Plain Talk

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IV No.IV Pg.8

May 1967

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

An effort was made to establish a church in a rough mining town of Arizona. Preachers were sent in, supported by other churches; personal work campaigns were conducted; a place for assembly was provided. Nothing seemed to "jell," and finally a preacher who had pushed the work, and preached there frequently, reported through a "brotherhood" journal that the whole work was "dead, and needed only to have its funeral preached."

So, the ballyhoo stopped, the highpowered preachers quit taking their "messages" down there, and the few brethren who remained were left to shift for themselves. One of them, a worker in the mine, began to "make talks" and carry on as best he could. The work grew -- became self-supporting in every way, and the gospel began to reach the hearts of others.

A "poor wise man" "by his wisdom delivered the city; yet no man remembered that same poor man." Solomon said, "The words of the wise heard in quiet are better than the cry of him that ruleth among fools. Wisdom is better than weapons of war; but one sinner destroyeth much good." (Eccl. 9:13-18) Surely there is a lesson in this somewhere. Who will hear?? Then there was the fellow who had job offer -- in a town where was no functioning church. I urged him to go, and start a congregation. Of course he protested, "I can not do that -- I never did anything like that in my life."

But he went. He put notices on the bill-boards, in the papers, etc. A few began to meet with him and his family, to read the scriptures, pray, sing, and partake of the Lord's Supper. He wrote me to know if they should send their contributions to us. How absurd can one get? They began to give with God's purposes in mind, and soon they had purchased an old barrack as a meeting place to accommodate the growing assembly.

Our friend, who "never did anything like that in my life" baptized his first convert. He wrote me of the plans to expand their facilities, and how they needed a preacher to "take over" the work.

And I wrote that they were "fixing to make a mess our of that church." No, I am not against preachers, or any scriptural effort to grow. But we underestimate God's power to use the small, poor, willing man to His glory.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IV No.V Pg.1

June 1967

Who Done It? When?

Robert F. Turner

Sitting in a Coffee Shop in Dallas I heard a young man say, "About the time these issues were becoming prominent--" and I began to laugh aloud.

His words were not "funny," and I have a reasonably normal sense of humor, so I can understand my friend's startled look. But his words triggered a chain of memories, and I was laughing perhaps with some embarrassment at a trait of human nature so suddenly brought to focus. In central Texas another man had used these words -- and he meant 1960, when institutional promoters had shattered the peace of his home congregation. In Arizona a godly sister had used these words, and she meant 1951 -- when a preacher--inspired mob had shouted the elders down and out, because they stood for Bible-authorized church work, and that only. In Kentucky a man had used these words, and he referred to 1966 -- when it was easier to drive out faithful Christians than to give chapter and verse for social gospel practices.

I knew places where these words would refer to 1945; and I knew some places where the words did not as yet have any meaning. Some day someone there will realize that "--Silent Where the Bible is Silent" and "Bible Things in Bible Ways" apply to home practices as well as to the Baptist. He will ask for Bible authority for some practice -- will be branded an "Anti" -- will search for a scriptural answer -- will be amazed that his own brethren can be so sectarian and ungodly -- will stand by his convictions -- will be charged with "splitting the church" -- and will later look back upon it all as "the time these issues were becoming prominent."

A few weeks after the Dallas conversation, a lady in Nashville, Tenn. reminded me that the same principle applies to the persons involved. In her section hundreds of people were certain that bro. A had recently preached a strange doctrine (asking for Bible authority for faith and practice) which had "split the church all over the country." Just two days earlier, and less than 100 miles from there, I heard that bro. B was the culprit -- and I happened to know that 

"B" did not know "A" and had no contact with him whatsoever. In one Texas community bro, C did it all; for this little known but sound gospel preacher presented "The Work Of the Church" with scriptures, instead of A.C.C. bulletins.

Early in the nineteenth century many thought Alexander Campbell originated the "church of Christ." They did not see that the Lord's church exists potentially wherever God's unadulterated truth is preached; exists actually wherever people submit to this truth, and work and worship according to its pattern; -- and, may cease to exist wherever this "first love" for the Lord dies and people no longer function according to divine instructions. (Rev. 2:4-f)

This is not to say that people have no influence in the matter. As preachers, writers, elders, etc., we all have some influence -- for good or bad. There have been, and there will be again, false teachers who "overthrow the faith of some." But if asking for Bible authority means trouble, the querist is not the cause.

It is provincialism, with some self-centeredness, that makes us view history as though it were wrapped around our little world. It also indicates we tend to view the church from a "party" rather than from the scriptural point of view. After all, what does the "who" and "when" of our generation have to do with the great principles involved? THE IMPORTANT THING IS WHAT -- WHAT IS TRUE TO GOD'S WORD? The time spent blaming others could be used applying truth to self.WHEN, INDEED!!!

I've heard dozens of drinkers and smokers say "I can quit any time I want to -" "I can take it or leave it alone." But seldom do they "want" to - seldom do they "leave it alone." Frequently this talk about will power is just windy boasting - to cover up the weakness they know is present. I am disgusted with their practice, but their weakness evokes pity.

And there are hundreds of church members who have become involved with the liberal practices of our day who think - or say - they can "leave it" anytime they wish. "We are not bound to the benevolent societies, or to Herald of Truth --" they say. We will go just so far, and no farther."

But one thing leads to another. In "support" of one institution they accept its subsidiaries. To avoid appearing "Anti" they "go along" with the promoters. "We don't like it BUT!" "We'll quit when --" WHEN, INDEED??

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IV No.V Pg.3

June 1967

Disciples Of Christ

Robert F. Turner

A literal English translation of Matt.28:19 reads: "Going, therefore, disciple ye all the nations -- ." "Make disciples of all the nations -- " says the American Standard version; and in either case, we learn that to be acceptable in God's sight we must be "disciples."

This is not a proper name, a label or banner to be flown above the party ranks. It defines the character of a people; describes them; points out what they are, not simply what they are called. A certain class of people, "the disciples" -- "were called Christians first in Antioch." (Acts 11:26)

The word means "a learner" "scholar"; and frequently relates the student to the teacher ("disciples of John" Mk. 2:18) as those who believe in the doctrine of the teacher and follow him. It would apply to "learners" in varying stages of development, as may be seen in Jn. 6:66 where we read, "many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him". They followed, "learning" of Jesus for a time; but as His teaching demanded more and more of them, they were unwilling to pay the price. They ceased to follow and learn of Him.

Jesus elevated discipleship to an extremely high and noble level. He said, "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (Lu. 14:26) Jesus asks us to "count the cost" and accept the role of a disciple knowing that this means the Master must be first in our lives. We must love Him more than father, mother, or even our own life (vs.33). Jesus conceived a disciple whose life is dominated by his teacher; whose "life is his with Christ in God." (Col. 3:3) In this sense one is a disciple for life, "growing in grace and knowledge." Day by day we sit at the feet of Jesus, and our lives are enriched as we become more and more like the Master.

Discipleship is a way of life, not some fixed peak, once climbed never departed. May one be a disciple who has not been baptized? Certainly so!! But not for long. In the primary sense of "learner" one may be a disciple, doing all that one knows to be the will of Christ. But in less time than it takes to tell it, the status may change to that of one who refuses to "follow" Christ. Jesus says, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved -- " (Mk.16:16) and, through Peter, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins -- -" (Acts 2:38) One "walks no more with Him" who balks at these words of the Lord. In the more full and complete sense of "disciple of Christ" we may count only one who will "deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow -- " Christ (Matt.16:24).

And what is true with reference to remission of sins, and coming into covenant relationship with Christ, is also true in the Christian's journey. It is absurdly ridiculous to speak of people as "disciples of Christ" who must be begged and cajoled into worshiping Him; and who couldn't be hogtied and dragged to Bible study. The true disciple bears fruit. (Jn.15:8)

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IV No.V Pg.4

June 1967

Story Of The Text 5

Robert F. Turner

"How We Got Our Bible" is, in the minds of many people, "How We Got The King James Version." Of course this is far from true, but I would not lessen the extremely important place the KJ has played in presenting the text.

In 1604 King James I of England attended a conference to hear arguments of the Puritans for changes in church services. He was told the Puritans could not conscientiously use the Prayer Book because it cited "corrupt translations" of God's word. These citations were from the Great Bible, 1539; and the Bishop's Bible, 1568. The Puritans favored the Geneva Bible, 1560; but the King disliked this version because of the marginal notes which he declared "very partial, untrue, seditious..." Hence, King James determined to sponsor a new translation "to be read in Churches."

He appointed 54 scholars (although a list of only 47 is preserved; the others may have died or resigned) and strictly charged them with their task. Fifteen rules (greatly digested, rft) included: --- (1) Follow Bishop's Bible, as original text permits; (2) Retain established ecclesiastical words; (3) No marginal notes except to explain Heb. or Gk. words; (4) Use the Tyndale, Matthew, Coverdale, Great or Geneva (other English Bibles, rft) wording when they agree better with the Heb. and Gk. text than does the Bishop's Bible.

We do not know for certain just what Heb. and Gk. texts were used in this work, but the Greek was likely the 1633 Elzevir edition of Stephen's 1550 "royal edition" with corrections by Beza (1598) and later known as the "Textus Receptus." There were four Hebrew Bibles available with Massoretic text, and various Polyglots. (This is a "many-tongued" arrangement of texts, usually with several versions side-by-side.) Although valuable manuscripts have since been found, these scholars had ample material to produce a Bible substantially correct.

These scholars were divided into 6 groups. Each man made his own translation of the portion assigned him, and then passed it on to be reviewed by each member of his group. When one group finished a book, a copy was sent to each of the other 5 groups for independent criticism. Thus each book went through the hands of all the men. The entire version, thus amended, was then placed before a committee of six to iron out any differences of opinion and put on finishing touches. The KJ Bible thus changed the whole pattern of Bible translation, moving far beyond the "one man" or "one church" editions to become the product of the finest Hebrew and Greek scholars the English-speaking peoples then knew.

Miles Smith, one of the translators, wrote a "Preface" to the KJ versions, explaining the WHY and HOW of this masterpiece. Called "The Translators To The Reader," this should be required reading for every serious Bible scholar. For a time it was put at its proper place -- at the beginning of the KJ version -- but has now been removed, for various reasons, and few Bible readers seem to know of its existence. Revised Versions will continue to be needed, but only fools ridicule the majestic KJ Bible.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IV No.V Pg.5

June 1967

Christian S.F.T.P.O.C.

Robert F. Turner

ADULTS, ARISE.!! HEED OUR CALL TO ACTION!! The time is NOW!!

We must organize a Society For The Protection of Children! Ours will be the noble task of redeeming youth; of re-establishing high ideals; of tender loving care for the homeless. We will work with the schools, the community clubs, the civil courts, and all other philanthropic efforts to upgrade society -- but OUR SOCIETY will make the closest contacts of all. We will deal directly, intimately, with youth -- from the very day of birth, through each moment, hour, and day of the formative life.

We will attack current disrespect for law and order at its very roots. While the child is highly impressionable, and before subversive elements in society can misdirect his "gang" instincts; we will capture the mind of youth with a proper relationship of authority, justice, and love.

Reward and punishment must be upgraded from their role as psychiatric tools. We will remove from punishment any hint of vengeance; and will make reward a delightful experience which we will share with the child; for our wards shall know the fruit of love.

OUR SOCIETY will be closely knit in its purpose; but will be broken into small units, individually housed, and operated independently. Each unit will have at its head two adults, a man and a woman. (If this arrangement sounds a bit cozy, we must admit to certain personal benefits which we hope to derive from this SOCIETY.) The man will serve as head of the unit, but must accept commensurate responsibilities. The woman will respect the leadership of the man, yet will benefit by a 60-60 arrangement, whereby each gives in to the other in order to form a perfect union.

Our "Society For The Protection Of Children" will lean strongly on a program of prevention. Foreseeing the pitfalls of materialistic concepts we shall stress spiritual values; both by precept and example. Our manual of operation states clearly, "bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." But this manual also protects the rights of children, even as it imposes obligations. (Eph. 6:1-4)

The core of our philosophy is pure and genuine love; but its operation will be lubricated by the novel and somewhat drastic principle of "work." Extensive testing in the laboratories of the world has proven the fantastic properties of this little-known element, in preserving and strengthening the society unit, and providing adequate finances and abundant happiness for all concerned.

Where SFTPOC (pronounced "sftpoc") has been honestly tried, there has been an amazing drop in juvenile delinquency. Civil disorder has been sharply curbed; and independence, scholarship, and patriotism have been restored. Adults and young people alike rejoice in blessed SELF-RESPECT.

Little wonder then, that we desire to establish units of SFTPOC throughout this country, and abroad. Eternal security ofttimes depends on it. This marvelous unit is called, "home.

[RETIREDFAN1]

.IV No.V Pg.6

June 1967

On Leaving Denominations

Robert F. Turner

This page of PLAIN TALK IS used each month to reprint some carefully selected material from church history. We do not believe in "the authority of the Fathers" nor do we believe the "Pioneer preachers" were right about everything. However, a knowledge of their work, and their solutions for ever recurring problems, will help us to better understand the present and prepare for the future.

Here is a little exchange between F. D. Srygley, and the editor of "The Baptist and Reflector" published in the Gospel Advocate sometime between 1889 and 1900. It was taken from the book, "The New Testament Church" page 50; published by the G. A. in 1955.

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

I suggested some weeks ago that "the effort should be to get Christians out of the denominations already in existence, and not to build up another one of the pestiferous things." Whereupon the Baptist and Reflector remarks:

"Get Christians out of the denominations already in existence" and into what? Why, into the Christian church, of course, by which is simply meant the Campbellite denomination. That is breaking down denominationalism with a vengeance."

The Baptist and Reflector is confused. I am making no effort to get Christians or anybody else "into theChristian Church,... by which is simply meant the Campbellite denomination." I am not in it myself and I am doing all I can in my feeble manner to get others out of it. My understanding of the New Testament is that all Christians are in the church of God. The same things that make one a Christian constitute him a member of the church. When Christians get into sects, parties, or denominations, they are in something more than the church of God. A Christian who belongs to the Baptist Church, for instance, is in the church of God and the Baptist Church both. The idea is to get him out of the Baptist Church and leave him in the church of God.

And if a Christian is in "the Campbellite denomination," the idea is to get him out of that denomination and leave him in the church of God. The man who does what God requires in the Bible, and nothing more, will be a member of God's church and nothing else.

Whenever the Baptist denomination, or the Campbellite denomination, or any other sect, party, or denomination in religion undertakes to do anything not required by the New Testament, the idea is for Christians who do not wish to be partisans, sectarians, or denominationalists to cut loose from it and stick to the Bible.

That's the way to get folks out of denominations without getting them into anything else but the church of God. What does the Baptist and Reflector think of it?

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

PLAIN TALK solicits your assistance in finding "quotes" suitable for use.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IV No.V Pg.7

June 1967

Queries And Answers

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

Is the church, and the kingdom of Christ, one and the same? I thought we settled this when we fought the premillennial question years ago. YP

Reply:

When YP (young preacher) becomes OP he may have learned that "we" do not "settle" anything -- period. This is a sectarian, creedal conception, as erroneous and dangerous among "us" as it is among Baptist, Methodist, or any others. It establishes a "Church of Christ" orthodoxy (party centered) which challenges Christ's sole authority to establish doctrine. When "our" brotherhood becomes smaller than all saints (the universal church) or "our" doctrine is established by something other than God's word (such as "the majority opinion of the churches of Christ") "we" are in real trouble.

If you have access to "The Kingdom of Promise and Prophecy" (Whiteside), I recommend pp. 166-167, 177, where the above question is discussed. In the premillennial discussions, and in most "first principle" sermons today, gospel preachers have the Messianic kingdom in mind; and hence, for most practical purposes, they are justified in equating kingdom and church. That is -- kingdom refers to God's people, viewed from a governmental or "rule" standpoint (subjects of Jesus Christ, as King); while church designates those same people "called out" or set apart by the gospel of Christ.

ADDITIONAL POINTS ON "KINGDOM"

We miss the point re. kingdom when we think of people -- the "party" -- instead of "rule." Check your lexicons. As Vine says, "Basaileia (kingdom) is primarily an abstract noun, denoting sovereignty, royal power, dominion,.. then, by metonymy, a concrete noun, denoting the territory or people over whom a king rules." Note, "by metonymy," figure of speech, it means the people. Think "rule," not "people," when you speak of Christ's kingdom.

In Dan. 2:44 this distinction makes an extremely important point. The God of heaven shall set up a kingdom, and (KJ) "the kingdom" shall not be left to other people; (AS) "the sovereignty thereof." Thinking "people" "party" or something like that, we might conclude that some distinction would remain with a certain party, regardless of what they did. (Some commentaries actually draw this conclusion.) But the passage says the "sovereignty" or "rule" would not change.

Four world empires, the rule of men on a world scale, were depicted by the great image of gold, silver, brass, and iron -- with extremities of iron and clay. Then God sets up something that breaks in pieces all of these, i.e., the image of human rule, and establishes His government "in the top of the mountains" (Isa.2:2) or above and supreme to all human rule; and this "rule" "sovereignty" shall not pass to anyone else.

The Persians succeeded the Babylonians; the Romans the Greeks; but here there shall be no succession of rule. Read it again, and think on it. There SHALL BE NO SUCCESSION OF RULE. This completely destroys the idea of papal succession and other like ideas.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IV No.V Pg.8

June 1967

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

A preacher, "trying out" for a place" was given the third degree. "Have you any bad personal habits? Do you live within your income? How many "calls" will you make each week? What do you believe about "hats?" How much preparation do you put into each sermon? Will your children put "church" ahead of school activities? Etc. etc."

Well, a church has the right to know something about the preacher they plan to support. Even his personal habits may greatly affect his work; although I doubt that such questions will produce an accurate picture. I think he should answer their questions as best he can -- recognizing their right of investigation, in the light of the proposed partnership.

And then he should ask them a few questions. "Why did the last preacher move from here? Do you have any chronic "gripers," and if so, what are you doing to discipline them? Does the present contribution fairly represent your financial strength? If not, why not? How firmly do you back, with personal labor and attendance, each gospel meeting? What percentage of the members prepare their lessons for the Sunday and Wednesday Bible classes? Will your social life, and that of your children, reflect favorably upon the cause of Christ in this community? How concerned are you for lost souls, and how do you show that concern?"

I doubt that these questions will produce a complete picture; but they certainly will upset a business meeting!! Yes Sir!!

"Professionalism" is not confined to preachers; it extends to congregations which look upon themselves as little more than worshiping societies and employers of "church workers." We see "professional" churches about as often as we see "professional" preachers -- and in about the same places.

The collective role of saints in a local church does not remove their individual responsibilities. The "communication" of taught to teacher is an "association" "sharing with" "party to" and "implicated in" arrangement, whether the funds come from the individual or the church. (Gal. 6:6 Phil. 4:15) When we learn that the preacher is just another member of the church, with the feelings and weaknesses of other saints; but one whom we support because we recognize ability and talent we wish to fellowship in uninterrupted work for the Lord; then these "trials" and "places" and unnecessary "moves" will cease.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IV No.VI Pg.1

July 1967

Ol' What's-Her-Name

Robert F. Turner

I can never quite adjust to the unreasonable fury aroused when I use a specific church name. Folk seem very agreeable to my discussing the doctrinal errors of their church -- just tear them to smash -- but don't identify the church by name. It makes me wonder if they know enough about the distinctive doctrines of their church to recognize them without the label.

Or do they care little for the doctrine, but much for the party? Surely their religion goes deeper than that.

And how do you explain the many cases where there is no attack of any kind -- where some denominational name is simply a part of a historical quotation? (As in "On Leaving Denominations" in last month's issue; or -- say a prayer -- our "quote" for this month.)

I submit this thought for serious consideration: Folk who are queasy about open, honest, honorable mention of their self-avowed church-name; are lacking in understanding, conviction, or confidence. Be kind to your blood pressure by thinking this through carefully before blowing your top.

It is common knowledge that religion and politics are "hot" subjects, taboo at all social gatherings. And why?? Because such discussions seem to "alienate friends and stir-up the people." And why is that?? From the safety of my study (are the doors all locked Mama?) I submit that not many really know what they are talking about. With a skimpy and disjointed knowledge of the Bible; and little or no historic knowledge of the church of which they are a member; they fall back on emotions and personalities.

My brethren do it too. It is a rare thing to find one who differs with another on some basic point, who can calmly seek to define the issue and then discuss it intelligently. My brethren (who differ with me) are no more pleased with this article than are the Methodist, Baptist, and the Presbyterians. (There I go -- I've done it again!!!)

Emotions and people are a vital part of religion; but when they take the place of intelligent understanding of God's word, genuine conviction, and reassuring faith -- TMBER!!!!!

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IV No.VI Pg.2

July 1967

Where Are 'We' Going?

Robert F. Turner

"Fiery Ira" (in his bright red coat) gave a rousing speech at David Lipscomb College chapel, so I am told. He reminded the students that he was the "highest paid preacher in Tennessee," (said the "antis" were anti everything except ante-up) and he prayed, "Lord, bless all of us who have Ph.D.-s." And this ridiculous spectacle is considered by some (See Lovell's paper, Action) as a great leader of the saints of God.

In the Jan. 2,'66 issue of the bulletin of the Riverside church of Christ, Wichita, Kansas, was the following report: "We had a Christmas a Christmas service at Riverside on Sunday night. It was simple and lovely. Uncle Osie, an old Negro gentleman with white hair, lit a couple of candles and gathered several of our youngsters around him and told them the story of Jesus ... a small chorus was directed by Bob Scott. Two sang solos. Every song was a tribute to what Christ has meant to our world ... During the Christmas songs only candles burned around us ... we sat and meditated on the miracle of Jesus."

Extreme examples?? Well, you can think so if you want to keep your head in the sand; but I could fill this paper with such examples, month after month, if I could stomach the mess. BRETHREN, WHERE ARE "WE" GOING?

But you may say, "We have not done anything like that in the congregation of which I am a member!" I am so glad to hear it. Will your preacher openly oppose such conduct; and will your elders back him in the opposition?? It would be interesting to hear the scriptural principles upon which the opposition is presented. Many churches have already accepted the idea that the church can do anything the individual can do; -- and on the old dodge that "the church building isn't sacred" (as if anyone had said that it was) are ready to house, sanction, and support social and domestic functions. Many a church has its neck on the block, ready for the liberal ax, but are blissfully unaware of their predicament.

And "Fiery Ira" is the shining star of the "On the March" churches; (he originated that expression) and of the colleges that train your ministers and elders, and your youth. With such a model, just how do you plan to check the "march?"

And what would you do if you were a member of a church that endorsed and took part in such a program as that in Wichita? Object?? That would make you an "Anti!" Worship elsewhere?? Naughty, naughty!! Church-splitter!!

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IV No.VI Pg.3

July 1967

It Isn't Easy!!

Robert F. Turner

What must I do to be saved? It may be that the single thing most difficult to do is to overcome self. Only to the extent this is done will one see himself as a sinner, in need of salvation. Self must be set aside before there is room for Christ in anything like the full sense of the word; before repentance becomes meaningful.

In this article I am not interested in an academic discussion of which comes first, faith or repentance. The process of overcoming self is not a "step" -- done and over with -- but it becomes the challenge of our whole life as a follower of Christ. In the process of coming to believe that Jesus is the Christ, we begin to see ourself in the true light, and to see our insufficiencies, our sins. A little less of self, and we begin to despise our former ways -- we repent. We cease to follow the old paths, and we determine to walk that way no more.

Faith grows stronger; we cease to make excuses for our own way of salvation, and become more willing to accept whatever the Lord says. When He says, "repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ..." (Acts 2:38) it is stubborn self that argues with the Lord. Those who "give themselves" wholly to the Lord need only to be shown that He really does command baptism "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38; 22:16; Rom. 6:3-4; 1 Pet. 3:21) and self bows submissively before His will. Through faith we act as He directs. (Heb.11:7)

It is interesting -- though usually exasperating -- to watch the struggle between self and faith that takes place as an individual is in the process of coming to Christ. They may acknowledge sin "like everyone else"; or assure you they are "as good" as some hypocrite in the church. They will argue until it thunders rather than admit that someone else knows a little more about the Bible than do they. "What will my friends say?" I believe it is wrong to change religions!" or "My dear old mother was never baptized". These are ways many seek to justify self. They would not apply a single one of these tests to a matter upon which they were fully convinced, and which accorded with the desires of self.

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved..." (Acts 16:31) "Repent and be baptized..." (Acts 2:38) "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins..." (Acts 22:16) These are the scriptural answers given to the question, "What must I do?" But inherent in all of them, and the very basis of the scheme of redemption from man's standpoint, is the overcoming of self. Jesus said, "IF ANY MAN WILL COME AFTER ME, LET HIM DENY HIMSELF, AND TAKE UP HIS CROSS, AND FOLLOW ME." (Matt.16:24 See 25)

God made man a free moral agent, giving him the power of choice. Man has chosen sin, and because of it, is lost. (Rom. 5:12) So God did for man what he could not do for himself. God "so loved" man that He gave His Son to die for him. From God's standpoint the gift of His Son is the basis for our forgiveness -- our salvation. But this forgiveness is promised only to those who choose to forsake self, and return to their God and Father.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IV No.VI Pg.4

July 1967

Story Of The Text --- 6

Robert F. Turner

When the King James Version of the Bible was completed (1611) the work of the critical student, the need for further "versions" by no means ended. By 1613 another edition was printed which contained more than 400 variations. Printer's errors accounted for many of these variations, but revisions in 1629, 1638, etc. corrected some translations and style of expression. Then, in 1762, and in 1769, the Cambridge and Oxford revisions were made, which gave us the generally current form of the KJ version. Modernization of spelling, expressions, and changes in form (as the new paragraph arrangement of Amer. Bible Society) mustcontinue if the Bible is to be readable to the ordinary student.

And periodically the changes in language styles; even in the meaning of words; demands a "Revised Version." "Let" of Rom. 1:13, (KJ) means "hindered," (AS). "Prevent" (KJ) (1 Thes. 4:15) means, "precede" (go before) as seen in American Standard Version. "Conversation" (KJ) (Gal.1: 13) becomes "manner of life" in the more modern English of the ASV. The KJ translated an entirely different Greek word into "conversation" (Phil. 3:20) which the ASV modernized to "citizenship" -- or, as the foot-note says, "commonwealth."

No wrong is done in making such changes -- in fact, this is the legitimate task of the translator -- to put the words of the Bible before us in such a way as to convey the thought expressed by the original writer. And the legitimate task of the reviser is to correct errors, make current the language and expression, and bring up to date the vehicle (words and form) by which the ancient message is delivered to the present generation.

For example, if you had a copy of the first edition of the King James Bible-- reading Heb.1: 9 you would see:

"Thou hast loued ryghteousnesse, and hated iniquitie: Therfore God, euen thy God, hath annoynted thee with the oyle of gladnesse, aboue thy felowes."

 

Take this out of modern type and put it in its original form and most of us would find it very hard to read.

Then there are more fundamental reasons for continued critical study, revisions, and even new translations of the word of God. (1) The most complete ancient Greek manuscripts which we have today (Sinaitic, Vatican, Alexandrian, Ephraem) were not even known to the KJ translators. These have since been found or, in the case of the Vatican, made available to the world scholars. The advantages of a 4th. century text over a 15th. century one is apparent. (2) The science of Textual Criticism, with its photostatic copies, collations, comparisons and "family" relations of words, was scarcely known in 1611. Modern translators not only have more and better manuscripts with which to work; but they know better how to use them.

But there is one element which the earlier translators (including KJ) had, which seems to be missing in some of our recent efforts. I refer to their deep respect for the true author of the Bible, God of us all. The translator is not a commentator. He must tell us what God said, not his own theological deductions.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IV No.VI Pg.5

July 1967

Poor Mistreated You!!

Robert F. Turner

Paul wrote fourteen of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament. It is a marvelous tribute to his character that one may read these books and not think of Paul as a sour, disgruntled, self-pitying man; for his life as a Christian was one long string of persecutions and heart-aches.

He was baptized in Damascus; and shortly thereafter, had to be let down the wall in a basket to escape would-be murders. (2 Cor. 11:32) Coming to Jerusalem; disciples feared and refused him. Finally accepted, he preached -- until he had to flee for his life. (Acts 9:22-30) From Tarsus he came to Antioch -- to become soon embroiled in dissension and disputation with false brethren. (Acts 15:1)

Journeying to foreign lands to preach the gospel, he was stoned and dragged from the city as dead; (Acts 14:19) and this was but one incident in a lifetime of persecutions, beatings, imprisonment's, scorn and trial. (2 Cor. 1:8-9 6:4-5) "But we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God which raiseth the dead."

I know brethren today who, being falsely accused of something, or have their work, word or motive questioned; want to fight back carnally or else withdraw into their corner to nurse their supposed great wounds. Paul would never have "gotten to first base" had he followed such a course. He wrote, "All that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution." (2 Tim. 3:10-12) When a man decides to preach the pure gospel of Christ, he decides to endure hardship.

Seems to me he ought to know that, if he knows much about the work of the preacher as outlined in the Bible. It seems equally clear that any Christian who goes into the Christian life with eyes wide open, counts a like cost, and accepts it openly. ("all that will live godly." See Lu.14:26-) I CAN'T SEE THAT ANY OF US HAVE ANY LEGITIMATE "KICK A-COMING."

Many assign Paul's troubles to the pagans, and the "wicked world" of his times. But Paul names "perils among false brethren" and "the care of all the churches" among his burdens. It is significant to me that he "brought trouble upon himself" because of his great, unselfish concern for the spiritual welfare of others. (2 Cor.11:23 -f. 7:5-6) Yet he had to say, "The more abundantly I love you, the less I be loved." (2 Cor. 12:15) This too, is a role all workers for Christ must willingly accept.

Brethren falsely accused him, said he was "crazy." (2 Cor.5:12-13 11:16) "His letters, say they, are weighty and powerful; but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible." (2 Cor. 10:10) Brother, can you take it?? Sister, will you endure??

I can name you dozens of brethren who have compromised their convictions, quit preaching, ceased to oppose known errors, or quit the Lord altogether, because of some slight persecution. Someone laughed at them, or made a slighting remark, or failed to pay them proper respect. "If any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf." (1 Pet. 4:16)

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IV No.VI Pg.6

July 1967

"End Of Independence"

Robert F. Turner

I have long desired to compile information about the historic struggle for congregational independence among the denominations of the world, as well as among the Lord's people. Reading the history of James O'Kelley and the "Republican Methodists"; or the "Separatist" in Ireland; or of Scotch Baptists; one is frequently tempted to substitute current names and dates.

Every legitimate gain made for local autonomy has been made through proper use and application of the same scriptural principles "we" must use; and I am persuaded all lostindependence follows the same ecclesiastical paths "our" liberal brethren followed in 1849, and follow today.

I DARE YOU TO INSERT "CHURCH-OFCHRIST" IN THE PLACE OF "BAPTIST" in the following quotation!!

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

Contrary to the notions of most Baptists, there have always been strong centralizing tendencies among Baptists -- just as there have been among all the others. Which is another reminder that the human nature of a Baptist is the human nature of all the others.

In England in 1671 the General Baptists organized themselves into a General Assembly. They wanted a "strong government." The General Assembly did what you would expect such an ecclesiastical body to do; it exercised authority over churches, pastors, and church members. The General Assembly soon had two parties. In 1689 it divided. A new Assembly was formed, and by 1750 most of the General Baptists had become Unitarians. That was followed by shallow preaching and every form of worldliness. (Cf. "Short History of Baptists," by H. C. Vedder.) The first associational history published in America enumerated among the eight advantages of an association "a general union of the churches" and "The extirpation of heresy."

In 1832 the Dover Association in Virginia was having "delegates" instead of "messengers." "We, therefore, the assembled ministers and delegates of the Dover Association..." (Cf. "The Baptists of Virginia," by G. Ryland.)

We could go on indefinitely with such examples. The winds have always carried the seeds of ecclesiastical tares into Baptist fields. At times, as we have seen, they have come up and choked out the wheat of New Testament autonomy and independence. The phenomenal success of the Baptist people, especially Southern Baptists, in preserving New Testament freedom has been due to the fact they have had leaders who kept the tares cleared out of their fields. For example, in its great days the Southern Baptist Convention was constantly reminding the country that it was not a convention composed of "delegates" but a convention composed of "messengers."

But today all such leaders are viciously branded as "critics of our great denomination."

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

(From "End of Independence of Southern Baptist Convention Churches" (pg.11) by Noel Smith.)

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IV No.VI Pg.7

July 1967

Queries And Answers

Robert F. Turner

Dear bro. Turner:

Please give us a simple explanation of the "chosen people" Why are the Jews God's chosen race? LP

Reply:

Think with me! "God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." (Acts 10:34-35) "Think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham as our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham." (Matt. 3:9)

The Jews are not God's chosen race today; nor is any other literal race or nationality. But there was a time when the Israelites(used interchangeably in NT, Armstrong not-with-standing) were a chosen race. (Deut. 7:6-8) And why? "Because He would keep the oath which he sware unto your fathers ---."

If the Son of God was to put on flesh, become a man, some family, race, and nation would be involved. God did not choose to send His Son of an existing nation, but literally developed a special people through which the Christ would come, and all nations would be blessed. This development began when He called Abraham from Ur of the Chaldees. (Gen. 12:1-3)

There are two phases to the Abrahamic promise: (1) Abraham's descendants would form a great nation, having certain lands (Gen. 15:18-f); and (2) among his descendants would be one through whom all nations would be blessed. Paul says this one was Jesus Christ. (Gal. 3:14-16) God fulfilled His promise concerning the lands (Josh. 21:43-f) although the Israelites later forfeited their rights by disobedience. (Josh.23:15-f) The people, with their holdings, were broken "as one breaketh a potter's vessel, that cannot be made whole again" (Jer. 19:1-10); but a "remnant" was preserved, out of which Jesus was born. (Isa.1:9 10:20-f 9:6-7)

"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham" Thus begins Matthews account of Christ. God's Son "took on him the seed of Abraham" (Heb. 2:16) and thus the purpose of the literal "chosen nation" was accomplished. Yes, Israel was "chosen" FOR THE PURPOSE OF BRINGING CHRIST INTO THE WORLD. There are other subsidiary purposes, but this was the main one. And this special selection has served its end.

When "all nations" could be saved "in Christ" these saved ones were given the appropriate name of the "Israel of God." (Gal.6:16) Neither nation, station in life, nor sex are "chosen" as such; but those individuals of any nation, station or sex who put their trust in Jesus Christ receive the blessings promised through the "seed of Abraham" Note Gal. 3:26-29!

Also, appropriately enough, these Christians of every nation are called the "chosen generation" (1 Pet. 2:9) and a comparison will show that Peter applies the statements of Deut. 7:6-8, and like passages elsewhere, to describe these Christians.

God invites "who-so-ever-will" to be His chosen people. (Acts 2:21-41)

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IV No.VI Pg.8

July 1967

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

I once knew a fellow who had a habit of saying, in public prayer, "We ask Thee, in a special way," to do so and so. It never was clear to me what was "special" about the asking. Did he have a "common" prayer for some things, and a "special" prayer for others? If so, I couldn't tell it.

"Special" means something more than "regular" -- having unusual qualities or characteristics. A man has a "special" obligation to care for his own family, as compared with his obligations to all mankind. (1 Tim.5: Christ is the "Savior of all men, specially of those that believe."I.E., He is Savior of all potentially, but in a very special way -- distinctively and individually -- of those who believe. (1 Tim. 4:10)

To get back to prayer, perhaps we pray "more fervently" "with greater feeling" or "more of it" one time than another. But if this is the case surely God knows about it, by virtue of its existence, and not because we label one prayer "special." I suspect we all say a lot of things -- specially in public prayer -- that are more habit than genuine prayer should be.

"Make a special effort to be here!" Does the preacher make that sort of plea to the church of which you are a member? Well, there are times when we are weak, when we are tempted to neglect our obligations to the Lord, or our opportunities to worship Him. In such cases we need to PUT OUT A SPECIAL EFFORT -- just exactly as much effort as it takes to do what we ought to do. This is all part and parcel of our struggle with self, and the Devil, in our effort to be faithful to the Lord. But there are no blue ribbons for this performance. Read Lu. 17:10:

"So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do."

 

When "ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service" (Rom. 12:1, emphasis mine, rft) it is hard to believe that the slight personal inconvenience sometimes caused by such demands, really qualifies as a "special effort."

To serve the Lord, start doing the unusual every day, and occasionally the impossible. It will do you a very special amount of good.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IV No.VII Pg.1

August 1967

"My Record" In 1890

Robert F. Turner

Searching for "quote" material in Gospel Advocates of 1890, we found the following -- too long for our regular "quote" page, too good to be cut or left out. Read it with care!!

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

"Bro Lipscomb, and Bro. Wilmeth, and the CHRISTIAN COURIER, and several others have been looking up my record to see whether or not I have changed my convictions concerning missionary societies and such like. Bro. Lipscomb thinks I have changed, the COURIER seems to doubt it, and Bro. Wilmeth thinks I am nothing but aTrojan horse anyhow and a very poor specimen of decidedly scrub stock at that.

I am perfectly willing for the brethren to amuse themselves and while away their spare time discussing my convictions, but I hope they will handle my record very tenderly. It is a good enough record if let alone, but it will not bear rough handling or a close inspection. Still, it is no slouch of a record after all considering that it is the first one I ever made. I could make a much better one now if I had time and needed it, but this one is good enough for all the use I have for it. I don't expect to go to heaven on my record or pedigree anyhow. In earlier years I damaged my record very seriously by using it too much. The fact is, I was very proud of it, and, not knowing exactly what it was good for -- or, rather, that it was not good for much of anything -- I tried to do all sorts of absurd and impossible things with it. If people seemed to doubt the rectitude of my life or the orthodoxy of my doctrine, I tried to silence the gainsayer by a great parade of my record. If I wanted a job of preaching or a situation in business, my record had to bear the strain of proving my fitness. If I moved into a new neighborhood or tried to court a strange girl, I straightway unrolled my record and spread it out to be trodden under foot of men. Indeed I was fool enough to think that if I could only get one end of that everlasting record fastened to the top of the Jasper Walls of the New Jerusalem, I could yank myself over the walls into the heavenly city by it like a flash. Such constant use has worn it down pretty well to a frazzle.

I made several balks in the thing by weaving bad material into it. At several places I ruined the texture of the fabric by using too much selfishness in the woof. More of brotherly love and less of the partisan spirit would have improved it greatly at several places. There are too many hard threads of pride, egotism, ambition and worldly aspirations in the whole bolt, warp and woof. There is not enough of the grace of God, humility, forgiveness, prayerfulness, patience, love, joy, cheerfulness, forbearance, self-sacrifice and generosity in any part of it. At some places the whole bolt for yards on a stretch is made, warp and woof, of prejudice, bigotry, hatred, sectarianism, intolerance and a desire to break down and destroy "the other party."

There are several yards of such worthless stuff in the bolt at one place where I was working against David Lipscomb. To be sure I might say, by way of apology, if not to my justification, that David's record right along there is worse than mine, but where is the good of saying it? Will his faults atone for my sins? Can I go to heaven on his meanness? Can a merchant induce you to buy a yard of worthless calico by showing you two yards of meaner stuff from another bolt? Such a course would be as the foolishness of trying to patch the seat of your breeches by sewing a hole over the rent. No, brethren, I will be honest about it. All those faults in my record are inexcusable, and they seriously damage the whole bolt. I am heartily ashamed of them, but they cannot be remedied now. I have therefore resolved to throw away the whole thing and rely upon the grace of God and the help of the brethren rather than the consistency of my record, for salvation. "By the grace of God I am what I am."

"I count all things but loss for the excellency of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ." I don't want to go to heaven with my record wrapped about me as if I gloried in "mine own righteousness," when I can clothe myself in the glorious and shining "righteousness which is of God by faith."

The ATTITUDE of F. D. Srygley, gospel preacher and writer in 1890, is sincerely commended to all in 1967.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IV No.VII Pg.3

August 1967

Those "Strange People"

Robert F. Turner

Years ago I shared a seat on the train with a "missionary" returning from work in Alaska. He told me he met some "strange people" up there who thought they could work out their own salvation.

I said, "With fear and trembling; Phil. 2:12."

"No, No!" he said. "I mean they thought they could save themselves."

And I said, "From this untoward generation; Acts 2:40."

This was just too much for the old gentleman; and he sighed, and said he guessed I must be one of those folk. Well, I never did discover whether I was or was not; but I did try to make my point that there was nothing wrong in a faith that could be "spelled out" by the word of God.

It is common to hear preachers boldly assert that "the gospel of Christ must be believed -- it can not be obeyed!!!" I just recall that Paul said the Lord was coming "in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." (2 Thes.1:8) When I hear someone say, "A child of God can not fall from grace" I remember that Paul told the Galatians who sought justification by the law, "ye are fallen from grace." (Gal. 5:4) Reminds me of the fellow in the jail cell who shouts at the jailer, "You can't do this to me!"

I know that sinners can not "save themselves" apart from the Lord; but there must be some way in which this admonition properly applies, or it would not be in God's word. The facts of the gospel can only be believed, but there must be commands of the gospel, which must be obeyed, or this responsibility would not be placed upon us. It is foolish to contend that Christians can not fall from grace, when Paul says some had done so. By the same token, there must be some sense in which we are saved by faith -- for in various ways the Bible says this is so. (Rom. 5:1) But it doesn't say "faith ONLY" -- and so we have no right to say so. If there were not some sense in which baptism washes away sins, the Bible would not tell us that it does. (Acts 22:16) Ignoring God's word won't change it.

How wonderful it would be if we all had enough confidence in the word of God to accept it just as God gave it; neither "explaining away" the statements we do not like, nor acting as though they didn't exist. The New Testament relates salvation to 18 or 20 different things. We are saved by grace, faith, works, baptism, hope, -and so, on and on. There is no ONLY attached to either of these things. It would seem that common "horse" sense would tell us that they are ALL necessary ingredients -- fitting perfectly into the divine pattern, each in its place. No "doctrine" that denies any of these matters, or places emphasis upon one to the hurt of another, could possibly be God's truth.

Folk who respect the word of God just "face up" to its statements and accept them. If this makes "strange people" -- then so be it.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IV No.VII Pg.4

August 1967

Story Of The Text 7

Robert F. Turner

Before going further in our study of translations and versions, we need to consider the accuracy of the original manuscripts. What is the nature of the letters of Paul, the biography of Mark, the history of Luke? Did they write with such precision as to demand translations and versions that say precisely what they said; or were their words of human choice, seeking to express a "thought" which translators may likewise "seek" to express without regard to original wording?

Jesus told His disciples, "But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you." Both the "what" and the "how" of the message were to be provided by the Holy Spirit. (Matt. 10:19-20)

On the first Pentecost following the resurrection the H. S. fell upon the Apostles and they "began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." (Acts 2:4-f) Of this J. W. McGarvey once wrote: "It is impossible to conceive a clearer proof of divine inspiration than for a company of men to speak intelligibly and correctly in a number of languages which they have never learned. SUCH SPEAKING NECESSARILY IMPLIES THE DICTATION OF THE WORDS WHICH WERE UTTERED, whatever may be true in regard to the thoughts..... It is impossible that the WORDS could have been chosen by the speaker." And we say, Amen!!

Inspired men often did not understand the import of what they said. Peter spoke an unlimited gospel on Pentecost (Acts 2:21, 39) but later miraculous demonstrations were necessary to convince him to go preach to the Gentiles. (Acts 10:9-35) Read I Pet. 1:10-12 with care. Note the case of Caiaphas, Jn. 11:49-52. Paul clearly claimed verbal inspiration in 1 Cor. 2:12-13. "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual."

The writers of the New Testament certainly claimed verbal inspiration; and the ability to write so that the reader could "understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ." (Eph. 3:4) Peter wrote "that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance." (2 Pet.1:15) We do not believe a translator is at liberty to ignore the wording of the manuscripts under the pretext of making God's message more understandable. The problems of extremely literal translation -- of any language -- we freely acknowledge. We recognize the presence of idiomatic expressions in both Greek and Hebrew cultures, that make literal rendition difficult. But much of these problems are solved by student absorption of more Bible -- a thing they are denied by the ultra-"free" texts of today. Deny the reader the words of the Apostles and N. T. Prophets AND YOU DENY THEM ACCESS TO THE DIVINELY INSPIRED WORD OF GOD.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IV No.VII Pg.5

August 1967

Sermon On "Living"

Robert F. Turner

A sincere but misguided man once approached me with a list of his expenses (rent, food, taxes, etc.) and a statement of his income, and asked me to tell him how much he should give to the Lord. He was dismayed and shocked when I said, "All of it!".

But I honestly believe my answer was correct. We are missing the whole point of "giving" when we allot 10%, 20%, or 30% of our possessions to the Lord, and think the remainder is ours to use as we see fit. There was no compromise in Jesus' answer to the rich young man -- Matt.19:16-30. "Go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come and follow me".

Jesus said, "And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life". What percentage does Jesus allow a man to keep "for himself??" In Lu.14:33 Christ is recorded as saying, "So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple".

Our thinking on this subject is awry because of several popular misconceptions. First, we are mistaken in thinking that one's whole gift to God may be measured by funds placed in the church treasury. The brethren of Macedonia "first gave their own selves to the Lord" (2 Cor.8:5) and from this background then gave a liberal portion of goods for the needy saints. We glorify God in our individual relation to God in Christ -- the "universal" church, if you please; (Eph. 3:21) and our functions with the brethren of a local church are but a part of the service we render to Him (Note 1 Cor. 10:31, we must glorify God even in our private social life.). Second, stewardship involves more than money. Paul argues that our very body belongs to the Lord, and that fornication is the taking of that which belongs to the Lord, and giving it to an harlot. "For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's" (1 Cor. 6:13-20). Our time, our talents, our possessions -- ALL belong to the Lord when we have truly become His follower. With this attitude, the needand opportunity to serve the Lord will determine the use we make of our possessions -- not some arbitrary rule of percentage.

Some will object, "But a man has to live!!! Does he? Did James, who died by the sword or Herod? Did Paul, "ready to be offered?" No, a man does not have to live in comfort and security here, in order to live in heaven. But there is something he does have to do here -- he must present his body " a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service." (Rom.12:1)

If and when we learn to dedicate ourselves wholly and fully to the service of the Lord -- to realize that as such we are not our own -- then and only then will these money questions be resolved. Preaching on "Giving" will do little to solve the problems. We must preach and practice some good hard sermons on LIVING.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IV No.VII Pg.6

August 1967

"Societies" And "Adjunots"

Robert F. Turner

The word "Society" has a bad connotation among members of the church of Christ, especially when applied to some church adjunct. The "adjunct" is freely accepted by "marching" liberal brethren everywhere -- World Radio, Campaigns for Christ, Inc., Herald of Truth, Boles Home, etc. -- although there is hesitancy in calling these adjuncts "adjuncts," and downright aversion to calling them "societies" (Some brave reader will "Refuse" this paper on the basis of the above.).

But facts are stubborn things. The word "society" as used in this context means, "a voluntary association of individuals for common ends". The bad connotation, mentioned earlier, developed among members of the church of Christ in earlier years, when "missionary societies" "ladies aid societies" and the like were issues among brethren, leading to the so-called "Christian Church" division (Today's "Christian Church" is simply yesterday's liberal brethren, gone to seed.).

A missionary society consisted of "a voluntary association of individuals" intent on furthering the preaching of the gospel (As those forming today's Gospel Press society.). It became an "adjunct" to the churches because churches voluntarily contributed to its treasury, using it as a media through which to do some of their "mission" work. Domination of the churches by the societies was not an avowed purpose or intent. In fact many societies had clauses in their charters sharply forbidding such. Autonomy was not wrested from churches -- certainly not in early stages of the development. The churches freely gave away their autonomy, in their zeal to do "good works" via these adjuncts. These things are clearly revealed in "our" history, and why men like Reuel Lemmons can not see it, I do not understand. Words have their "day" and then give place to other words. "Society" was a popular word in the latter half of the last century. It was freely attached to Orphan Homes, Schools, and the like by brethren whose counterparts now shun the word like the plague (Today's "fellowship dinners" and "area-wide young people's meetings" were once called "fairs and festivals" and are outlawed as such in many "creeds in the deeds" today.). The point in all this in most obvious to any who will THINK.

Liberal brethren today are condoning, encouraging and supporting exactly the same things -- in principle -- that led the digressive movement of the last century. Benevolent Societies, Missionary Societies, Advertisement Societies, Promotion Societies, and many more, are made adjuncts to the church, and sap the strength of that divine institution. Today's promoters have simply relabeled the mess, and gullible brethren are swallowing it, hook-line-and-sinker.

Early stalwarts contended that the single independent local church was its own "missionary society" and "benevolent society". They were called, "Anti-s" by the digressive element of yesteryear -- even as those who object to today's adjuncts are societies are so branded. AM I BECOME YOUR ENEMY BECAUSE I TELL YOU THE TRUTH??

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IV No.VII Pg.7

August 1967

Queries And Answers

Robert F. Turner

Dear bro. Turner:

Mark 15:25 says Christ was crucified "the third hour" of the day. But John says Christ was still in Pilate's Hall at "the sixth hour" (Jn.19:14). Please explain this. TA

Reply:

The Jews counted time from 6: in evening to 6: the next morning as the 12 hours of the night; and from 6:a.m. to 6:p.m. as the 12 hours of the day. Thus, by Jewish count, the "third hour of the day" was 9:a.m., our time. (see Acts 2:15) Thus darkness covered the land from the sixth to the ninth hour, (noon to 3: p.m. our time) according to Matt. 27:45 Mk. 15:33 Lu. 23:44, writers using Jewish time.

But John, writing later, and at a time when Roman time was more likely to be used by his readers, used the Roman method of computing time. Roman time began at midnight, as does our's today, and "the sixth hour" would be 6: a.m. (Compare John 20:1 where we are told that Mary Magdalene came to the sepulchre on the "first day of the week, when it was yet dark," i.e., very early in the morning. Then, in verse 19, "the same day, at evening, being the first day of the week, --" showing that by John's manner of computing time (the Roman method) it was still the "first day" even though the evening was come -- and by Jewish time it was no longer the "first day").

Jesus was still in Pilate's Hall at "the sixth hour" Roman time; (or 6: a.m. our time) and was crucified at the "third hour" Jewish time; (or 9:a.m. our time) and died about the "ninth hour" Jewish time; (or about 3: p.m. our time). There is no contradiction in Mark and John's account. Bro. Turner:

Is Bible teaching in a Bible class "public teaching?" Please answer in Plain Talk. Thank you. SW

Reply:

Seems to me a "class" would be as "public" or as "private" as the sponsor chose to make it.

"Class," in the sense evidently employed here, is "a body of students meeting regularly to study the same subject". Now "public" means "open to common or general use, enjoyment, etc., as, a public meeting" (Webster). If a "class" is open to all comers, old or young, male or female; it is certainly a "public" class. A teacher of that sort of class would certainly be teaching "publicly".

But a "class" could be, and often is, limited to a certain age, sex, or even individually chosen students. In such cases the "privacy" or "public" nature of the class is regulated by those having charge of such affairs. If you taught a "class" in your home, but invited and allowed all who would come to be a part of that class, this would be a "public" class.

A class could be "public" within a stipulated field; i.e., open to all who are six years old males. As any thoughtful person can see, "public" and "class" are not, in and of themselves, sufficient evidence to either accept or reject a thing. It is sad that brethren will allow such trivia to set their course.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IV No.VII Pg.8

August 1967

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

Several years ago a certain section of Texas was at the crossroads, so far as divine approval for its saints was concerned. Liberally dotted with churches not yet imbued with the "on the march" philosophy, and basically conservative in attitude, there was reason to hope this section would be spared the digressive blight rapidly spreading over much of the brotherhood.

One church, strong numerically and financially, and in a position to wield an influence for good; had a preacher who knew the truth well, and to whom many brethren looked for scriptural guidance. A majority of the elders were sound in the faith, and willing to stand firmly for congregational independence and divinely authorized church work, free of all social gospel and institutional entanglements.

But the preacher lacked courage. He posed as a soldier of the cross, but apparently the thoughts of battle terrified him. Then too, he had to think of his financial stake, and of his "position" as a popular preacher. He persuaded himself that "peace at any price" was a bargain, so he refrained from pointed application of God's truth to the errors of the day. He fired many a shot, but from a safe distance, and at vague and indefinite targets. He seldom hit anything.

So liberal attitudes grew. The spiritual fiber of the church waned; and when the preacher was dismissed an avowed liberal replaced him. Other churches in the area followed suit, and Jesus wept.

For in the long ago, in another section, a man knew the truth and felt keenly His responsibility to preach it. From house to house, publicly and privately, He spoke boldly. Given opportunity, He pled His cause. Denied opportunity, He made an opening. He challenged the traditions of established religions, and exposed their hypocrisies.

He was threatened but to no avail. They couldn't fire Him, for He had never been for hire. Economic pressures could scarcely be applied to a man who had no place to lay His head.

So they crucified Him!

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

Once a Judas, casting silver,

Freed his soul, that never died;

And a Peter, hearing cock crow,

Viewed himself --- and cried!:

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IV No.VIII Pg.1

September 1967

It's Me, 0 Lord!

Robert F. Turner

A recent class in Personal Work, (defined, Individual interest in the souls of others;) was asked: "What do you consider to be the greatest hindrance to successful personal work?"

With variation, but without exception, the members of the class replied, "Indifference on our part!"

Of course there were other hindrances: a feeling of inadequacy, negative response in the past, general lack of interest in religion among people caught up in the affairs of this life, etc. But everyone agreed that the big problem is close to home. "Not my brother, not my sister, but it's me O Lord; Standing in the need of prayer!"

An Arkansas farmer once jokingly told a dinner guest: "I ain't got no table manners, and don't never pass nothing. You'll just have to make out the best you can." He was somewhat jolted when the guest replied, "If you know you aren't acting right, why don't you try to do better?"

That is a low blow, isn't it? Have we need for such a jolt respecting our relation toward God? Have we come to the point that we can boldly acknowledge our weakness -- maybe even make a joke of it -- and go our way feeling that penance is complete? Jesus' classic example of repentance (Matt. 21:28-f) says, "but afterward he repented, and went." AND WENT! What credit is one due, who recognizes his sins but refuses to do anything about it? The sin is compounded. "To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." (Jas. 4:17) "For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgement and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries." (Heb. 10:26-27)

I know literally dozens of people who excuse themselves on the basis that "everybody does it" or "I don't want to be a hypocrite." Yet they are highly incensed if one accepts their self-confessed sinner status, and warns them of the wrath to come. IT'S TIME WE QUIT ACTING LIKE CHILDREN!!

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IV No.VIII Pg.2

September 1967

The Lord Willing ...

Robert F. Turner

In 1962 when your editor moved to Burnet, Tex. he felt he had found a place he could call "home." He told the Burnet elders he wished to build a house here, and following a reasonable tenure of work with the Burnet church, would like to make this "headquarters" for a future work of meetings, writing, etc. Mutual agreements were reached on such phases of this plan as would effect local work. This writer is aware that there may be "many a slip 'twixt cup and lip'," but he has proceeded to put foundation beneath this dream.

Vivian and I built "Rocky Roost II" -- much of it literally with our own hands -- and love every rock and thorn on the place. Now we launch the second phase of the plan -- announcing my desire to do full-time meeting and lecture work, beginning June 1968. In anticipation of this move, I have already scheduled sixteen (16) meetings for '68; and have several more tentatively scheduled. (These are from California to Maryland, deep-south Texas to Illinois.) I can not schedule any more meetings for early 1968, for I have promised the Burnet church all time not already allotted, until another preacher can be moved to Burnet. I have a few weeks open in late summer, and after middle of November; and of course in following years.

The Burnet church is now discussing the possibility of subsidizing this work, especially in those fields where meetings will not be self-supporting; and perhaps something can be worked out. Their interest, love, and willingness to sacrifice are fully appreciated. But at this writing I have no firm commitment along this line; even though I know this is regarded as a practical necessity by those who have done such work. Maybe I am not very practical. I just know there are hundreds of small struggling conservative groups that need assistance, and multiple areas without a sound church; and I would like to offer my services. I will count on making my way with the support more able churches will give, and thank God for it.

I do not know how long I will follow this plan. Much will depend upon the good I feel is being accomplished; as well as my health and capacity for the punishment that goes with it. (I have followed this course before, so do not begin the journey blindly.)

The Burnet church plans to continue publication of PLAIN TALK as part of their teaching program, and I have promised to continue writing it. The plan and policy of PLAIN TALK will be unchanged; even to making editorials like this few and far between.