Jump to content

Plain Talk


RETIREDFAN1

Recommended Posts

Vol.XI No.IV Pg.3
June 1974

Advice Of Fools

Dan S. Shipley

Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly. . . Who, better than his Creator, knows what it takes to make man truly happy? He not only knows it, He has told it! He has told it in such passages as the first two verses of Psalms, a portion of which is noted above. Here, we are shown that happiness involves more than just doing and having. What we dont do can be a factor too. Like, for instance, not being influenced by the advice of ungodly people.

But who are the ungodly? Properly identifying them is essential if we are to shun their counsel and attain the resultant blessedness. But arent they just the atheists and infidels? Yes, but not just! These represent only a small and more obvious segment of a mostly unrecognized host who are without regard or reverence for God. Not that they try to hide it— its only that they are not considered ungodly by others who are either like them or who have a too-limited concept of ungodliness. The ungodly are not necessarily mean and unprincipled criminal types as commonly thought. In fact, they may be a sincere, honest and benevolent sort of people, of good reputation and high morals. But such qualities are not always attributable to God-related influences. The ungodly are those who are uninfluenced by God. Whether by design or by neglect, they have no place for Him in their lives. They are such as have either disregard or defiance for the person of God.

It is this sort of a person whose counsel is not to be followed because they show themselves to be foolish in their ungodliness. There is no greater fool than the man God calls a fool. Among those so labeled is the one who says there is no God (Ps. 14:1) and the one who lives as if there is no God (Lk. 12:16-20). Theirs is the advice of fools. Their counsel does not take into account the existence, the sovereignty or the will of God, let alone mans accountability to Him. They ignore that vital and eternal part of man that is after Gods image. Their advice is oriented to externals, toward the material and temporal; it is based on the anti-scriptural concept that man can live by bread alone (Matt. 4:4). Their urgings are flavored with the notion that man is as well off without God as with Him. To be influenced by the counsel of men who refused to be influenced by the counsel of God is to become as foolish as they.

And yet, we see that the advisors chair is too often occupied by the ungodly and influential character at whose feet flock multitudes, impressionable youth included, where they imbibe the poisonous counsel of fools. There they have learned of their ape ancestry; that the Bible is little more than antiquated folklore and of the new morality of taffy-ethics. From both sought (and paid for) and from uninvited counsel comes the encouragement to do your thing (even if illegal or immoral); look out for number one; when in Rome... and similar foolish advice. Take it! —if you want to be miserable. But God says happy is the man who shuns it—and whose delight and meditation is in Gods law. He should know. And we should learn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.XI No.IV Pg.4
June 1974

Process Vs. Product

Robert F. Turner

The process by which divine truth is made known to man is set forth in the product, i.e., the inspired word. Chosen witnesses were selected, equipped, and sent forth into all nations, (LUK.24:48-49, ACT.1:8). Their message was "confirmed" as being of God, by the miraculous "signs" which followed them, (MAR.16:14-20, HEB.2:3-4). They were guided into "all truth" by the Holy Spirit (JOH.14:25-26, 16:12) this being the "more sure word of prophecy," (2PE.1:19-21). These things were written so that later generations would have "all things that pertain unto life and godliness" (2PE.1:3, 13-15, 3:1-2); and even the "signs" were recorded so that we might believe unto life (JOH.20:30-f). The message is "the word of God" and it is understandable to those who read it, seeking truth (1TH.2:13, EPH.3:1-7).

The process involved divinely inspired men — Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors and Teachers (EPH.4:8-13) — and the product, the fully revealed gospel of Christ, records their presence and operation in the church during the days of direct divine revelation. The process involved the miraculous ability to speak in a tongue the speaker had never learned, (ACT.2:6-11; 1CO.14:), and the product records such gifts. But this record does not warrant our expecting such gifts and manifestations today— any more than we might expect God to mold todays men from the dust of the earth, as He molded Adam. The process was never superior to the product. It was but a means to an end. In the absence of the fully revealed word of God, "signs" served to convince unbelievers that this was Gods doing, and then the message edified and convicted, (1CO.14:22-25). (Note in this context how Paul gives precedence to the message rather than to the process by which it came. See also, vs. 37; 1JO. 4:1-6, where the message (the product) is used to examine and judge the "Spirit" claimed).

Perhaps MAR.16:17-f. is the most widely used passage to "prove" (?) that miracles are for today. "These signs shall follow them that believe." Yet practically all readers admit not all of the named signs, are practiced by all believers. How and to what extent are limitations justified? The "they" of vs. 20 evidently refers to those apostles who were with Him at His ascension (vs. 19) so that vs. 20 is in close accord with HEB. 2:3-4. The confirming signs were performed by chosen messengers, and I followed (accompanied) all believers only in a generic sense. (The word is akoloutheo; with a para prefix in vs. 17, and an epi prefix in vs. 20.) Today, all students have all the signs (set forth in the product) which God felt necessary to produce faith (JOH.20:31).

Was God a "respecter of persons" among the Israelites when He selected Moses as their leader and law-giver? Neither is He a "respecter of persons" among Christians because he selected certain ones as messengers, and gave "gifts" to those who were a part of the process of making the New Covenant known to all mankind.

If we cannot be satisfied with the product of His mighty works, the process will help little. (LUK.16:31)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.XI No.IV Pg.5
June 1974

"Day Of The Lord"

Robert F. Turner

In ISA.13:6 we read, "Howl ye; for the day of the Lord is at hand" (vs. 9-f.). "Behold the day of the Lord cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it. For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine"... "therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the Lord of host, and in the day of his fierce anger."

Surely this refers to the end of time—but wait — the chapter begins: "The burden of Babylon," and vs. 17-19 says, "I will stir up the Medes against them, ... and Babylon ... shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah." This does NOT refer to the end of time — but to the destruction of the power of Babylon.

In ISA.34:2-f. we read "For the indignation of the Lord is upon all nations ... and the mountains shall be melted with their blood. And all the hosts of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth... " Verse 8 says, "It is the day of the Lords vengeance, and the year of recompenses for the controversy of Zion. And the streams thereof shall be turned into pitch, and the dust thereof into brimstone, and the land thereof shall become burning pitch. It shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up forever; from generation to generation it shall lie waste;" etc. Is this the end of time? NO, this is Gods punishment of Idumeans (vs.5)

God, through Jeremiah, foretold the overthrow of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon (JER.46) and called this "the day of the Lord God of hosts". God foretold judgment upon Israel (JOE.1:1-f.) calling it "the day of the Lord (vs. 15), preceded by "the sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood "(2:31). The destruction of Jerusalem, as foretold in ZEC.14, is called "the day of the Lord" and says, "Then shall the Lord go forth.". It should come as no surprise to students of the Old Testament when Jesus foretells the destruction of Jerusalem (MAT. 24:) that he uses the same sort of language saying "there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places". The sun will "be darkened and the moon shall not give her light and the stars shall fall from heaven and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken" (MAT.24:-34).

Clearly, not every "Day of the Lord" is the final judgment day, the final coming of the lord. The Lord has "come" many times — in judgment upon nations, cities, people. Almost without exception, his "coming" is pictured in strong, colorful figures, with many references to the sun, moon and stars. Their "falling" evidently refers to the overthrow of government and great military powers. Perhaps all these figures portend the final and literal coming of the Lord described in 2PE.3:10-f. With such examples of His power and warnings, we should prepare for His certain coming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.XI No.IV Pg.6
June 1974

Pelagian Or Calvinist?

Robert F. Turner

Ever hear of Pelagius? I wouldnt know him if I met him on the street— for he was a British monk who lived Ca. 360 to 428 A.D. He went to Rome Ca. 400, where his teaching was controverted by Augustine, and was officially condemned as heretical. It was:

1. There is no such thing as original sin: consequently:

2. There is no baptismal regeneration, no damnation of unbaptized infants, no hereditary taint of As sin.

3. Man has perfect freedom of the will and has no absolute need of Gods grace to set him right.

4. Man, though aided in various ways by divine grace, is virtually the author of his own salvation.

(Taken from Websters Unabridged Dict.)

John Calvin systematized and gave prominence to an opposite concept. In 1536 he presented four Books of Institutes of the Christian Religion. He considered the absolute sovereignty of God as in-compatible with freewill or agency on mans part. Also, the nature of God necessitated a complete and particular foreordination and predestination of all things— including Adams fall. He had some difficulty reasoning through Adams sin; but once Adam sinned, even the will of his descendants is depraved. Quoting Augustine— Man through liberty became a sinner, but corruption, ensuing as the penalty, has converted liberty into necessity. Calvin says, It thus appears that none can enter the kingdom of God save those whose minds have been renewed by the enlightening of the Holy Spirit. It is important to note (for our current discussions) that Calvins grace is extended particularly, to individuals chosen of God. He says, Let no prating Pelagian here allege that God obviates this rudeness or stupidity, when, by the doctrine of his word, he directs us to a path which we could not have found without a guide. Again, When the will is enchained as the slave of sin, it cannot make a movement toward goodness, far less steadily pursue it. (From Institutes Bk. 2, Ch. 2, S. 20-21; Ch. 3, S.5.)

Of course, I believe man does have the capacity to understand the revelation of God— that grace is universally extended in that the Gospel is offered unto all, (Titus 1:11-f. Eph. 3:2-6). I do not believe (as Pelagius, if fairly represented) that man has no need for grace, for Christ, died for the sins of the world, to become the author of salvation unto all who obey Him. (Heb. 5:9) It is by His grace that He liveth to make intercession for us. (Heb. 7:25 1 Jn. l:7-f.)

I do not believe that mans free will was lost in Adam; nor that sins because he is man. (In the sense that God is just because He is God.) One need not be Pelagian nor Calvinist— these two did not exhaust concepts of salvation— but their conflicts focus attention upon the nature and condition of man. Is he free to accept or reject Gods word? Is he capable of serving God acceptably? We are going to have to reexamine, or study initially, such basic fundamental issues. Maybe we will rediscover why pioneer preachers often preached: THE GOSPEL WHICH GOD GAVE, IS WELL. SUITED TO THE MAN WHOM GOD MADE!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.XI No.IV Pg.7
June 1974

?You Know What?

Robert F. Turner

All questions from readers are welcomed, and deserve attention. However, not all require a full page; so here are a number of shorties.

Dear Bro. Turner:

In the case of an adulterous marriage where there are children; if the man became a eunuch via surgery, may he continue to live in the house and support his family?

Reply:

Typewriter for Sale! And the job goes with it!! The mans desire to meet his material obligations is commendable as is his willingness to take drastic measures to avoid further sexual relations. (We are assuming a genuine penitent heart.) This may be a solution and again it may raise new questions as complex as the first. Is the sexual relation the only thing involved in adultery? Definable factors are necessary for the discussion of this and all subjects; but there is more to marriage than pure mechanics. Too, I believe the willing eunuch of MAT.19:12 may refer to self - containment-- abstinence rather than (or as well as) mutilation. The reception of such ideals involves factors that some "cannot receive" (vs.1, 12b) , meaning they lack the dedication necessary. In the final analysis God, who sees the heart, will render just judgment.

Dear Bro. Turner:

Have the elders authority to dissolve the church over which they have been appointed without the desires of the members?

Reply:

Apparently some specific case is in the mind of the querist and I have neither qualifications nor desire to meddle in this. In principal elders make decisions in the realm of human judgment and expediencies on behalf of the church. They are given this right by (1) scriptures which authorize their place and work, and (2) by the church, in the act of selection and appointment (1TI.3:5; ACT.21:20; 14:23). "Without regard for the members" suggests an arbitrary rule which would be wrong if this is the case (1PE.5:3). A local church cannot be dissolved except by consent of its members-as nothing exists to "dissolve" but their agreement to work and worship together. Taking their property no more dissolves a congregation than burning a house dissolves a home or marriage. Local churches may "merge" by consent of their members with the same authority by which they first formed.

Dear Bro. Turner:

Please comment on baptismal certificates. "May they read, "in imitation of the example" of our Lord?

Reply:

Baptism anticipates a new life and "better is the end of a thing than the beginning thereof" (ECC.6:8). There are sound, practical reasons, and perhaps some sentimental reasons, for record keeping; but it is a mistake to encourage a "certificate" sort of Christianity. We should let each day bear testimony to our spiritual growth, and look ahead for opportunity to serve; remembering the death of the "old man" as incentive to keep alive the "new". There is a sense in which Christs baptism is exemplar, although this was a special case and impossible to duplicate in detail. We are immersed because the inspired word "baptize" demands that, and the apostles taught it. (ROM.6:4)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.XI No.IV Pg.8
June 1974

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

Uncle Voss kept a loaded shotgun in the kitchen, and when Hannah saw a hawk swoop low over the chicken-yard she called for Voss to repel the invader. Voss grabbed the gun and ran out to give battle, but was back soon with ashen face. Hannah, he said, Pray for me! Every time I raise the gun I go stone blind! Was the Lord telling me to stop shooting hawks??

In this case it turned out that Uncle Voss had been blind in his right eye for some time, but had not known it. He discovered his problem when he shut his left eye to take aim.

It is common practice in some sections to assign everything that happens to the Lord. We rejoice that His Presence can be realized, and people can believe in His real existence and interest in the affairs of life (see Matt. 10:29), but it doesnt stop there. The game is to read into all experiences some special meaning— in effect to put words in His mouth so that God confirms exactly what we had thought all along.

Some call this witnessing our faith in God, but it often has an unintended effect. You cant fool all the people all the time; and repeated efforts disgust thinking people. Upon inquiry concerning his father, the preachers son said, He had an invitation to move to a big church where the support is great, and hes asking God to give him a sign if he should accept. And when the boy was asked, Where is your mother? he replied, She is in the house packing.

Assigning good things to God, and having Him handy to verify our little whims and dreams, also has a negative effect. Sometime the problems of life beset us, there are reverses, a loved one dies. Then the blame is placed on God, and I just cant understand why God would do this to me. The chastening of the Lord (Heb. 12:3-f) is that conflict and persecution we receive as a result of our running a faithful race for the Lord— not some business failure we have because of poor management, world economics or the like. Persecution, even in religious matters, is not necessarily a proof of being right. Some develop a martyr complex— they love punishment

So, lets quit trying to tell God how to run His universe, or maneuvering Him into voting our ticket. If God said it, you can read it in His word, and we can all know about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.XI No.V Pg.1
July 1974

Feet Washing

Robert F. Turner

When Jesus came to wash Peters feet (JOH.13:3-17) Peter at first objected to any washing; then impetuously asked that his feet, hands and head be washed. Jesus replied, "He that is washed (louo) needeth not save to wash (nipto) his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all." (i.e., Judas; rt)

Three Greek words for "wash" have distinct significance. Louo is used for complete bathing; nipto for partial cleansing, as the hands, face, or feet; and pluno for inanimate objects, as garments. Jesus told Peter that those who have had a complete bath (then walked to the upper room) needed only to wash their feet. Then, Jesus clearly attached some spiritual significance to his statement by saying, "ye are clean, but not all".

I do not know how far Jesus meant to carry this figure, but it is true that Christians are washed (louo — REV1:5;cf. ACT.22:16; 1CO.6:11-completely cleansed in their initial coming to Christ), yet, they are defiled in their daily journey through life, and need continued cleansing.

Paul teaches the "desire" to do what is right is no guarantee we will not sin, nor does it remove responsibility for our actions. We may do what we "would not". Through fleshly weakness we may sin, even though we "delight in the law of God after the inner man," (ROM.7:15-25). He thanks God for Jesus Christ, in whom the "spiritually minded" find life and peace. (ROM.8:1-6)

John says, "if we walk" in the light, (present, active, conjunction: "if we keep on walking") and "if we confess" our sins, (again, pr., act, conj.; "keep on confessing") then the blood of Christ "cleanseth". ("The cleansing is present and continuous" Vincent.) We have an Advocate who IS (not was) our propitiation (1JO.2:2). Our High Priest offered Himself "once for all" for us, and "ever liveth to make intercession" (HEB.7:23-f, 9:14).

There is no comfort offered to him who chooses to walk in the realm of darkness; but to him who chooses and strives to walk in the realm of Gods light; his feet are washed, over and over, and he is every whit clean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.XI No.V Pg.2
July 1974

How To Differ!

Robert F. Turner

Brethren frequently differ with one another, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. It may indicate conviction, and our concern that others share our understanding of Gods word. Differences spring from various degrees of learning or experience, or from opinions expressed on moot questions. They may be avenues for greater learning and service, as all true saints will seek to keep differences within constructive bounds. But we must know HOW to differ constructively. Who will write a How To- study, with teachers manual and work books? The need is here, in a wide field.

If I were writing such material I think I would begin by saying that we may differ with equals— on a compatible basis as neighbors. Childish weakness is evident in those who consider all with whom they differ as blood enemies. We must grow up.

Second: make all possible effort to understand the others position. Can you state his affirmation so he will accept it? You may find that you agree on the principle, and differ only on its application to some practice. Say so, and study accordingly.

Next: try to understand WHY your opponent thinks as he does. Seek, by reasoning, to walk in his shoes. This will improve your attitude toward him and may enable you to help him. (I am

assuming that saints maintain this goal in their differences.) Also, as error involves persons, we need to be aware that there is a brother on the other end of our lance.

Hearts are WON, not TAKEN by battle tactics. A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. Real conviction can not be forced on anyone, and carnal efforts to do so defeat legitimate purposes. (2 Cor. 10)

Listen  at least as much as speak. If your opponent takes unfair advantage of the time, give him a gentle reminder or two — then politely but firmly excuse yourself. A shouting contest wins no souls for Christ.

Be honest! If you can not answer a question, say so and promise to study, then answer later. In such cases, let opponent explain his answer, and proofs; then check these as you study the matter for yourself.

As much as possible, turn differences into mutual studies — two men, working together to determine truth, I am aware that ideal circumstances can not always exist, but we can try.

And remember, he who best serves the Lord is the winner— always!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.XI No.V Pg.3
July 1974

Bigger Than God

Dan S. Shipley

Nothing in this world is more important to our well-being in the next than having a right relationship with God. Getting right with God is the supreme and urgent need of every sinner and staying right with God is the most pressing need of every saint. Accordingly, whatever is allowed to come between one and his right relationship with God is extremely serious and needs to be recognized and treated accordingly. In terms of influence, that which hinders a man in serving God becomes —bigger than God Himself. When that hindrance is attributable to people it can only mean that certain individuals exert even a greater influence than God. Whether out of regard for man or a reaction against man, none is bigger than he who is allowed to come between one and his being right with .God.

Take, for instance, the kind of allegiance to parents that hinders some in obeying the -~gospel. When honoring them becomes more important than honoring God and when loyalty to them means disloyalty to the Lord, then they are made bigger and more important than God Himself. It is not often that a choice has to be made between following God or parents, but when it does God says, he that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me (Matt. 10:37). No living and loving parent would ever think of coming between his child and God. Those who would allow a deceased parent to do so dishonor both God and parent. Any person, parent or otherwise, whose favor is more coveted than Gods and who is able to influence more than God has to be the worlds biggest man.

But such bigness may be accorded to enemies as well as kinsmen and friends. Such is the case when sinner or saint allows his personal feelings toward certain Christians to hinder his serving the Lord. I-low many non-Christians have blamed their plight on the hypocrite in the church? Without realizing it, they actually compliment the hypocrite by allowing him to have more influence on what they do and become than God. They even allow the hypocrite to determine where they will spend eternity! No hypocrite deserves such influence!

Neither does the preacher or other Christian who is allowed to become a hindrance to ones following Christ. Not a few have quit the church over misunderstandings and conflicts with the brethren. Others have compromised their convictions and gone into liberalism over similar personal differences and feelings of being mistreated. Are our ties with God and truth so fragile and unimportant? Getting away from men must never be at the price of leaving God and truth, yet spite and pride have become the seed of apostasy for many a disgruntled brother. Its as though Jesus had not said, do good to them that hate you, bless them that curse you, pray for them that despitefully use you (Lk. 6:27,28) or had not instructed us concerning sins between brethren (Matt. 18:15-17). Allowing any man, whether friend or foe, to come between me and God is to make him bigger than he should be and is to acknowledge him as being more influential than God. May God save us from such big men and from the attitudes that make them big.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.XI No.V Pg.4
July 1974

What Is A Christian?

Robert F. Turner

"Daddy, what is a Christian?" a boy once asked. His dad described the "good neighbor, honest, kind" person usually associated with the name; and then the boy asked, "Dad, have I ever seen one?" Thats a good question son; a very good question!!

We have obligations of a social, civil, domestic and economic nature because we have such relationships in life whether we are "Christian" or pagan. As the pagan can sin in these realms (ROM.1:28-f); he could also be friendly, obedient to government, a good husband and father, and honest in business-yet not be a Christian. "Christian" relates the individual to Christ (as "Caesarian" to Caesar; see Deissman, LAE, p.377) and can rightly apply in no other way. Vine says the primary significance of the word was to express "business dealings with Christ. (p. 164, Chrematizo).

ACT.11:26 says "disciples" were first called "Christians," but these were more than just "learners." JOH.6:60, 66, tells of "learners" who would not receive Jesus teaching, so they "walked no more with him." Only when we apply Jesus definition of an acceptable "disciple" do we begin to appreciate the requirements for this noble position. We must love Him more than father, mother, wife, children — than our very life — or we cannot be His disciple. (LUK.14:26-f.)

To be a "Christian" one must be an acceptable "disciple;" and to be an acceptable "disciple" one must put Christ absolutely first — love Him above all else (LUK.9:57-f.; MAT.10:37-39). But what does this entail? Jesus said, "If ye love me, keep my commandments." "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me..." "If a man love, he will keep my words..." (JOH.14:15, 21, 23). Christ has content. He is our Prophet (ACT.3:22-f.), and there is no separating "Christian" from doing truth" (1JO.2:3-6, 3:7, 10).

But there is more! If we stopped here some might get the idea that one who does this and that is thereby a "Christian." Examination of passages cited would show we are not saying a Christian is one who punches the correct buttons. The "doing" is there as act of faith (JAM.2:17-f.) but in the process one becomes something. We must not simply "do" — but we must BE A CHRISTIAN, for "Christian" tells what we are — tells of our character and peculiar nature. God intended for those who would to "conform to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren" (ROM.8:29). We "beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image ..." become "partakers of the divine nature" (2CO.2:18; 2PE.1:4).

A "Christian" is "of Christ" "in Christ" and "belongs to Christ." He moves in that realm, is motivated by his love for Christ — or, as Paul tells the Corinthians, "the love of Christ (His love for us) constraineth us" (2CO.5:14). Again "For to me to live is Christ," and "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me." (PHI.1:21; GAL.2:20).

Have You Ever Seen A "Christian"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.XI No.V Pg.5
July 1974

Two Ways To "Soundness"

Robert F. Turner

One way to have a sound church is to teach sound doctrine. Plan a well —rounded teaching program that is positive — that covers Old and New Testaments — in depth studies and kindergarten topical studies on faith and baptism, heaven and hell, the church and honesty, brotherly love and the sting of rebuke. It is all there in Gods word, and we can not have soundness without proper food. Take the initiative on subject matter rather than a steady diet of reaction to what someone else said or did.

Regarding reaction, be alert to social changes which may (and probably will) affect brethren. Get to the bottom of matters avoiding surface jabs at isolated cases of abuse. Be fair with the opposition. Maintain an open pulpit so that the search for revealed truth is never stifled. (There is no obligation to hear every mans opinion — judgement here must be based on the extent to which a contrary teaching contributes to or distracts from an objective consideration of Gods word as final truth.)

This way to have a sound church challenges each individual member. It disturbs brethren, keeps them studying — and they must either learn to respect and deal objectively with one another, or they will break into warring camps. Christ must be the unifying factor here, or there is no unity. (Read carefully, Phil. l:27-2:l-f.)

Another way (?) to have a sound church is to convince a few elders or leader that certain positions on current issues are right and that taking a stand here is equivalent to soundness in all parts. (Liberals who follow this course may make a token contribution to some institution.) One of the convinced elders may order a few tracts from his partys most popular publisher — a sort of status symbol for the tract rack.

But perhaps the most important of all, in order to soundness, is to get a preacher whose name is associated with the reputation you wish to establish. Obviously a church that is sound according to our first way will desire a preacher who teaches accordingly; but we refer here to the erroneous concept that the members are sound because the preacher presents a hard line. This second way to soundness builds its name on party loyalty rather than on individual understanding and conviction. A hard driving preacher, backed by a few determined leaders, may whip a congregation into line so that none dare buck the establishment.

Brethren, I write in all seriousness; I have known both liberal and conservative (by invitation) churches, that were little more than sectarian bodies, whipped into line, loyal to a party rather than to Christ. These are the churches that want no fair discussion of issues; that do their fighting with name-calling and threats. They are strong as horse-radish on the surface, and soft as mush at the individuals heart, where the real soundness must be measured.

Few if any churches will have 100% mature well-taught memberships. But we must improve on party loyalty or soundness becomes sounding brass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.XI No.V Pg.6
July 1974

Barclay, On 1 Jn. 4:8

Robert F. Turner

From The Letters of John and Jude by William Barclay. (1 Jn. 4:8)

God is love. It is amazing how many doors that single statement unlocks, and to see to how many questions it is the answer

1. It is the explanation of creation.... Why should God create a world which was to bring Him nothing but trouble? The answer is that God created the world because creation is essential to the very nature of God. If God is love, it means that God cannot exist in lonely isolation. Love, to be love, must have someone to love, and someone to love it. Gods act of creation was a necessity of His divine nature, because, being love, it was necessary for God to have someone whom He might love, and who might love Him.

2. It is the explanation of freewill. Unless love is a free response it is not love. There can be no love which is not spontaneous love. Had God been only law He could have created a world In which men moved like automata, constantly obedient to the laws of the universe and of God because they had no more choice than a machine has. But, if God had made men like that, there would have been no possibility of a personal relationship between God and man. Love is of necessity the free choice and the free response of the heart; and therefore, before men could love God in any real sense of the term, their wills had to be free; and therefore, God, by a deliberate act of self-limitation, had to endow men with free will that the very purpose of creation might be fulfilled. 3. It is the explanation of providence. Had God been simply mind and order and law, He might, so to speak, have created the universe, wound it up, set it going, and left it. He might have used it as a man uses a machine, never paying any regard to it unless something goes wrong.. . . But because God is love, His creating act is followed by His constant care. He not only created the world; His love for ever sustains, upholds and broods over the world of His love.

4. It is the explanation of redemption. If God were only law and justice, He would simply leave men to the consequences of their sin. The moral law would operate; the soul that sinned would die; and the eternal justice would inexorably handout its rewards and punishments. But the very fact that God is love means that God must seek and save that which is lost. He must find a remedy for sin, and a cure for the sickness of the soul. It is impossible totally to kill the love of a parent for a child and God is the Father of men.

5. It is the explanation of the life beyond. If God were simply creator, then men might live their brief span and die for ever. The life which ended too soon would be only another flower which the frost of death had withered too soon. But the very fact that God is love makes it certain that the chances and the changes of life have not the last word, but that there is a love of God which will readjust the balance of this life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.XI No.V Pg.7
July 1974

?You Know What?

Robert F. Turner

Dear Bro. Turner:

How does one know what is "just a custom" (as, "holy kiss" 1CO. 16:20)) and what is unalterably commanded?

Reply:

All communication (writing, speaking, hand-waving, etc.) is done in an historic (social) setting, and is influenced thereby. People who question this have given too little attention to what influences their own way of saying things. The Scriptures were given in a limited, historic setting, and (initially) to the people of that period. This influenced particulars-the Application of truth to that time.

When Peter wished to contrast "outward adornment" with godliness, he cited examples common to that period: "plaiting the hair," "wearing gold." Had he been a part of and writing to some different culture, he may have said, "filing teeth" or "wearing decorative bones." The point was not to forbid "apparel" or decorations per se, but to stress inner beauty.

Paul did not command Timothy (or other evangelists) to "drink wine." He commanded (if we must put it that way) to take care of himself. The "wine for thy stomachs sake" is the result of the influence of first century medical practices upon the form and content of communications then. (I surmise, due to the setting of the statement, Paul may have been warning Timothy against asceticism -extreme self-denial (over-righteousness) with mystic overtones.) The "holy kiss" enjoins warm, non-sensual greetings, as we might give a genuine (not simply a cold and formal) handshake. We "wash one anothers feet" as we humbly serve one another, in this or in many other ways (1TI.5: 23; JOH.13: 1-f).

But how does one determine the difference in specifics intended for all time (as baptism, Lords Supper, etc.) and practices which were but first century applications of principles? Sometimes this is indicated by the type of arguments made. Paul (1 CO.11:) states a universal truth re. the relation of man and woman; but indicates the manifestation of this (the covered head) was custom (vs. 16). He appeals to their sense of shame (vs. 6), to their judgement of what -was comely or fitting (vs. 1-3), to what nature taught them (vs. 14), and to uniformity of practice among churches (vs. 16). These enforced head covering in that culture, but lose their force in an entirely different culture.

Another means of differentiating essentials and incidentals is to look for Bible stated significance. What if someone proved that Jesus used one container only in instituting the Lords Supper? The Scriptures attach no significance to the container, so it is no binding precedent. Suppose the early saints did meet in an upper room. It is not commanded, nor is any significance attached, by example or inference, hence no precedent. On the other hand, significance is given the action of baptism (ROM.6: 4), and particular elements of the Supper, etc.

This is not offered as a complete "set of rules" but will, I trust, put us on the right track. Too often we have dealt (?) with this problem by simply declaring what was important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.XI No.V Pg.8
July 1974

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

Many years ago while hunting in the brushy country south of Prescott, Arizona, I came upon a young fellow dressed in red jacket, with canteen, bowie knife, binoculars, and a 30-30 rifle. He was obviously a dude, but to pass the time of day I asked if he had had any luck. He answered that he had not actually seen any deer, but he had had three or four good sound shots that morning. Further inquiry revealed that meant he had heard loud crashing of brush as something (he assumed to be deer) bounded away, and he had shot in that direction.

The rancher who grazed that area may have lost some cattle, but thankfully I heard of no missing hunters. This hunter took the opposite direction, stayed on the ridge and watched the dude out of sight, then hurried back to the car and changed areas.

Since then I have known some brethren, not all of them dudes either, who take sound shots. At the slightest rustle of leaves they wheel and fire away, and woe to him who happens to be in that direction. This is not a criticism of those who identify the target, and aim their darts accordingly; but of the careless attacks and fishing expeditions that sometimes hurt innocent people, and offering nothing constructive to the brethren.

Pushing the illustration a bit, I believe there are some cases where indiscriminate shooting— or shooting at sparrows or ground-squirrels— has exhausted ones ammunition, so that when the big game appears the power to stop it has been dissipated. That statement is subject to abuse, for so-called little sins need attention, and have a way of growing. But we believe some thought should be given to using our influence and abilities wisely in fighting errors, as in the task of teaching truth. Pearl before swine could apply to both negative and positive teaching. (Matt. 7:6)

After many sermons and bulletin articles a preacher may teach a few old ladies not to call him Reverend or Pastor and in the process, may teach them that he makes the rules and nomenclature here, and they had better believe it. He has lost more than he has gained. A church that stresses unbalanced emphasis may kill enthusiasm, set each member to spying on the others, build a creed of the special items, and end up with a handful of faithfuls— none of whom drinks coffee, smokes, or watches TV!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.XI No.VI Pg.1
August 1974

Podium Oracles

Robert F. Turner

The pulpit, or podium, is not a shrine from which an oracle speaks. Control of the microphone does not bestow divine authority. Of course we know these things, but an occasional reminder is in order for those speakers who seem to think that if they said it — especially before a large audience— the truth is established. Listeners also need to review their concepts of pulpit pronouncements.

Our attention has been called to several recent examples of speaker superiority— where the speaker felt insulted if his conclusions were questioned, and refused to engage in equal time studies of the matter, even in privacy. In some cases a public I disagree is supposed to answer scriptural arguments — and for those who accept public pronouncements as final authority, this may be the end of further investigation —but God will have the final word. One church dismissed those who questioned their practices by saying, This is not a competitive church. A strange way to fight the fight of faith. We could understand not interested in carnal battle if there were not so much evidence of carnal pressures to force their conclusions others.

Brethren, we are deep into an era of questioning and investigation; of renewed interest in private study. If we have half the confidence we claim to have in our teaching and practice, we will encourage rather than squelch objective Bible testing. Perhaps many of the questions will be inane and childish. So, show your maturity and wisdom with concerned, scriptural reply. Help the querist grow up.

Getting angry, pulling rank, or hiding behind the dignity of the pulpit is a strong psychological clue to your inadequacy. Insecure people, feeling their position threatened, act like that; and so do brethren who have no authority for their practice.

Questions, and new (non-traditional) ideas are not signs of wisdom. A fool can question, and may need answering according to his folly, (Prov. 26:4-5). But foolish also are the men or churches who act as though God would judge man on the basis of their conclusions. (Rom. 12:3: 14:12)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.XI No.VI Pg.2
August 1974

Vicegerent Of Christ?

Robert F. Turner

The July 23, 74 Firm Foundation had as its central theme some very good material on elders and preachers (according to the editor). Bro. Jack Popes Charge to the Elders was printed, in which he said, An elder is a bishop, the vicegerent of the Lord who is the Supreme Sovereign. I read it three times before I could believe he said it. Then, I decided I must not know what the word vicegerent meant, so I checked some reliable authorities. Yes, thats it.

Funk and Wagnalls Dictionary says Acting in the place of another, usually in the place of a superior; having delegated power. Again, One empowered by a superior authority to discharge the duties or fill the place of that authority; one duly authorized to exercise the powers of another.

Websters Third International says Someone or something that substitutes for another. Again, in Webster Collegiate, The officer deputed by a superior, as a monarch, to exercise the powers of another; a vicar.

Vicegerent is not a common word among saints; having a Roman Catholic connotation to those even casually acquainted with church history, for the Vicar of Christ is to them the Pope. Their vicar apostolic, vicar capitular, vicar general, etc, are all indicative of their concept of delegated authority— regarding men as being in the place of exercising the powers of divinity. I dont know how an intelligent man like Jack Pope, or an editor, or even a proofreader, could let that go by.

Anyhow, it isnt so! Elders are NOT vicegerents of Christ; nor were the twelve Apostles, nor are evangelists, nor are any other men. If it were not for the growing misconceptions brethren have of the office of the elders— speaking for God or to disobey them is to disobey God—I would be inclined to regard bro. Popes statement as a fluke, a boo boo, that he couldnt possibly mean.

And then I would have to find some sort of explanation for another line: In doing so your special assignment is this congregation at Westover Hills, but your territory includes the reach of the whole world. If all elders have an equal place — all are vicegerents of Christ, and all have a whole world territory; bro. Pope has given us little popes who, in conference (getting more common these days) can really show the Roman Pope a thing or two about authority.

Aw, he didnt mean that!! You know good and well he didnt mean that!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.XI No.VI Pg.3
August 1974

God's Persuading Power

Dan S. Shipley

Coming to a right relationship with God involves change, and genuine change is brought about by persuasion. Only persuaded people turn from serving sin to become servants of righteousness; only the persuaded have the kind of courage necessary to acknowledge and renounce past wrongs. None but the persuaded give themselves to the Lord. But if conversion is essentially a matter of persuasion, how is it to be accomplished? How does God persuade men to change?

Contrary to popular opinion, the persuasion that brings men to Christ comes from being informed. "Everyone that hath heard from the Father, and hath learned, cometh unto me says Jesus (Jn. 6:45). This principle is made apparent in every case of conversion recorded in the NT. What was done was always in response to what was heard and learned. Look at the Pentecostians. They were pricked in their heart by what they heard (Acts 2:37) and were baptized in consequence of having received his word (v. 41). So with Cornelius who was to be persuaded by certain words he would hear from Peter (Acts 11:14). The jailor learned what he must do to be saved by being taught the word of the Lord by Paul and Silas (Acts 16), not by a direct intervention of the Holy Spirit. The faith that led these early converts to obedience had come through hearing the word of God from men who were being divinely directed into all truth (Rom. 10: l7; Jn. 16: 13). The conclusion is inescapable! These converts did something; what they did was right and it was the result of their being persuaded by gospel truth and it alone! Hence, it is imperative that the gospel of Christ be recognized as Gods exclusive persuading power for changing sinful men. Not miracles, not experiences, but the gospel! It took a miracle to bring Philip to the eunuch, but it took the gospel to bring the eunuch to Christ (Acts 8:26-39), which included baptism. Likewise, miraculous visions prefaced the meeting of Peter and Cornelius, but once together, Peter instructed in the way of salvation (Acts 10:33; 11:14) —which included the command to be baptized (Acts 10: 48). Saul had the amazing experience of seeing Christ on the Damascus road, yet even this was not a saving experience for he was told to enter the city where he would learn what he must do (Acts 9:6). There, God sends Ananias who tells Saul to arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on his name (Acts 22:16). No NT convert ever considered his experience as evidence of being saved. Like the Romans, they were made free from sin after being persuaded by and becoming obedient to that form of teaching that had been delivered unto them (Rom. 6:17, 18).

Truly transformed lives are the inevitable result of sincere hearts being united with gospel truth. The Thessalonians "turned unto God from idols because they received the gospel as being the word of God (1 Thes. 1:9; 2:13). Feelings, experiences or circumstances may turn people to religion, but only the gospel can turn men to Christ. Armed with only that gospel and a consecrated heart, Paul said, we persuade men (2 Cor. 5:11). We can too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.XI No.VI Pg.4
August 1974

Sour Grapes And Justice

Robert F. Turner

Ezekiel 18: is a marvelous chapter on the fairness and justice of God. Its message is in an Old Testament setting, but it portrays an attribute of God which is unchanged; and it should be read today — with care.

The Israelites had a proverb: The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the childrens teeth are set on edge —by which they blamed their troubles on an earlier generation. God said, yes, your fathers sinned, but ye have done evil more than your fathers. Every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge. (Jer. 16:l0-f. 31:29-30)

The soul that sinneth, it shall die: the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son. The physical and environmental consequences of one generations sin may affect generations to come (Ex. 20:5, 34:7) but God categorically denies that the guilt of one is passed to another. By one man (Adam) sin entered the world, and so spiritual death; but all die (spiritually) for that all have sinned. (Rom. 5:12) THE death (see Greek) and THE righteousness (the extremes, viewed metaphorically) are through or by Adam and Christ respectively. But we are condemned as individuals, on the basis of individual sins; and made righteous, through forgiveness, as we individually come to Christ. (Rom. 5:17-21, Acts 2:38-41) As Ezekiel records: Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord Jehovah. (v.30) We have such a God now. (Rom. 2:2-11)

Our text also shows that man can change — from wicked to righteous and from righteous to wicked. Free agency is not limited to a one-way street. If the wicked turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes...he shall surely live. But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness ... None of his righteous deeds...shall be remembered in his trespass...and in his sin in them shall he die. (Vs. 21-24)

We are not judged by our past performance. To put it in N.T. words, it is not enough that we once came into: Gods light; we must continue walking in the light. The Jew pointed to his ancestry and past glory; and we drag out our baptismal certificate but God says, What are you now! Are you striving to follow me today? If you have been tempted to believe some sort of cloak of righteousness is spread over the impenitent sinner that his past answers for today, read Ezek. 18: carefully. (And study the subjunctive present IF we walk and confess of 1 Jn. 1:7-9.)

God says, through Ezekiel, For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth,-- wherefore turn you selves, and live. (v. 32) This idea is expressed in 2 Pet. 3:9 where are told, The Lord is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. The decision, in this life, is ours. We say Yes or No to God — for a time! But we must meet Him in final judgement, where He will determine our eternal destiny. Are we doomed to repeat the errors of Ezekiels day despite our advantage in Christ??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.XI No.VI Pg.5
August 1974

Distractions

Jim R. Everett

On North Morgan there is a shady swimmin hole surpassed by none (that is, if you discount the natural hazards of ticks, copperheads and cotton-mouth Moccasins). The rocks are warm; the water icy-cold; and the cliffs ruggedly uncluttered by TV antennas. On a hot summer day, one can lie beside the murmuring stream and fill his mind with peace...

And because it was reclusive, the family picked that setting as the ideal campsite for our vacation. We cautiously trekked our way up old, rocky Indian trails, which paralleled the clear water and arrived at the secluded campsite. Actually, we rode in an air-conditioned camper truck and, upon arrival, had to remove paper plates — but the road was rough!

I had in mind catching up on some writing at this feast of tranquility, but I had forgotten the demanding distractions of parenthood. For instance, the first day was filled with swimming, hunting squirrels, exploring, treating sunburn and scratches, etc. When night came, it brought a cool, gentle breeze from the creek and I retired to the upper bunk with pen in hand. THERE IS NO PEACE IN A CAMPER WITH THREE, SMALL, SUN-BAKED, THIRSTY, TIRED CHILDRENI

Actually, a secluded campout with the wife and children is not the place for concentration. While we never vacation from our faith, there are times when we need to shut the world out and be a family — to be together; to play together. If one attempts the tedious task of writing, he finds the vacation to be painfully distractive. Each is needful, in its own time and place; but this was not the time for writing. I laid my pen and paper aside and concentrated on the family. And I filed a mental note that may help us all in making lifes decisions. It is possible that temporary distractions may become eternal hindrances.

One man chooses a profession. He is well suited for his selected work, and advances quickly both in prestige and benefits. However, this blessing becomes a fearful distraction when he learns of Christs love for him which would compel him to believe and be baptized (Jno. 14:15: Mk. 16:16). His dilemma is real, for his work demands his full time and he cannot worship on the Lords Day. He must now decide between transitory distractions and eternal treasures. A man must make a living, he reasons, but is a living more important than life?

A young maiden is intoxicated with the love of a young man. Even though he is not a Christian, she believes that she cannot live without him. She, therefore, marries convinced that he will change — the chances are greater that he will not. Many, many times lips which once cooed tender nothings spit forth prejudices and sarcasms. And, even if the husband does not actively hinder her discipleship, there are constant, subtle attempts to distract her from her faith which make life in Christ difficult and frequently unbearable. The choice between family and God is never easy.

And distractions may eventually become our idols.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.XI No.VI Pg.6
August 1974

"Under The Power"

Robert F. Turner

Gods creatures have one thing truly their own, i.e., themselves. In a marvelous act of self-limitation God created man in His own image; giving man the power of choice, subject only to final judgement at the throne of God. Mans environment, this sin-cursed world, exerts tremendous pressure upon the human will, so that often what I would, that do I not (Rom. 7:15); but the capacity to will to serve God remains, so that through Jesus Christ we can be justified.

Adams sin, or the sin of others, cannot enslave us; it is our own sin that brings us spiritual death (Rom. 5:12, cf. Ezek. 18:19-f). Since we can escape the consequences of sin only by avoiding all sin possible, and by submitting our will to Jesus Christ so that our sins will be forgiven, it becomes apparent that the basic struggle of man is to keep himself untrammeled by earthly things, free to himself to the Lord. (Prov. 4:23 Matt. 16:24). No wonder Paul was so determined: I will not be brought under the power of any. (1 Cor. 6:12)

Anything that limits my freedom of choice— that binds itself upon me —has taken from me some portion of the one thing I have to give to Christ. Read the following with this in mind.

Dr. M.A.H. Russell, in the British Medical Journal, May 8, 1971, (Cigarette Dependence: 1- Nature and Classification) wrote: A teenager need smoke only twice to have a 70% chance of smoking for the next 40 years if he lives so long.

This follows from the facts that only 15% of adolescents who smoke more than one cigarette avoid becoming regular smokers, and that only about 15% of smokers stop permanently before the age of 60.

However, it is apparent that the onset of smoking during adolescence is determined by an interaction of social and psychological factors, while the maintenance is due largely to dependence on the pharmacological effects of nicotine.... Three out of four current smokers either wish to or have tried to stop smoking, yet only about one in four succeeds in becoming a permanent ex-smoker. Thus most smokers smoke not because they wish to but because they cannot easily stop. This is a feature of dependence disorder.

Smoking is certainly associated with other dependence disorders; 92% of alcoholics and 99% of heroin addicts are smokers compared with 58% of the general population. Intermittent or occasional cigarette smoking occurs only in about 2% of smokers. People who smoke at all sooner or later become regular, dependent smokers.

In a second article (Cigarette Dependence: 2- Doctors Role in Management; British Medical Journal of May 15, 1971) Dr. Russell wrote: About half of all smokers remain complacent and profess to be happy about their smoking. This they achieve by using face-saving psychological defenses such as rationalization and denial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.XI No.VI Pg.7
August 1974

?You Know What?

Robert F. Turner

Dear Bro. Turner

Do you believe in Hell as a real place where lost soul's burn forever? Give me three scriptures for it.

Reply:

I do not know how to "place" Hell or Heaven, for "place" is a space-related word, and does not conform to the nature of "eternal", "immortal, and the like. ("Where" is God? Perhaps the best answer is "Where isnt He?") But I believe God is real, even though I cannot limit Him to some "place" and I also believe Hell and Heaven are "real."

The same kind of language that "places" Heaven, and gives it certain characteristics, also defines and describes Hell. The "new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness" (2PE.3:13); have their counterpart in "hell fire (gehenna, rt), where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched," (MAR.9:47-48). Some say "Gehenna" was a valley near Jerusalem, where refuse fires burned continually. Im not surprised. Jerusalem was the beloved city of the Jews. It is not unusual for unknown, eternal conditions to be described in terms known and understood. If "New Jerusalem" can describe the dwelling "place" of the redeemed, on earth and in eternity (HEB.12:22; REV.21:1-2), it is no marvel that the stinking, burning Gehenna should be used to depict the punishment of the wicked.

Will souls be lost in Hell? Yes! Jesus said, "Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell" (MAT.10:28). Lukes record (LUK.12:4-5) reads, "Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell," (gehenna, rt). The word from whence "destroy" comes, is used for "lost" (LUK.15:4,8) but never for "annihilate" or word of like meaning. In these passages the "soul" is made distinct from the body, and from life or "animal spirit" which departs the body at death. The "soul" lives on to be "lost" in hell fire, or saved.

How long in Hell? It is of the same duration as God -- as A. Campbell once wrote, "There is no word in human language that expresses duration without end, which is not applied to the future punishment of the wicked." Gods honor and glory is "for ever and ever" (aionas ton aionon, 1TI.1:17), and the Devil will be cast into the lake of fire and tormented "forever and ever" (aionas ton aionon, REV.20:10). His followers will share His fate, (vs.14-15).

The KJ version used "hell" when the Greek has "hades" -- the place of the dead, or "the nether-world" -- not necessarily referring to punishment. To avoid quibbles, we have limited ourselves to passages which use the Greek "gehenna". Death itself (personified "hades") will be cast into "the lake of fire" with Satan. (above)

C. S. Lewis said, "I have met no people who fully disbelieved in Hell and also had a living and life-giving belief in Heaven". (Let. to Malcolm) This has been my experience. Time spent in trying to argue around Hell had better be spent getting ready for judgement and eternity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.XI No.VI Pg.8
August 1974

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

Sometimes I get a guilty feeling about printing these stories in Stuff About Things — especially when someone tells me they dont believe them; so I was delighted to find this one in the February, 1947, issue of TRUTH IN LOVE, published in Alabama, USA.

In the Southern mountains there was a family reunion. An old family feud was revived. The offenders were brought into court, and the judge questioned an old woman as to the particulars of the fight.

Well, judge, she said, Jim Howard got into an argument with Henry Gates. Henry smashed Jim over the head with a stick of cordwood. Then Jims brother cut Henry with a butcher knife. Dick Collins shot Jims brother through the leg. Pete Lilly went at Dick with an ax. And then, judge, we just naturally went to fighting.

So you see how little things can keep on piling up until someone loses his temper and then, if the moon is right, things can get out of hand.

We sometimes see examples of this among brethren-- smashing and cutting with innuendo— a jab here, and some half-truth there — until finally we just naturally go to fighting. When it really gets bad, someone is sure to say, I dont understand how this mess got started in the first place.

I like humor, and feel it has its legitimate place in life; but humor can also be misused. As a madman who casteth firebrands, arrows, and death, so is the man that deceiveth his, neighbor, and saith, Am not I in sport. (Prov. 26:l8-19) It is no joke to misrepresent, malign, and start fight among brethren. We should learn to laugh at ourselves. It will keep us humble, and ward off other darts.

But some lead a rough life, and it takes a heavy blow to shake them. I recall an Arizona miners wife who came to me for help when her husband had beaten her black and blue with a hoe handle. (She had heard my radio program, so she called me her radio pastor.) I talked her out of taking out a warrant, then my wife and I took her home for a reconciliation (Temporary) A few weeks later she had shot her husband— then nursed him to health.) As we rode out to her place she assured us she was a gentle woman and dont like it a-tall when my boys shoot up the living room.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.XI No.VII Pg.1
September 1974

A Willing Mind

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Shipley told the Oaks-West church we did not want a reluctant teacher in a single one of our classes— and I said to myself, There goes our teaching program! I was reminded of the fellow who gave no more than a dime to the Lord because he couldnt do it scripturally; i.e., willingly. But the classes continued, and our work is supported, because true saints have a willing mind.

God told Moses to take of Israel an offering of every man whose heart maketh him willing. (Ex. 25:2; 35:20) and of this to build the holy tabernacle The spiritual temple of the New Covenant is likewise built of material: people who submit their will to Gods will.

This initial submission includes the acceptance of obligations or duty and sometimes we must buffet our body (1 Cor. 9:27), lest the lure of immediate desires overshadow the more basic will to serve God. Perhaps Paul had this in mind when he said, If I do this (preaching, rt) of mine own will, I have a reward: but if not of mine own will, I have a stewardship entrusted to me.

(1Cor. 9:17) Would that all preachers felt so keenly their mission in life.

But submission to duty by no means satisfies the call of Christ. Elders are to rule willingly of a ready mind. Of the later, Vincent says Willingly... Not strong enough. The word is compounded of... forward, and .heart or spirit. Hence.. .a forward spirit; denoting not mere willingness but zeal. (On 1 Pet. 5:2) Paul waited word from Philemon re. Onesimus that thy benefit should not be as it were of necessity, but willingly. (Phile. 14) Paul wrote re: benevolence, If there be first a willing mind (as in 1 Pet. 5:2, eagerness, zeal rt) it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not. (2 Cor. 8:l2, 9:7)

Reluctance to serve Christ usually means there is something above Christ on your list of priorities: something you had rather do, or want more than you want His praise. This is shortsightedness. I cant make you willing to prepare for heaven, but I can warn you that this is the only way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.XI No.VII Pg.2
September 1974

Respecting Convictions

Robert F. Turner

Many years ago I sought to correct what I believed to be a fault in a brothers life, and he responded: "I do not live with your conscience, but with my own." In effect he was saying I should respect his convictions. In this case, I did respect his convictions; i.e., I believed him to have honest convictions — to be acting in good conscience. Because I respected his convictions, I did not expect him to change his conduct because I felt he was wrong. It was my hope that he would learn Gods will more perfectly and, with this changed conviction, he would make the change in life which honesty demanded.

Conviction" is not truth. It is "a strong persuasion or belief". The transitive verb "convince" is: "to bring ... to belief beyond doubt". But this is wholly subjective — it refers to what the person believes, and has no bearing whatsoever — on what God has said about the matter. We could respect one anothers convictions, and both of us be in error. Divine truth is expressed in Gods word (JOH.17:17) and must be approached objectively. This external source of truth is not altered by what man believes about it.

Sometimes folk claim to have "convictions" to escape the responsibilities of examination and Bible study. They ask you to "respect their convictions" — meaning, cease to reprove, rebuke, and exhort, (2 TIM.4:2). They may even expect you to act contrary to your own convictions "lest they be offended," or, they become angry because you too have convictions, and must act accordingly, even while you respect their convictions.

There are those who deal in "vain jangling; desiring to be teachers of the law: understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm." Paul warned Timothy about such, saying that such evidenced neither pure heart, good conscience, nor sincere faith (1 TIM. 1:3-7). There was no reason to "respect their convictions" nor to believe they had honest convictions. From such turn away.

In the final analysis, respecting ones convictions means respecting the man, treating him as a man of integrity, an honest man, of good conscience. When a man evinces a desire to know truth and serve God; when he welcomes questions and assistance in Bible study, and makes Gods word-not "feelings" or popularity — his standard; when he alters his practice in keeping with his growing knowledge; we have reason to respect him.

It is a pleasure to study with such a man, and with a little effort, we might learn something from him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.XI No.VII Pg.3
September 1974

That Day And This

Dan S. Shipley

Some say that the day of the Lord has come; mockers say it wont come; and multitudes live as if they didnt expect it. But that great day will come and God wants both scoffer and saint to be reminded of it, as the context of 2 Pet. 3 indicates.

In the first place the scoffers are shown to be wrong in concluding that "all things continue as they were from the creation" (v. 4). They willfully forget that day in history when God interrupted the routine of a sin-filled world with a great flood. No, all yesterdays are not the same. God wants all men to remember the one that was different and why. Let it be a reminder that all tomorrows will not be the same either. Even now this old world is moving closer to a second and final interruption; the day of judgement and destruction of ungodly men (v. 7); the day of the Lord.

Something else that men need to be reminded of is that God is not limited to mans concept of time. "For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night" (Psa. 90:4). Not that God does not recognize the difference in mans days and years, but that the passing of time does not in any way affect His purposes. Gospel preaching rightly stresses the promises of Christs second coming. Any apparent delay in that coming is not to be construed as slackness, but rather as longsuffering. What appears to some as a divine defect is actually an expression of divine grace! God waits. All the yesterdays plus whatever tomorrows may remain for all man say, God waits. He waits in our day as He did in the days of Noah (1 Pet. 3:20). He waits for men to turn to Him in repentance (v. 9) and be saved. Gods longsuffering is mans opportunity; redeemed, his salvation.

Accordingly, there is a correlation between the day of the Lord and this day which every man needs to recognize. Knowing of such a day ought to make a difference in the way I live today. This is exactly Peters point in v.11: "Seeing that these things are thus all to be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy living and godliness". Continual awareness of that day and its significance should prompt a manner of life befitting prepared people. It would encourage a better attitude toward God and His word, the kind essential to humility. "Looking for and earnestly desiring the coming of the day of God" revives and perpetuates hope within the Christian; the kind of hope that serves as "an anchor of the soul" (Heb. 6:19). Those who "look for these things" (v.14) are characterized by a spirit of diligence in making their calling and election sure (1:10), avoiding sin and seeking after peace with both God and man.

Finally, "knowing these things" (v. 17), Christians are warned to be on guard against the influence of the wicked, those unconcerned about the Lord and His return. Beware lest they hinder our preparation for eternity. Then, "grow in grace and knowledge"; appropriate every blessing in a way that honors God; learn more of His word, applying it to every circumstance of life today — and thus look for that great day!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...