then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear. Every Christian told his neighbor, the laborer to his fellow-laborer, the slave to his fellow-slave, the servant to his master and mistress, the story of his conversion as a mariner tells the story of the rescue from shipwreck."

-------------------------------------------------

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.III No.X Pg.7

November 1966

Queries And Answers

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner: 

Boles Home is just a "home" like any other home, except for substitute parents. If churches can support any home, why can't they support Boles home? Please answer plainly.

Reply: 

(1) Scriptures do not teach us to support any "home" as an institution, divine or otherwise. Failure to see this makes the first big "gap" in the "home" support argument. Basic needs of poor saints were supplied (ACT.6:; ROM.15:26, etc.) but even this was not a blanket "support" in the modern sense of taking responsibility. Lazy needy saints were not fed (2TH.3:10-12). Younger widows were not "taken into the number" -- and whatever that means, it describes the open door for the "widow indeed" (1TI.5:9-16).

We are far wide of the mark when we think of the church as a fund-raising institution, for the support of any other institution, even of another church. Emergency assistance to a church in need (2CO.8:) is a far cry from "contributing church-sponsoring church" roles of today.

(2) Boles Home qualifies as "home" about like a "Home Cooking" sign on a Manhattan restaurant. It is a place to sleep and eat, etc., like a ship for a sea-borne sailor, a "home away from home" -- and I'm sure many unfortunate children appreciate it as such. I do not depreciate the general welfare function such benevolent societies perform. But it is not the work of the organized church; and it is absurd to call this highly institutionalized refuge a "home" in the same sense as a father, mother, and their children make a "home". The so-called "parents" in these institutions (and they can't make up their minds who the "parents" are-??) do not support their own "children" to the extent of their ability, and then take assistance only when their own funds are exhausted. They draw a salary (often very substantial) for the "care" they render. This is home?

The charters of these benevolent societies (called "homes") clearly show their institutional status. The executive board of Boles Home ("parents" according to some) are also in control of the Stephenville Home. Does this make them bigamists? In the Birmingham debate Guy N. Woods repudiated such an arrangement -- said he would oppose such if it ever came. Well, it came! But Guy is quiet now.

In reality, the "home" argument is strictly for local consumption -- for such as the writer of this question -- for use in debate, to confuse the gullible listener. The Superintendent, the executive board, the legal papers, the planners of these benevolent societies know better. I can, and do grant that they feel this is a worthy work; and since they accept the social gospel philosophy of church work, they feel this should be supported by churches. But they know their society is not a "home" in the sense it is often presented to the brethren.

If they would divorce their society from the church they would have a fine human benevolent institution.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.III No.X Pg.8

November 1966

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

Out in Arizona they tell about a "never say die" Judge who sentenced an old man

to 20 years at hard labor.

The prisoner pled, "I'm 90 years old, your honor, and I won't live another twenty years."

To which the Judge replied, "Well, just get in there and do the best you can!"

That's the old spirit -- of sorts. Anyhow, it reminds me of an attitude all too scarce these days; the bull-headedness, try, try again, that will not give up.

People who succeed at anything are usually a special breed that go ahead and "do it" after it is impossible. They have learned to use troubles and failures as their stepping stones to the top.

I once heard of a mishap which spread a black indelible stain across a young lady's expensive evening gown. The girl looked at the stain, and cried. Her artist boy friend looked at the stain, called for a brush and more of the same indelible liquid, and enlarged the original stain to a beautiful design which complemented the dress.

One winter morning our Arizona mountain town was blanketed with deep snow. The aging president of a bank came to work on skis, atop the same stuff that kept lesser employees home.

Morals? Horatio Alger stories? Perhaps so -- and why not?? Our modern sophisticated and blase society does little to make better men of us. The "hep" hip-swinging, banner-toting, parasites of our day are dime-a-dozen. And who is to mind the store? Those who learn unselfish principles of honesty, hard work, and "try again." We sorely need those who dare to be the "squares."

And the principle is much the same in the cause of Christ. The church member who lives only on the excitement of controversy, or the glamour of "Campaigns for Christ" is of little genuine value. The future of our work for Christ depends upon those sturdy souls who work on -- overcoming obstacles as a matter of course -- asking no quarter with the world, and giving none. They live, not to do that which is easy, but that which is right. If, and when they fail, they get up and try again. God asks no more!!

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.III No.XI Pg.1

December 1966

Attention Please!

Robert F. Turner

If we are to reach the world with the gospel of Christ --"first, we must get their attention." Even the muleskinner knows that.

But their attention to WHAT? Do we expect to win them to Christ by getting their attention to a circus??

Some ballyhoo "our" golf-players, singers, movie stars -- in brief, just about every thing we can rake up to prove we are like the world, or more so. This is supposed to convince the world that its ways are vain, and should be discarded? "Our" church is growing, "everybody is doing it" -- seems a strange way to convince folk that few will be saved. (Matt.7:14)

Even a Christian's good works: his concern for the needy, or his capable teaching of the word, are often given a "twist" toward commercialization. Commenting on the high-pressure promotion of "The World's Greatest Evangelist" someone said, "Christ may be there, but He certainly didn't get top billing."

Leaven in the bread dough doesn't need trumpets and ruffles to get its job done. The power is within the product. It sets about doing its job, and that advertises its presence. (See Matt. 13:33) The LIGHT which we are to set on a hill is our work, not a neon sign which boasts of our celebrities.

"Thinking BIG" involves concern for the whole world, and making a sincere effort to reach the whole world with the gospel; WITH THE GOSPEL!! We must present nothing more nor less than the simple truth. Those whose attention is not attracted to that must be by-passed so that truth may be carried to others.

It hurts me to know that many folk in my own hometown will not heed the truth of God. I wish they were more interested in spiritual things -- that they would welcome open studies of matters that pertain to the church of the Lord, and to our salvation.

Perhaps I could interest them in a good barbecue, an area-wide "social", or even a "union" meeting that would disregard scriptural convictions. But only attention to Christ will save.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.III No.XI Pg.2

December 1966

Pride And Prejudice

Robert F. Turner

Recently an evangelist in our town characterized those who have taken a stand on God's word, as it relates to the organizational structure of the church, as "A LITTLE BUNCH THAT WON'T AMOUNT TO MUCH."

No harm was done the "little bunch" for they long ago learned to take in stride such carnal barbs. But this sort of thing could do much harm to those who supported the evangelist. Already weakened by compromise with convictions, bowing to pressure tactics of "the majority," this appeal to pride and prejudice could move them one step further in sectarianism.

When a thing is despised because of its size -- when size rather than truth is used as a standard -- pride has taken the place of principle. God warns us (through his encouragement of Zerubbabel) about "despising the day of small things." He says further: "Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith Jehovah of hosts." (Zech. 4:6-10)

And as for "amounting to much" we remember that this depends upon who is making the evaluation. The poor church in Smyrna was rich in God's sight; and the great church of Laodicea (thinking they needed nothing) were "wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked" in God's sight. (Rev. 2:9 3:17) Think what these brethren would say to some large sectarian church that would ignore their plea for open Bible study on the Ground that "You are a, little bunch, and don't amount to much!" (Back when "Come, Let Us Reason Together" was a part of their plea.) Can't you hear their protest: "God is a majority!" "Let God be true but every man a liar!" (Rom. 3:4) And so, on and on!!

Our liberal brethren once knew well the battle with pride and prejudice; for they were then small, and subject to such scorn from sectarians. But now they are large, grown fat, and in the absence of scriptural authority for their practices, they do one more thing like the sectarians. They use pride and prejudice.

--------------------------

I will close my '66 "away from home" work with lectures on The N.T. Church -- Southside congr., Springfield, Mo., Dec. 26-30.

In '67, meeting work will take me to Longview, Dallas, Lufkin, Lubbock, and S. Houston, Texas; and Tuckerman, Ark., and Phoenix, Arizona; D. V.

Thanks for your many letters.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.III No.XI Pg.3

December 1966

"Taught Of God"

Robert F. Turner

"It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me" (JOH.6:45).

If we read this passage hurriedly, and without regard to context, we may think Jesus is saying we must be taught about God. That sounds reasonable; but it is not his point. Both the context and the grammatical construction of the statement show Jesus refers to source -- we must receive teaching from a divine source.

Following the feeding of the five thousand Jesus warned the people who followed Him for material reasons. He said that He was the true bread sent from heaven; (JOH.6:26-35) and that He came to do the will of God (vs.38). It is in this context that He says none can come to Him except the Father draw him. Then, "they shall be all taught of God". Their only hope was to accept Jesus, as being from God.

This same genitive construction is found in MAT.25:34, "Come ye blessed of my Father" which means that the blessings enjoyed had God as their source. See also PHI.1.

The Mysteries of the Ancients were a "feeling after" God, according to human philosophy. The Cabalist, with their numbers; the weird rites of the Egyptians; and their counterparts in the secret lodges of today -- all seek God apart from true divine revelation. The Naturalist, who seeks God in the marvels of the universe; and the philosopher, who seeks God within the confines of his own mind -- all these are doomed to failure. We must be taught of God. Truth must come from Him. A true appreciation of the idea of God enforces the need for revelation. Man can go to the earth and study the rocks. He formulates theories, and tests them by further appeal to the object of his study. He grinds the rock, heats it, analyzes it. But the very nature of God prohibits His being subject to human judgment. "Who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been His counselor?" (ROM.11:33-f). If we are to know of God, He must come to us; must reveal Himself.

And that is exactly what He did in sending His Son. Paul says, "In Him dwelleth all the fullness of the God-head bodily" (COL.2:6-10). Nothing more than Christ, as teacher and perfect example, is needed. In Him alone the "Great Architect" is manifested. Through His word, the divine source, the will of God is made known to man.

"How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him" (HEB.2:3).

Faith in God can not weather long absence from His word. We either feed on His truths, growing stronger; or we drift into a skeptical world, our original faith and knowledge being constantly diluted by human reason. Fleshly appetites become our teacher, we are "taught of the world" to use its carnal methods to gain our ends.

What a pity -- for heaven is there for those who will be taught of God.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.III No.XI Pg.4

December 1966

Christians Are "Together"

Robert F. Turner

Luke said of early Christians, "All that believed were together, and had all things common." (Acts 2:44) I believe "togetherness" is an essential characteristic of Christians, to be acquired and cultivated. We must, however, distinguish between business association and true "oneness." Some congregations maintain organic oneness (through pride or a strong executive board) while lacking the essence of God-inspired unity.

1 Thes.5: 10 says we should live together with Christ -- which produces self-edification and comfort. And on this basis (oneness in Christ) we are to esteem highly our overseers "in the Lord."

Then in vs. 14, Paul gives four practical instructions by which togetherness among brethren may be maintained. You warn the unruly, comfort the fainthearted (rv), support the weak, and be patient to all, weak or strong. These instructions, followed, will weave an unbreakable bond among brethren. (Re-read, and meditate.)

In 1 Cor. 12: Paul seeks to correct strife among saints by comparing the church to a physical body, with the same need for correlation of parts. Again, oneness in Christ is, of course, the basic consideration. But Paul elaborates upon the essence of unity by suggesting certain essentials.

First, the UNITY OF NECESSITY -- realizing that all parts of the body have need of one-another. We can no more do without loyal brethren -- even those which seem the most feeble -- than the eye can say to the hand, I have no need of thee. (Vs. 21-22)

Second, THE UNITY OF APPRECIATION. The recognition of value (for this is the basic meaning in "honor") would cause us to work more closely and fully with fellow-saints. This togetherness is, as already stated, within the framework of God's plan; and does not warrant the forming of organizational structures larger or smaller than the local church." (Vs. 23-24)

Third, THE UNITY OF CONCERN. When brethren really "care" for one-another there can be "no schism in the body" for bickering and strife will not grow in an atmosphere of genuine love. Differences?? Oh, yes!! But brethren who care will warn the unruly, comfort the fainthearted, support the weak, and be patient toward all. If discipline is necessary, it will be done because of "care" for the soul -- a final effort to save the lost. (V.25)

Fourth, THE UNITY OF SYMPATHY. We feel with our brethren; so that if one suffers all suffer, and if one be honored, all rejoice. (Vs. 26)

There are many members, yet but one body; and that body enjoys a special kind of "togetherness." It is not the oneness of organic ties to a Pope or council; nor the oneness of orthodoxy in a man-made creed; nor the oneness of sectarian pride. It is the result of our feeling of NEED for one another, appreciating the VALUES of our brethren, genuine CONCERN and SYMPATHY; all within the framework of our common desire to serve the Lord.

Nothing Short Of This Is "Of Christ."

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.III No.XI Pg.5

December 1966

The Glorious Church

Robert F. Turner

Christ "loved the church, and gave Himself for it;" (so reads Eph. 5:25)

'THAT" (Greek "hina"---"so that, in order that") "he might sanctify and cleanse it..." (vs. 26).

'THAT" (hina) "he might present it to himself a glorious church." This "glorious church is defined as one "not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing;" but one that is "holy and without blemish." It is a fitting description of the bride of Christ.

Love is the motive that prompted Christ's sacrifice; and the instruments of sanctification and cleansing are here stated as "the washing of water by the word."

Carefully read Eph. 5:25-27 and ask yourself these questions: (1) HOW is the church sanctified and cleansed; and (2) WHEN does this take place? We note that some seem to think there is a future time when, by some process undefined, Christ will cleanse the present filthy, sinful church. Current imperfections are thus excused. We beg to differ with this traditional interpretation. We do not question the future reception of the church as the bride of Christ; (2 Cor. 11:2-3; Rev. 21:2) but we believe the "setting apart" and "cleansing" is NOW taking place, and has been in process every since the gospel of Christ was first preached. To be in the "glorious" church of the future, one must be sanctified and cleansed NOW.

Christ died for a church yet in prospect. (Matt. 16:18) He "purchased with his own blood" individuals of the first and following centuries who would receive Him gladly. (And in a very real sense, for those of past centuries who had put their trust in Jehovah.) The church does not save, i.e., one is not saved because he is in the church; but the church IS the saved. Upon being saved from past sin one is added to Christ's church. Christ is the saving power; "church" views "as one" those who are saved.

Our text says Christ sanctifies and cleanses "with the washing of water by the word." We believe this refers to the water of baptism, to the act by which we "put on Christ." (Gal. 3:27) But baptism is valid only as a divine injunction, done in keeping with God's word. We are sanctified by truth. (Jn. 17:17)

One by one, individuals are forgiven of their sins as they obey the gospel of Christ. Thus, they come into the church cleansed and pure. But the future sins must also be cleansed; so "we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." In 1 Jn. 1:5-f. we are shown the means of fellowship with God, and are assured of Christ's assistance in maintaining this fellowship. Repenting of each sin, we pray God through Christ (Acts 8:22-24) for continual cleansing.

Then I must conclude that the church distributively is cleansed, as saints repent and turn to the Lord day by day. The "glorious" church is that group of saints who serve Christ faithfully NOW---and are NOW being made ready for that great day when the Lord shall return in the clouds to claim His own.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.III No.XI Pg.6

December 1966

Second Century Christians

Robert F. Turner

WE AGAIN QUOTE FROM PHILIP SCHAFF'S "HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH" Vol. 2, pp.9-10; where Schaff quotes a 2nd. Century description of Christians.

-------------------------

"The Christians are not distinguished from other men by country, by language, nor by civil institutions. For they neither dwell in cities by themselves, nor use a peculiar tongue, nor lead a singular mode of life. They dwell in the Grecian or barbarian cities, as the case may be; they follow the usage of the country in dress, food, and the other affairs of life. Yet they present a wonderful and confessedly paradoxical conduct.

They dwell in their own native lands, but as strangers. They take part in all things, as citizens; and they suffer all things, as foreigners. Every foreign country is a fatherland to them, and every native land is a foreign. They marry, like all others; they have children; but they do not cast away their offspring. They have the table in common, but not wives. They are in the flesh, but do not live after the flesh. They live upon the earth, but are citizens of heaven. They obey the existing laws, and excel the laws by their lives.

They love all, and are persecuted by all. They are unknown, and yet they are condemned. They are killed and are made alive. They are poor and make many rich. They lack all things, and in all things abound. They are reproached, and glory in their reproaches. They are calumniated, and are justified. They are cursed, and they bless. They receive scorn, and they give honor. They do good, and are punished as evil-doers. When punished, they rejoice, as being made alive. By the Jews they are attacked as aliens, and by the Greeks persecuted; and the cause of the enmity their enemies can not tell. In short, what the soul is in the body, the Christians are in the world. The soul is diffused through all the members of the body, and the Christians are spread through the cities of the world. The soul dwells in the body, but it is not of the body; so the Christians dwell in the world, but are not of the world. The soul, invisible, keeps watch in the visible body; so also the Christians are seen to live in the world, but their piety is invisible. The flesh hates and wars against the soul, suffering no wrong from it, but because it resists fleshly pleasures; and the world hates the Christian with no reason, but that they resist its pleasures.

The soul loves the flesh and members, by which it is hated; so the Christians love their haters. The soul is inclosed in the body, but holds the body together; so the Christians are detained in the world as in a prison; but they contain the world. Immortal, the soul dwells in the mortal body; so the Christians dwell in the corruptible, but look for incorruption in heaven. The soul is the better for restriction in food and drink; and the Christians increase, though daily punished. This lot God has assigned to the Christians in the world; and it cannot be taken from them."

Does This Ancient Description Fit Us?

[RETIREDFAN1]

Queries And Answers

Robert F. Turner

Dear bro. Turner:

We hear of churches that pay their elders (overseers) a salary. Do the scriptures authorize this? Could this develop into a paid pastorship?

Reply:

Paul wrote: "Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power (the right, rt) to forebear working? Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? Who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? Or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock?

Say I these things as a man? Or saith not the law the same also? For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that plougheth should plough in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we reap your carnal things?"

This, and much more, is written in 1CO.9:6-f concerning support of those who labor in the cause of the Lord. It is a good and right thing.

The word &qu chuonour" is from a word whose basic meaning is "price, value". It does not necessarily mean financial remuneration in every case; (it may mean "respect") but in 1TI.5:17 the context warrants this sense. Yes, the scriptures warrant the financial support of scriptural overseers, "especially they who labour in the word and doctrine". Could this "develop into" something bad? It could and has. Whenever elders are motivated by "filthy lucre" (read 1PE.5:2 carefully) the situation is just as bad or worse than when preachers are so motivated. Some such cases have already come to my attention, and there will be more as elder support becomes more general. There is nothing really surprising about. I have known all along that being a preacher didn't make a man lazy and money-crazy. It's just that some lazy, money-crazy men get into the "preaching business". And if those same kind of men get into the "elder business" we will see the same sordid results.

Support of a preacher, or elder, should be just that -- adequate support, on the basis of his needs and ability to produce results. By results I mean, capable of teaching and functioning on a sound scriptural basis. The "fruit" of such labor is not always apparent in numbers, etc.

Paul did not accept support from the Corinthians; but his, and the elders "right" is clearly established.

[RETIREDFAN1]

December 1966

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

The Fine Art Of Punnery

or, A Letter From A Plain Talk Reader.

"The advent of cooler weather apparently makes even an "anti" church building preferable to the elements for many of these field mice, so I have wished for your "plunker" pistol a couple of times. I had to drop-kick one against the wall last week.

I find it hard to show them mercy, especially since I believe their presence here is not out of conviction! It's hard to respect a hypocrite, even among field mice. We've already discovered them "breaking bread" in the middle of the week. With the kind of preaching they get here, it's hard to figure out why they hang around.

I really believe they're just a bunch of tail-bearers anyway! Not much hope for strife to cease while they're around, huh? They already have the reputation of calling on more houses in town than the Jehovah Witnesses; then comes time for assemblies and they won't show their face. Their feet are swift in running to mischief.

Well, maybe some day they'll show up for Ladies Bible Class and the least will truly become the greatest, and they will bring upon themselves swift destruction...... " To which I can but add -------------- SELAH! --------------------------------

One man writes that church problems are but the troubled world reflected in the lives of people. I beg to differ. I think we are a troubled people, falling in line with a world that is now and always troubled.

Cares, anxieties, fears for tomorrow! Does God really care about us?? Then I heard a flutter at my window, and a very small sparrow alighted. He cocked his head - right -- left. He preened his feathers; and with a saucy toss of the tail, launched himself boldly into the great, wide heavens.

"Wait, Sparrow"' I cried. "What of tomorrow?" I think he did not hear me.

"Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.--- Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows."

Have You Thought About Sparrows--

RECENTLY?? (Matt.10:29-31)

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.III No.XII Pg.1

January 1967

Priests By The Score

Robert F. Turner

Bishops ---------------------------- Titus 1:5-9

Vernie N. Collins

F. Laymond Parks

Wilfred E. Stephenson

Deacons ---------------------------- 1 Tim.3:8-11

Lowell L. Lynn

Odell Mallett

John A. Willbern

Evangelist --------------------------- 2 Tim.4:5

Robert F. Turner

Priests ------------------------------- 1 Pet.2:5,9

Every Christian.

And the most vital and significant part of the whole "line up" is that portion that most likely startled you. A similar "cast" on a recent Indiana paper (Emerson Ave., Indpls.) gave me the same pleasant surprise.

We have only three overseers in the Oaks-West church; three deacons, and only one evangelist supported by the congregation in this local field; although we have four or five other qualified teachers here, and assist in supporting three evangelists elsewhere. BUT WE HAVE A WHOLE CONGREGATION OF PRIESTS, according to the NewTestament way of defining "priests." The priests of Judaism (Old Testament) with their High Priest (order of Aaron) wore peculiar robes, headdress and other "holy" vestment. They "went into the first tabernacle" accomplishing the service of God. (Heb. 9:6) But if you will read carefully Heb.8: 9: you will see that Christ is our High Priest, and heaven the true tabernacle. A literal earthly priesthood pertained to the types of the 0. T., and were never intended for N. T. Christians. (Reb.8:4-f. 9:8-f.)

This is a potent blow at the so-called "holy fathers" "worshipful masters" etc., of today's sacerdotalism. But just now I have another target.

"The priesthood of believers," so prominent in reformation and restoration history, is almost unknown to many professed Christians today. If all saints are indeed "priests" (as 1 Pet. 2:5, 9, etc., declare) a vast majority of those who claim to be "set apart" "called" into His service, are neglecting their holy calling. Clergy-laity. distinctions (?) are fostered by people who do not know its danger. "Holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling" arise and serve God!!

[RETIREDFAN1]

January 1967

Priests By The Score

Dan S. Shipley

The Bible teacher and preacher must be honest with God and self, as well as with the listener. How much "judgement" may enter into a conclusion drawn -- how much may we allow an audience to affect that judgement -- if we are to remain honest?

Surely we realize, in the Absence of infallibility, that all interpretation involves human judgement. We pray for wisdom (Jas. 1:5), study as diligently as possible, then teach. A recognition of human frailty should keep all humble; and temper inclinations toward dogmatism. Yet the Bible contains facts "most surely believed among us" and one can not be true to his faith who does not set forth what he honestly believes to be truth.

May I deliberately withhold some honestly held conviction re. God's word because "some would not understand" or "it is controversial?" Time and circumstances may affect selection of subject matter (milk to babes, etc., 1 Cor. 3:2) but when we "skip a verse" or thought in the text, or withhold information God has given, we put our judgement above that of almighty God.

When I am asked to teach a book or any portion thereof, I am going to teach what I believe God said in the passage. Further, I am going to apply it to my audience as best I can. I may miss the mark -- I do not claim to be infallible -- but I must claim and practice honesty. If the listeners do not like my remarks, let them get another. teacher, or show me how I can make my remarks more agreeable to God and His revealed truth. Many "gospel preachers" (?) fail in this vital respect (for job, popularity, or reasons only God knows) and so fail God, themselves, and those whose very souls may depend on them. Teachers "receive the greater condemnation" (Jas.3:1) and for good reason.

--------------------------

THIS MONTHIS QUERY PAGE contains a very difficult subject. I commend the comments of R. L. Whiteside (Commentary on Romans) where much "filler" material will be found to augment the comments made in this issue. My not agreeing wholly with Whiteside's conclusion re. "creature" does not mean I treat his studies lightly. The casual reader will be unable to follow my abbreviated remarks, but I hope to stir you to further study and thought.

--------------------------

LAST MONTH'S FUNNERY (Stuff About Things) was from bro.of Laurel Hgts. church, McAllen, Texas. Dan reports a growing work there, despite the "tail-bearers."

[RETIREDFAN1]

January 1967

Rejecting God's Counsel

Robert F. Turner

When John the immerser was in prison he sent two messengers to Jesus -- apparently for reassurance and confirmation of his earlier testimony. These men came upon Jesus as he was teaching the poor, and healing the afflicted. When they asked, "Art thou he that should come?" Jesus said, "Go.. tell John what things ye have seen and heard". Clearly Jesus fulfilled prophecies made concerning Him.

And when the messengers departed, Jesus began to praise John as a prophet, "Yea, more than a prophet" for he had introduced the Saviour. He said, "Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist; but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he" (Read LUK.7:19-35). The new birth, born of water and spirit, is of far greater importance than the natural birth; and it is by this new birth that we enter the kingdom of God (JOH.3:3,5).

Both John and Jesus had sought to prepare people for the Messianic kingdom; and this endorsement of John, and magnification of the citizen's role in God's kingdom seemed to reach many of the people. LUK.7:29 says they "justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John&qhy.& "Justified God" means they acknowledged His justice and righteousness in calling them to repentance and obedience. They submitted to the authority in His Word.

"But the pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him"

Look at this carefully! The wisdom of Deity was rejected. God made man a free agent, blessing him with the power of choice. Then, seeing man's need for guidance, the immutable counsel of God is made available to him. But man used his blessed freedom to reject God's counsel. He did so by "being not baptized of him". The baptism under consideration here is John's baptism -- a preparation for a kingdom which was at that time yet to come. But John was filled with the Holy Spirit -- his message was from God -- and the baptism he commanded was the will of God. By this act some "justified God" and others "rejected the counsel of God against themselves".

We can not measure the importance of such matters by human standards. "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgements, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been his counselor?" (ROM.11:33-34). When we reject God's counsel, we have rejected God.

And now, with the preparation finished -- John's work done, and the blessings of God's kingdom available to all -- what is God's counsel? Jesus Himself said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (MAR.16:16). Through Peter He counseled, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you" (ACT.2:38). "And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord" (ACT.10:45). Can you doubt that God counsels you to be baptized? No, you can't doubt this. But you can reject God's counsel -- against yourself!!

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.III No.XII Pg.4

January 1967

Absalom, The Promoter

Robert F. Turner

The church has always had its promoters. By their "good words and fair speeches" they deceive the hearts of the simple. (Rom. 16:18)

There are many who "promote" with misguided fervor, some project that has no basis in God's instructions. We would remind that all works truly "of God" are properly encouraged when we teach people to be more God-like. There is good reason to question any project that needs ballyhoo, flattery, and "coffee fellowship" to make it go.

Absalom was a "promoter".(2 Sam.15) He put on a great front, with fifty men to run before his chariot. He stood at the gate, watching for those who had a "cause." He pretended great interest in their case, and depreciated the king by saying, "Oh that I were made judge in the land, that every man who hath any suit or cause might come unto me, and I would do him justice."

He was a flatterer. 'When any man came nigh to do him obeisance, he put forth his hand, and took hold of him, and kissed him." Thus, he "stole the hearts of the men of Israel." By such tactics he built up a following, so that when he felt the time was right he called for his dupes to declare him king.

"And with Absalom went two hundred men out of Jerusalem, that were invited, and went in their simplicity; and they knew not anything." (vs.11) Thus we learn not only the blueprint for selfish promotions, but also the kind of people who will be taken in by such methods.

Promoters are not limited to one class. Elders, preachers, members in no particular group -- any of these may use Absalom's tricks. "Mr. X" will sympathize with anyone who differs with status quo; flattering any who feel a bit rejected; urging on all who are brave enough to speak out -- but being careful to stay in the background so that if the argument backfires "Mr. X" will not get hurt. Men of experience have learned to spot such promoters in all walks of life.

If we feel we see an error needing correction (and all errors do) let us use forthrightness. With true humility; with love and desire for unity among brethren; go to the source of the problem, or to those responsible. Present your case with scripture; not with prejudice, threats, or the numbers you have lined up on your "side." Since none of us are infallible, be prepared to learn that you really may not "have a case."

If we would see a new work done or present program enlarged; this is commendable. Make sure it is a work authorized in God's word, and be prepared to give chapter and verse. Present it to the elders; or where there are no elders, at an appropriate business meeting. Leave pride at home, for it is possible that others may not share your judgement -- and this must not be a personal "shoulder chip."

Have convictions, and stand firmly for them. Just be sure it is God's cause you seek to further, and not your own. BUT DO NOT BE AN ABSALOM!!! And sharpen your wits lest an Absalom steal your heart and damn your soul.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.III No.XII Pg.5

January 1967

Local Church Is No Sham

Robert F. Turner

Paul wanted to "join himself to the disciples" in Jerusalem. (Acts 9:26) What does this mean? It means he "wanted to be accepted and known among the saints in Jerusalem as being a true disciple and to enjoy all the blessings of fellowship and common togetherness enjoyed by the disciples." That is the explanation one brother makes of it, as he, of all things, ridicules the existence of the local church with its functions.

And what is a local church, but that relationship which he has described? Note, (1) Paul WAS a saint in Jerusalem, whether they accepted and recognized him or not. That relationship was established with God when he obeyed the gospel. But now he wanted something else---and rightly so. He wanted to be accepted and recognized by fellow saints. And to what end? (2) To enjoy the blessings of fellowship, etc. Does this mean he wished to worship with them? Who will deny it? Did he wish to work with them, as he encouraged saints to work together in Phil. 4:15; 1 Thess. 5:12, and elsewhere? Consistency demands it. And (3) what is this "common togetherness" of which our iconoclast speaks? Could it include such things as "had all things common" (Acts 2:44-f), selling possessions and making a pooled fund available for specified purposes? (5:32-f) If so (and I affirm it is) this is collective action by every fair standard of definition.

Paul's early rejection, then later reception by the Jerusalem disciples shows they exercised their will in this matter. (Acts 9:26-f) (Remember, Paul WAS a saint before acceptance.) So put it all together. Paul "held membership" (which in a scriptural sense means nothing more than being one of the group of saints who worked and worshipped together) in Jerusalem.

When someone seeks to prejudice his readers with sectarian terms, and denies the very existence of the organized local church----apparently because he doesn't like the word "organization," although he admits every element legitimately demanded by such a word---that fellow is getting close to being a true "iconoclast." Don't let the old meaning "breaker of images" fool you. Today an iconoclast is "One who attacks cherished beliefs as---(note, AS, not "or") shams; a radical." Webster's Unabridged. The first or historical definition does not fit today's ridiculer of the local church.

If there are those who have an erroneous conception of "church" (and I do not doubt they exist, and have written many articles on this theme) then meet their actual error. Positively set forth the scriptures on the subject. And get out of the local church (saints in---who enjoy all the blessings of fellowship and common togetherness) that supports you from a common treasury. Consistency would surely demand this.

Certainly "church" has been abused, as has many other words long used. If "ecclesia" had never been translated, usage would have abused it. (Witness "ecclesiastical") Changing the word will be of little help today unless we teach the N.T. meaning of whatever word we use; and an iconoclast never builds anything

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.III No.XII Pg.6

January 1967

Sponsoring Church History

Robert F. Turner

In 1953 the historian, Earl Irvin West, reproduced material from the 1910 Gospel Advocate that charges the current "sponsoring church" arrangement is a repeat of past errors, and the object of responsible criticisms.

---------------------------

"4. David Lipscomb did object to supporting an evangelist in West Tennessee by the many churches sending their funds to the elders of the church at Henderson. J. C. McQuiddy, upon receiving G. Dallas Smith's written report of the meeting at the Advocate office, said that from this letter 'the impression was received that West Tennessee was to call the evangelist and that the contributing churches throughout West Tennessee were to send their contributions to the elders of the Henderson church to send to the evangelist, and that the church at Henderson had been asked to take the direction of the work and had consented to do so.'

Obviously J. C. McQuiddy understood that the method of cooperation was open to serious question. But did David Lipscomb so understand it? Lipscomb, quoting from Smith's report in the Gospel Guide, printed the following:

"After this we again took up the 'West Tennessee evangelist.' This was discussed by Brother A. G. Freed and others. It was finally agreed that the Henderson church should select and put in the field an evangelist to work in the destitute places in West Tennessee. This work is to begin June 1. We practically agreed to do what we can to interest the churches in West Tennessee to cooperate with the Henderson church in supporting the evangelist." On the basis of this report, David Lipscomb replied as follows: Now what was that but the organization of a society in the elders of this church? The church elders at Henderson constituted a board to collect and pay out the money and control the evangelist for the brethren of West Tennessee, and all the preachers are solicitors for this work. This very same course was pursued in Texas a number of years ago. The elders of the church at Dallas were made the supervisors of the work, received the money, employed the preacher, directed and counseled him. For a number of years they employed C. M. Wilmeth. He then dropped out of the work and the Texas Missionary Society took the place. Other experiments along the same course have been made. All of them went into the society work.

All meetings of churches or officers of churches to combine more power than a single church possesses is wrong. God's power is in God's churches. He is with them to bless and strengthen their work when they are faithful to Him. A Christian, one or more, may visit a church with or without an invitation and seek to stir them up to a faithful discharge of other duties. But for one or more to direct what and how all the churches shall work, or to take charge of their men and money and use it, is to assume the authority God has given to each church. Each one needs the work of distributing and using its funds, as well as in giving them.

(Gospel Advocate, March 24, 1910, page 364.)

[RETIREDFAN1]

• In Search Of Truth
•  
• In Search Of Truth Forums
•  
• Words Fitly Spoken
•  
• Bible Banner
•  
• Plain Talk
•  
• Gospel Guardian

Vol.III No.XII Pg.7

January 1967

Queries And Answers

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

Who or what is the "creature" (KJV) of ROM.8:19-23?

Reply:

This question, asked months ago, is the kind we "put off" for awhile.

ROM.6:3-6 teaches that our resurrection (from baptism -- death with Christ) makes a "new life" possible for us. This "new life" is now, not the physical resurrection of our bodies in the future. The "mortal body" that is quickened, is our members, now serving righteousness instead of sin (I do not deny physical resurrection, 1CO.15: but ROM.6: is not discussing that kind of resurrection.).

ROM.7: shows that a system of law can not answer our needs, because sin in our members (mortal body) makes justification impossible by law alone; but declares that Christ (by forgiveness ROM.4:5-8) is the answer. That forgiveness is possible only when we set "the inward man" "mind" "our spirit" to walk according to God's Spirit.

A mind that serves God, with a mortal body that still gives in to weakness of the flesh, is what makes the conflict described in ROM.7. Having shown that Christ will save the "spiritually minded" (and they grossly err who seek to rule out obedience to the gospel of Christ by this phrase); Paul now raises the question about our members, this "mortal body" that continues to produce sin even in those who strive to serve him (1JO.1:7-f.).

His answer, in brief, is that we can "conform to the image of His Son (ROM.8:29) be "changed into the same image from glory to glory: (2CO.3:18) and "be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust" (2PE.1:). (Certainly this is an involved answer; it is a hard question -- involving the core of the argument in the Roman letter and the Christian system)

"Creature" of ROM.8:19-f. is that which is made, (ktidzo) referring to all creation. But its use must conform to context. Vegetable and mineral "creation" is not here under consideration; not even animal except as man comes under that class. "Every statement indicates that he was talking about intelligent beings who had a real interest in the resurrection and glorification of the children of God" (Whiteside).

I must humbly beg to differ with Whiteside's conclusion however. It seems "creature" is used synonymous with "mortal bodies" and "members" thereof which war against the spirit. Paul is saying that is Christ we may bring the flesh into subjection; may conquer our baser inclinations and "be delivered from the bondage of corruption (see ROM.6:) into the glorious liberty of the children of God"

If we will set our spirit upon the Lord -- use the assistance God has provided (hope, God's assurance that He understands even those groanings of our spirit which can not be uttered, and all things which work together for good) then no creature (ktidzo) shall be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ (ROM.8:39).

[RETIREDFAN1]

• In Search Of Truth
•  
• In Search Of Truth Forums
•  
• Words Fitly Spoken
•  
• Bible Banner
•  
• Plain Talk
•  
• Gospel Guardian

Vol.III No.XII Pg.8

January 1967

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

Some call it "naive" -- while others, with a more limited vocabulary, just say "stupid." Whatever it is, it seems to fit me quite well.

About half the times I pull a good one -- really bring down the house -- I find myself wondering what caused the uproar. When everyone starts telling me how clever I am, I keep my big mouth shut and never "let on" that I intended to make a serious comment.

The time that fellow wanted to sell his chinchillas; he PROVED they would clear 300% the first year; more after that. He said there was nothing else that could make such a profit. So, I asked him why he wanted to sell them! Everyone got to laughing so I never did find out why he wanted to sell them. Probably an allergy, or something like that.

As a boy, I heard the preachers say, "We want the truth, and nothing but the truth. If we preach or practice something unauthorized in God's word, just point it out to us and we will quit." That sounded great to me, so when I started preaching I said the same thing. I had to pull in my neck a few times, but I was so happy to learn the way of truth more perfectly that the embarrassment was soon forgotten.

Then I heard one of "our" liberal preachers hurl the bold challenge of truth lovers, and I asked him for the scriptures that authorized the Herald of Truth arrangement, and other like church collectives. WWoooW,""

I didn't know that challenge was just for "sectarian" ears. All these years I have been hearing it, and using it myself -- AND I THOUGHT WE WERE SUPPOSED TO REALLY MEAN IT!!

Another fellow said a church gymnasium was in the verse following the one that authorized a church building. I looked under Heb. 10:25, Acts 20:7, 1 Cor. 11:18 and 14:23, all of which authorize an assembled church; but I never did find the church basket-ball team. He must have misread his notes.

Reuel Lemons once argued that if Gal. 6:10 referred to individuals, so did 6:6; so there is no authority for church support of the preacher. That really bothered me, what with prices and all -- but someone told me Reuel had "tongue in cheek." I get it! With that kind of tongue in cheek a fellow doesn't need meat every day

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IV No.I Pg.1

February 1967

Things That Happen

Robert F. Turner

A certain loving wife approached her ever-loving husband with the familiar, "I'm going to the store; do you happen to have a ten?" She was stopped short by the reply. "No, I do not happen to have a ten: I have ten dollars because I work hard for them, am careful with my expenses, and save some for a rainy day -- but I don't just happen to have it!"

She got the money anyhow, so that little bit of philosophy was all but wasted -except that it says something very important in many other fields. Do the events of today just happen, or are they the fruits of our yesterdays? Some observant fellow remarked, "Have you noticed how lucky the honest, hard-working people seem to be?" Now I wonder why that is???

I have heard a jillion (more or less) complaints from people in some sort of trouble -- "I wasn't doing a thing--iust sitting there at the bar:" Poor innocent characters -- at the wrong place with the wrong people and the wrong outlook on life. And then this terrible thing "just happened;:" The Psalmist said, "Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the wicked, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of scoffers--" (Psm.1:1)

Christians don't "just happen" to turn back; churches don't "just happen" to become liberal and digressive. They move in that direction, by attitude, by association, even by silence, for long periods before they embrace the error openly.

When brethren say a church's "only fault" is support of some benevolent society -and "surely such a good work could not lead them far astray"-they are overlooking the attitude that is the far greater fault. Does my conception of "good" allow me to ignore God's plan for the organizational structure of His church?? Such careless disrespect for His word in one point is hound to open the door for further departures.

Later, when that church embraces other aspects of the social gospel-like church support of colleges -- the old timers will shake their heads and say, "Just don't see how it happened:"

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IV No.I Pg.2

February 1967

3 Years, Goin' On 4

Robert F. Turner

We begin Volume Four with gratitude for the wonderful reception our readers have given PLAIN TALK. This publication is a part of the teaching program of the Oaks-West church,- and is sent free to all who request it. We are particularly interested in reaching areas where the cause of our Lord is weak; and homes, threatened by liberalism, yet retaining enough respect for God's word to read with some objectivity.

Volume Four has a planned MENU, as do previous volumes. The front page will continue to carry articles concerning ATTITUDES; P. 2, for EDITORIAL and LOCAL material; P.3, to NON-MEMBER cf. CHRIST and the CHURCH; P. 4, will have a new feature for this year -- a series on the TEXT of the Bible, how we got our Bible -with emphasis on the N. T. TEXT; P. 5, will continue to carry articles on CHRISTIAN LIVING, with usual emphasis on everyday attitudes, conducts; P. 6, will be HISTORY that pertains to the cause of Christ, both early and current; P. 7, QUERIES AND ANSWERS; and P. 8, STUFF ABOUT THINGS -- our comments on whatever comes to mind that we think will make a point worth considering.

The editor will continue to write all of the material appearing in this paper, with the obvious exception of historical quotes, and occasional reprints, for which credit is given. Back issues are available in part, and will be sent to those who request them as long as they last. We also continue our "equal space, half-issue" offer for open discussion with any who have honest difference with us.

Did The Early Church Have "All Truth.

I hope I do not see what I think I see in a statement by Jimmie Lovell, Feb. '67 issue of ACTION. He says, "Possibly no Christian mentioned in the. N. T. ever saw all Scripture as contained today in our Bible. Most of the divisions in christiandom are over parts of Scripture which the early church as a whole knew little or nothing about."

If he means written truth, in the first sentence, we could agree. (See "Text" p. 4.)

But we are guided today by the same truth that guided the early church. In the general epistle of 2 Pet., the apostle said "According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue." (2 Pet.1:3) The apostles, prophets, tongues, interpreters, etc. of the 1st. century, delivered all truth. Their "issues" were met with inspired answers by which we learn.

[RETIREDFAN1]

.IV No.I Pg.3

February 1967

God Wants People!

Robert F. Turner

Jehovah called unto Moses out of the mountain, saying concerning the children of Israel, "...if ye will keep my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be mine own possession from among all peoples.." (Ex.19:3-6) And in Deut. 7:6-f. "For thou art a holy people unto Jehovah thy God: Jehovah thy God hath chosen thee to be a people for his own possession, above all peoples that are upon the face of the earth."

And when Hosea prophesied that Gentiles would be acceptable to God, he said, "..and I will say to them that were not my people, Thou art my people; and they shall say, Thou art my God." (Hosea.2:23; Rom. 9:25)

God wants people!! His creatures, made in His image, have sinned and turned from Him. The Father gave His Son to die on the cross because He loved us, and wants us to return to the fold. He does not want our money. He does not need anything "seeing He giveth to all life, and breath, and all things" (Acts.17:25). But He wants us because He loves us -- does not want to leave us lost in sin. (Jn.3:16). Are we grown so calloused we can not be moved by such an unselfish love?

Christ died for people. "But God commandeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom.5:8). The whole plan of salvation, as respects us, is God's plan to change people. Our hearts are changed by faith, (Acts 15:9) as we come to put our trust in Him alone. In repentance we turn from our sins (Matt. 21:28-f) to do the Master's bidding. In baptism, the guilt of the old life is removed, and we rise to walk in a new life (Acts 2:38; Rom. 6:1-4). We become new creatures in Christ (2 Cor. 5:14-17) and no longer walk the ways of the flesh. It is of such people that Peter writes: "Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy." (1 Pet. 2:9-10)

God wants a people, to dwell in them. Christ says, "If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him" (Jn.14:23). In Heb. 8:10 the Lord says, "I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people."

God wants a people, by whom He may be glorified (Rom.15:6-7). God wants a people to save eternally. "He will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God" (Rev.21:3). We will never grasp the true significance of the scheme of redemption until we make it a very personal matter; until, in the words of the old spiritual, "it's me, it's me O Lord, standing in the need of prayer!"

God doesn't want a fine church building! Usually that is something we want. God doesn't want great numbers, for numbers sake. God wants a people -- who are truly his own.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IV No.I Pg.4

February 1967

Story Of The Text...1

Robert F. Turner

Examination of the source of our Bible, the written text, is something many brethren shun like the plague. I begin a series of such studies with the realization that many prefer to remain in ignorance of such matters: some, because their faith is so weak they are afraid of what they may find; and some, too lazy to think about it.

On one extreme are those who think the King James version was "authorized" by God; and on the other are those who ridicule any version or any text as being the inspired word of God. In between are poor souls so in love with their own smattering of the greek language that they cast aside the learning of the centuries and propose to give us "the final word." Such people usually produce the "modern English" books that are more commentaries than texts; and often are really different from standard texts (K. J., A. S.) only in those places where the translator (?) wishes to substantiate his peculiar doctrine.

Some unthinking people, or people having little knowledge of history or languages, even ask, "Why have any translations or versions? Just take the Bible the way God gave it::" They fail to realize that the Bible was not given in English -in fact, the English language did not even exist in the time of Christ. Hebrew, Greek, and Latin were the languages of those most closely associated with the writing of divine truth; and if we had the original manuscripts most of us could not read them. To be concrete, Paul's letter to the Corinthians was written in Greek -- and was actually sent to Corinth as a letter. (2 Cor. 2:4, 9.) It had to be copied by hand, (again, in Greek) and passed to other saints who were interested in what the inspired Apostle said regarding divisions, discipline, marriage, spiritual gifts, etc. And, as the church spread into north Africa, and saints of Paul in Greek epistles had to be translated into Latin.

Luke's writings (addressed, or we might say 'dedicated' to Theophilus) had to undergo the same treatment; and so with all the other writings.

A careful reading of the first letter to Corinth shows it was written during Paul's third journey; from the city of Ephesus. (1 Cor. 16:8) Luke's history of the church (Acts) was not written until after Paul's imprisonment, journey to Rome, and after he had been there at least two years. (Acts 28:30) Obviously, these (and by like reasoning and evidence, other-) books of the New Testament were not written at the same time, and handed to the saints as a single bound volume. There is no reason to panic at this information, nor shut your eyes.

God's revelation was for many years of the first century (we speak of the N. T.) before it was completely embalmed in the inspired written word. The various writings were copied many times, some translated into other languages, before copies were finally put together in anything like the form we know today. It is important to remember that during this formative period, inspired men were checking and doublechecking the message. (1 Cor.14:37) there wanted the writings their own language, these

The truth is, in inspired men

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IV No.I Pg.5

February 1967

We Lack Urgency!!

Robert F. Turner

"When he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion on them, because they fainted, and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd." (Matt. 9:36) And so, our Lord appointed messengers, and sent them to the people with news of a Shepherd and Saviour.

He told them, "When they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come." (Matt. 10:23) There was URGENCY in this commission. So much so that when "he said unto another, Follow me. But he said, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God." (Lu. 9:59-60) That's URGENCY!

Yes, I know that Jesus foresaw his death, and fought against this deadline. But the death itself was an important part of His sacrifice for mankind. He died because of the great NEED of mankind for a Saviour; and I am persuaded this was the factor that gave such importance to all He did.

He tells us to WATCH: He says that MANY shall follow the way of destruction. Paul says, "Knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed." (Rom.13)

We lack URGENCY: We live with a "don't rock the boat" spirit -- so far as religion is concerned. In fact, if one becomes very much concerned he is likely to be regarded as some sort of nut. It's all right to get worked up over Vietnam, Civil Rights, or even "the great" Clay (not Henry); but millions may march toward Hell, God's church may be ridiculed, His plan for its operation ignored, and we are supposed to "keep calm" "don't get excited." God's saints LACK URGENCY:.'

Let me suggest WHY we LACK URGENCY: (1) We do not know the truth:: Many are unconcerned over the lost because they do not recognize the lost. Papa surely will go to heaven: My friends are good people -- they are not lost:: And so, we excuse these and those untill there are not many going to Hell. We do not know the Saviour, as He is revealed in the Word. We do not know His gospel must be obeyed: We do not know of judgement, or of heaven, or hell. I mean it is not real, actual, meaningful to us.

But you say, "0 Yes brother Turner, we know all these things:" Then I say (2) we do not believe them:: How can we claim to truly believe the word of God, and remain so lacking in URGENCY? By URGENCY I do not mean wild irresponsibility, running off half-cocked. But I do mean deep concern, that will make each moment important; planning that says NOW is the time.

And if you contend that we do believe God's word; then I will insist (3) we fail to recognize the value, the fleeting. nature of life. James says it is a "vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away." (Jas. 4:14) If we really believe the Word we know we must be ready at all times for the Lord's coming. The faithful Christian is impelled by a feeling of URGENCY!!

[RETIREDFAN1]

• In Search Of Truth
•  
• In Search Of Truth Forums
•  
• Words Fitly Spoken
•  
• Bible Banner
•  
• Plain Talk
•  
• Gospel Guardian

Vol.IV No.I Pg.6

February 1967

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?