Plain Talk

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.II Pg.3

March 1965

The Source Of Faith

Robert F. Turner

We reach back to 1835 for the following excerpts; and bid you read with thoughtful care.

"Something must be done before it can be known, reported or believed. Hence, in the order of nature, there is first the fact; then the testimony; and then the belief. A was drowned before B reported it; B reported it before C believed it; and C believed it before he was grieved at it. ******

We descend from fact to testimony; from testimony to belief; and from belief to grief. *** If then, there was nothing said or done, there could be no testimony, and so no faith." (So obviously, no effect -- grief. rft)

"Law calls for obedience, and testimony for belief. Where there is no law there can be no obedience, and when there is no testimony there can be no faith. As obedience can not transcend (climb across, go above-rt) law, so faith can not transcend testimony. John's testimony (re. Christ) went to so many facts. On his testimony we can believe only as far as he has testified; and so of all the other witnesses."

In the light of such obvious truth we are moved to question those who "believe" God will accept religious practices for which there is no testimony, no authority, in His word. We can only "believe" God will accept that which he says (or indicates, by approved example or necessary infershce) He will accept. Our one true source of divine proof is His word. ("We walk by faith, not by sight" 2 Cor. 5:7) and ("Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Rom. 10:17) A man tells me, 'My faith alone is sufficient evidence of my salvation. I believe I am saved." But did God say our feelings were sufficient evidence for salvation? Did God say that faith only would justify, or did He not say "faith without works is dead." (Jas. 2:24-26)

Another, who gives little time to Bible study-- and objects when I seek to present its teachings to him -- is convinced that God puts faith in his heart by miraculous action. He fails to see that the instrument of the Holy Spirit is God's word. (Eph. 6:l7)

Perhaps most exasperating of all is the man who rares back on his dignity and says, "Well, you believe it one way and I believe it another. We can't all see it alike." See what?? He gives no scripture for consideration -- he has no Bible testimony -- yet he wants the right to "believe" something. If God approved our "believing" anything we wished, there would be no reason for having Bible testimony.

To walk by faith we must hear and accept divine testimony. Our steps must then be in accordance with that testimony. The effect must be traceable to a divine source: "made sorry after a Godly manner" or "obedient to the faith." (2 Cor. 7:8-11 Rom. 1:5) Human traditions and emotional demonstrations can not produce true faith.

(Quotations at beginning of article from "Christian System" by Alex. Campbell, pp. 97-98, Publ. 1835.)

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.II Pg.4

March 1965

Use Your Bible ......

Robert F. Turner

SCRIPTURES URGING US TO " TAKE HEED" Ours is an age of spiritual dangers; where the unwary and careless fall easy prey to Satan and his cohorts. This month bro. W. S. Stephenson, an elder of the R & W church of Christ, Burnet, urges us to read these passages of warning, being exercised thereby to the saving of our souls. 

THE NEED TO EXAMINE OURSELVES: (1 Tim. 4:l6) TAKE HEED of your attitude toward others Gal.5 14-15 of what you hear, and how you hear Mk.4:23-24 Lu. 8:18 of the cares of this life Lu.21 34-36 to let your light shine forth Lu.11:33-36 of an evil heart of unbelief Heb. 3:12 of hypocracy in your giving Matt.6:1-4 to have concern for God's children Matt.18: 10 of covetousness Lu.12:15 to forgive those who trespass against us Lu.17:3-5 of time, to be prepared for eternity Mk.13:32-37 THE NEED TO EXAMINE OUR TEACHERS, AND WHAT THEY TEACH: (Rom. 14:12) TAKE HEED of the leaven of false teachers Matt.16:6-12 of questions and strife that do not edify 1 Tim.l:4 2 Tim.2:23-26 of false prophets, teachers Matt.24:24 Mk.13:21-23 of deceivers, who "go beyond" (Deut. 11:l6-17) 2 Jn.6-11 of your overseers (God's word is standard) Acts 20:28-31 THE SOUL YOU SAVE, BY TAKING HEED, MAY BE YOUR OWN. TAKE HEED, lest you fall 1 Cor.10:12 TAKE HEED TO MAKE YOUR CALLING AND ELECTION SURE 2 Pet.1:10 

"PLAIN TALK" ESPECIALLY WRITTEN FOR PEOPLE WHO WILL THINK It is "departmentalized" -- each page devoted to some important phase of Bible Study, Attitudes, Church History, Scheme of Redemption, etc.: with each article written in the hope that it will stimulate your thoughtful meditations and scripture-searching on these subjects. Material is concentrated, requiring extra thought and application on your part. USE YOUR BIBLE to study EVERY PAGE.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.II Pg.5

March 1965

Should You "Join The Church"

Robert F. Turner

The word "join" means "to associate oneself with, become connected or unite with" and the use of this word with reference to "the church" is not a "mortal sin" as some seem to imply. In previous generations, when there was a more constant "hot" war with denominationalism, gospel preachers made a big point of criticizing the expression "join the church"---and apparently did a fine job of "selling" the brethren on this point. We would have less trouble today if they had done as good a job teaching brethren the work and organization of the church.

However, their condemnation of this terminology has a valid basis. The denominational world considers the church a sort of "adjunct" to the saved, or Christianity. One becomes a Christian---then does, or does not "join the church." To combat this erroneous conception of "church" gospel preachers pointed out that the church is the "body" of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23) made up of all saints who function in Christ (Eph. 4:11-16) hence, one can not be a Christian apart from the church. In the saving process, we are "added" to the church. (Am -2:47)

Your children are "born" into your family---are members of the family by reason of the birth. They are not born, then sometime later "join" your family. In exactly the same way God's children become members of His family, the church (1 Tim. 3:15;Eph. 2:19) We are "born anew" (1 Pet. 1:23; 2:2) and become members of the Lord's church by this process. (See Acts 2:37-41) Denominationalism has a human origin, but God's church is divine. Now all of this has been said with reference to the church as those people in covenant relation with God---saints "assembled" in a figurative sense only. Becoming a Christian makes one a part of "all Christians"---the universal church---without further ado. "Membership" in this group is possible when no relation with other members is under consideration. (Note Ethiopian nobleman, Acts 8:26-39)

But the Lord has made provisions for His followers to work in teams---function collectively for worship, self-edification, authorized benevolence, and preaching the gospel. Here (in a local church) men agree to join forces---accept a special relation with one another---in order to carry out the Lord's will. Saints so collected are called a "church" (1 Cor. 1:2; Phil. 4:15) and one already a Christian, and a member of the church in its universal sense, may "join" other brethren in this local fellowship.

Notice he "joins" other saints. In Acts 9:26 we read that Saul (Paul) "assayed to join himself to the disciples;" and later succeeded in this. The church---even the local church---is not an entity apart from her members, but consists of saints in a certain relationship with one another. Every Christian that can possibly do so is expected to "join" with other Christians in this relationship. (See Heb. 10:25)

Perhaps there is enough tolerance in language to allow us to speak of "joining" a local church; but be sure you know what you are talking about.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.II Pg.6

March 1965

History Of Current "Sponsoring Church"

Robert F. Turner

In the Feb. 18, '43 Gospel Advocate bro. G. C. Brewer wrote about a "new plan" for doing post-war "mission" work.

He said, "Some Christians are today beginning to prepare for such a campaign of missionary work as the world has never known." In explaining how the plan originated, he said, "It seems that the matter was first discussed among the brethren who attended the Yosemite camp meeting or lectureship last summer. It has been further agitated by some brethren on the West Coast since that meeting." Bro. Brewer favored the plan, and said, "the Lubbock Church sponsors this plan.' (Broadway, Lubbock. rft)

In the Bible Banner, June '43, bro. Ted W. McElroy reviewed Brewer's article saying, "It is not clear what there is about this plan that the "world has never known," but I assert that whatever it is it will be unscriptural (i.e., if in Bible, it is not "unknown" ; rft) and most probably when we find out what this now thing is, we will discover that it is not even new but that the denominations have had it for many years."

Further, "Now it is obvious and cannot be reasonably contradicted, when other churches participate in this plan, they put themselves under the sponsorship of the Lubbock church to the extent that they participate in the Lubbock sponsored plan. Please excuse me! I don't want the church where I preach to be under the sponsorship of the Lubbock church in any way. I don't mean any reflection on the Lubbock church-- I am unacquainted with that church --- it is just a scriptural principle that one church cannot sponsor another, regardless of how small or how large." Then, in the Aug. '43 Bible Banner, bro. Cled Wallace comments at length on "Post-war Plans." Citing bro. Brewer's questions: "Then what is your church doing toward getting ready for the execution of this plan? How much money are you saving? How many missionaries are you preparing?" he comments: "Now maybe 'your church' is doing nothing 'toward getting ready for the execution of this plan.' Maybe it has a plan of its own, conceived and put into operation before some brilliant minds ever thought up this new one. My idea is, from reading the New Testament, that a church is an independent body and has the right to select its own field of operation, raise its own money, choose its own workers and 'sponsor' its own activities generally without the handicap of a foreign 'sponsor,' even if it is 'A church with a competent preacher and a qualified eldership'."

These, brethren, are the early rumblings of the current "Sponsoring Church" issue, and show clearly that more than twenty years ago the chief point at stake was congregational independence --- the recognition on the part of bros. McElroy, Wallace, and others, that there was no N.T. authority for any organizational structure or function on a scale larger than that of a single congregation.

Since then the "sponsoring church" plan has swept the brotherhood, but God's word has not changed a line.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.II Pg.7

March 1965

Queries And Answers

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

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

Reply:

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

The early Christians met on every first day of the week. (1 Cor. 16:2) (KATA MIAN, every first day; KATA POLIN, every city; KATA MENA, every month; etc. Acts l5: 2l Rev. 22:2)

In 1 Cor. 11:20 Paul censures what these Corinthians did "when ye come together (every first day, 16:2) and explains what they should do, viz., partake of the Lord's Supper. (vs. 23) It's a "left-handed" argument, but it is clear and strong. (See ARV)

Acts 20:7 says the disciples met upon the first day of the week to break bread. "The" is definite article, expressive of a stated or fixed day. There is certainly no authority for the L. S. on any other day. Further, here is equal authority for the L. S. on each and every "first day that rolls around. (Examples "Remember the Sabbath---" Ex. 20:8. WHICH Sabbath Day? The Jews had no difficulty in recognizing that this was authority for every 7th. Day that came.) These are scriptural arguments which I hold to be sound. Reasonable evidence is found in the fact that all commemorative institutions which God ordained in prior times (Law of Moses) had a fixed and regular time for observance. (The Passover, Feast of Tabernacles, Purim, Pentecost, etc.) If the Lord's Supper is not to be observed every first day there is no way to determine a fixed time (with divine authority) and this vital memorial (1 Cor. 11:23-f.) is left to wander aimlessly.

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

'But every lord's Day do ye gather yourselves together, and break bread,---etc." (From a writing called, "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" dated about 120 A.D. Taken from Vol. 7 p. 361, Ante-Nicene Fathers.)

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

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

Thursday night observance??

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

 

Your questions and comments are truly appreciated. We will get to the questions as rapidly as possible. If possible I would be happy to come to your home for private Bible study. You are always welcomed at Rocky Roost II, my home in Burnet. I have a private study waiting for you.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.II Pg.8

March 1965

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

Going After The Candy

A doting parent wished to demonstrate to a visitor the willingly obedient nature of his son. Calling the boy, he gave him a dime and then commanded (?) "Son, go buy yourself some candy!" Without a word of dissent, the boy obeyed.

If the boy would show a martyr's complex, and brag to his friends about how well he obeyed his father, this might be a good illustration of the way some church members act.

In Col. 2:2O-23 Paul speaks of subjection to man-made ordinances as "will-worship" -- something obviously unacceptable to God. This "voluntary humility" (vs. 18) was of no value in the service of God (in that it showed no true subjection to Christ, the Head; vs. 19) and did not contribute to the control of fleshly desires -- in that it was in reality the satisfaction of morbid self-indulgence. (Read carefully vs. 18-23, ARV)

Certain pagan worshipers lie on beds of nails, or cut themselves with knives, in the misguided belief that this pleases God. Their suffering is in vain, being wholly unauthorized.

Certain Jewish worshipers in the time of Christ disfigured their faces so that their "fasting" would appear unto men. Jesus called them "hypocrites." (Matt. 6:16-f) Their misery was self-inflicted, for self-satisfaction -- a "going after the candy" -- and hence no true service to God. ASH WEDNESDAY AND FISH

Now men have decreed that "Lenten" seasons should be observed, begun by a ceremonial daubing of ashes upon the forehead. Mardi Gras celebrants must sober up with coffee, fish takes the place of beef, and even little children must "give up" something-like chewing gum.

And what business of mine is it?? Exactly the same business that was Paul's. (Col. 2:l8-23) (The transfer is indicated in 2 Tim. 2:l-2)

Many wonderful people are deceived by human traditions, and make heavy personal sacrifices in the belief that they thus serve the Lord. This "will-worship? is in vain. The greatest sacrifice they could make, and the only truly productive sacrifice, would be to give themselves to Christ for service according to His word.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.III Pg.1

April 1965

"It's A Good Work"

Robert F. Turner

"It's a good work!" That is commendation enough for some to sponsor, finance, and extol. And, if some poor caution should question such a highly recommended project he is "against everything" -- especially "good works".

What is a "good" thing? Have we checked the use of this word in God's word, or even a "good" dictionary? By what standard, or whose, have we decided a thing is "good".

"Good" soil (LUK.8:8) like a "good" tree (MAT.7:17) refers to the character or constitution of a thing. In a moral sense, God alone is essentially, absolutely "good" (MAR.10:18).

"It is not good that man should live alone" refers not to immorality, but to "fitness"; and "good measure" means "in excess" "not deficient" (GEN.2:18; LUK.6:38). Paul said some, "by good words -- deceive the hearts of the simple" (ROM.16:18). This refers to insincere flattery. One may speak of "good" whiskey, as compared with a poor quality "bootleg"; and have no reference whatsoever to the results of partaking. And everything created by God is "good" (1TI.4:4) but this does not remove the necessity of keeping all things in place. Then there is the "good" (usually accompanied by the article in Greek) and this refers to that which is pleasing to God, and therefore beneficial (see Vine's NT Dictionary).

We are to prove the good, acceptable, perfect will of God; (ROM.12:2) do the good; (ROM.13:3) cleave to the good; (ROM.12:9) and overcome evil with the good; (ROM.12:21).

A thing is "good" for me as a Christian only if it has divine approval. It is a "good work" for the church, if it has divine authority. Christians are "bought with a price; we are servants of God (1CO.6:19). The church has Christ as its Head, and must be subject to Him (COL.1:18). 

We may think a thing is "good", or erroneously conclude that the intended end justifies the means (ROM 3:8); only to find we have presumptuously spoken where God was silent, and our "good work" is empty nothing.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.III Pg.2

April 1965

Intellectual Honesty

Robert F. Turner

While in school I had many discussions with my teachers on the subject of Evolution and like materialistic concepts. I was frequently reminded, "Now Mr. Turner, we must maintain intellectual honesty". To this I agree.

But the Prof. viewed man as having the highest peak of intellect, hence the final judge of truth. To him all authority was, in the final analysis, subjective. I, using my intellect, found reason to believe in a higher power, a greater intellect than man's. With such a faith, it is completely reasonable to expect a revelation of His will. This we have in the Bible.

Since God's will is the product of intellect superior to man's, we can only believe the revelation. To expect to prove, by human intelligence, that which transcends man's level, is extremely illogical. Ultimate authority answers only to itself.

In a choice between man's speculative theories and God's revelation, "intellectual honesty" demands that I accept the latter. Further, I must not compromise, or seek to rationalize God's word in an effort to bring this into harmony with man's theories. To do so is less than "intellectual honesty" -- for it stamps my confession of faith with hypocrisy. Nor are these principles limited in application to atheism. If we truly believe in the all-sufficiency of God's word, with the scheme of redemption and divine pattern for the church revealed therein, we can not lightly regard man's tampering with these things. Many who say they believe obedience to the Lord's commands is necessary, ignore his command to be baptized. Others say they believe in congregational independence, yet they condone and support inter-congregational activities -- and prove themselves "intellectually dishonest".

Once God's Word is accepted as our standard in religion the human intellect is limited to interpretive study. We do not seek to judge the law, or our brother -- save by God's law. We wish to understand the law and obey it (JAM.4:11-12). We call upon our brother to do the same, in order to save his soul (1TI.2:4). We must be honest with ourselves before we will be honest with God and others.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.III Pg.3

April 1965

"Dear Baptist Friends ---"

Robert F. Turner

Hiscox's "Standard Manual for Baptist Churches" contains, with a few verbal changes, The New Hampshire Confession of Faith. Here, Article V, on "Justification", says that justification is bestowed "solely through faith in Christ; by means of which faith" -- "every other blessing needful for time and eternity" is secured.

Note -- "solely" through faith, i.e. by faith alone -- every other blessing needful for time and eternity is secured (P.62)

But on page 20, note 8, we read: "Baptism is not essential to salvation, for our churches utterly repudiate the dogma of "baptismal regeneration"; but it is essential to obedience, since Christ has commanded it. It is also essential to a public confession of Christ before the world, and to membership in the church which is his body. And no true lover of his Lord will refuse these acts of obedience and tokens of affection"

It seems our Baptist friends have such an aversion to "water salvation" -- which need we equally advocate -- that they meet themselves in violent contradiction.

They say Baptism is essential to: (1) Obedience to Christ; (2) public confession of Christ; (3) membership in His body, the church; (4) to be a true lover of the Lord. If this be true -- and the scriptures prove it to be so -- then how can faith only (solely) secure all blessings needful for time and eternity?

Truth of the matter is that the scriptures do not teach salvation by merit. The "works" repudiated in ROM.4:1-8 refers to a system of law, whereby one seeks justification by a claim to such perfectness that no sin can be charged. Since "all sin" (ROM.3:23) to plead such a case is to lose it (study GAL.3:10-14).

Our only hope is to put our trust (faith) in Christ, who will forgive all who obey Him (HEB.5:9). Our hope lies not in a system of works wherein there was no permanent forgiveness; (cf. HEB.10:1-4) but in the system of faith where forgiveness is possible through the sacrifice of Christ (ROM.4:6-8). This system of faith (trust) and faith only, or "solely through faith", are poles apart.

There is no saving power in the act of baptism, per se; nor, in this sense is there saving power in faith. Faith is as much a "work" as baptism; (JOH.6:28-29) for no amount of quibbling can remove the fact that man does the believing. We are saved by faith (EPH.2:8) and we are saved by baptism; (1PE.3:21) but both acts must look to Christ as the efficacious means of our redemption.

Our Baptist friends can't get into the body of Christ, of which He is Saviour (EPH.5:23) without baptism. They can't publicly confess Christ without it (see MAT.10:32-33). They can't obey Christ, or truly love Him without baptism -- all by their own admission. Isn't it time to acknowledge that baptism is a part of the faith that saves??

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.III Pg.4

April 1965

The "Church" Cannot Read

Robert F. Turner

Although many fallacious arguments are made by confusing the obligations of the church distributively (the individual Christian) with those of the organized church (saints functioning collectively) there are few who fail to recognize that such a distinction must and does exist. But consistency in the application of this distinction seems difficult to obtain.

B.B. Baxter, in his tract "Questions and Issues" recognizes private responsibility to the Heart Fund (a "good work" of benevolence, mind you) which "would not be the responsibility of the church as a congregation" (p.23). Later (p.30) he urges church support of colleges on the basis that "if the individual Christian should give to make such schools possible, the church has the same responsibility, for it is a good work and the church is the people.

When Reuel Lemmons replied to Baxter's tract (F.F.2-25-64) he showed the church can spend its money only for those things the church is authorized to do. Fighting church support of colleges, brother Lemmons made a distinction in individual and church obligations. But when the editor wished to make JAM.1:27 and GAL.6:10 "church" obligations he said GAL.6:10 "is not a command to the individual any more than any other command in the scriptures given to Christians in general is to the individual". The legs of the lame are unequal.

A passage commanding "faith" does not of itself, command "baptism". We reject the addition of "only" because "it is written again" "repent and be baptized". We support preachers from the treasury, not because of GAL.6:6 (which is an individual obligation) but because 2CO.11:8, etc. authorize such church action. The Lord's Supper is a collective project (ACT.20:7 1CO.11:20) hence is supported from the collective fund. If brother Lemmons could produce a passage authorizing the organized church to practice unlimited benevolence he'd use it -- instead of writing those foolish and self-contradicting editorials. Certainly individuals partake of the bread and fruit of the vine. Individuals go to the world and preach. The church acts (collectively) by supporting this going and preaching with its pooled means. Lemmons stumbled into this truth when he wrote, "Naturally, churches can't read -- only individuals can read". I'm interested in the editor's explanation of how the congregation can go to Europe to preach.

Collective action is done by agreement of members, the pooling of their means, and the acceptance of a common direction and/or guidance (the elders, when available) so the group may act as one. The Lord's Supper was partaken in the assembly; i.e., when saints were come together (above). Church funds are used therefore to provide a place of assembly, and other things necessary for this collective project.

The care of widows indeed, and the care of needy saints is clearly assigned to the church collectively, and scriptures show a pooled fund was used (ACT.4:34-f; 1TI.5:16; 1CO.16:2). Is not God's way sufficient?

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.III Pg.5

April 1965

Use Your Bible---

Robert F. Turner

Instead of our Bible outline, this month's USE YOUR BIBLE page will contain some simple suggestions for better understanding of the Bible. We plan three or four articles per year on HOW TO STUDY, and such like.

BIBLE, A LIBRARY!

Books of the Bible are just that -- independently written, by different authors, and written over a period of 1,600 years. The convenience, and propriety, of combining all into one volume is sometimes overshadowed by the mistaken conception a casual reader may have.

For the most part, the books are not chronologically arranged; i.e., the events of Romans did not follow in time, the events of Acts. One cannot read "straight through" and get a connected account. Each book must be separately studied, just as you would study books in a library.

The design or purpose of books differ. Some are historical, some are written much as a thesis on some vital subject, some are collections of hymns of praise, some are personal letters -- whose value lies in the application of principles to like circumstances in our present day. NONE are mystical symbols, to be used as tea leaves for "fortune telling." Although figurative language is used, as in our normal conversations, its meaning must be determined by context and not by the reader's "feelings."

Regard each book as a separate volume upon your shelf. Before you begin to draw conclusions, determine the writer, to whom written, time and circumstances (when and why?) as these may affect meaning of content.

GETTING READY TO BEGIN

Preparation for serious study is within the grasp of the ordinary reader. Note the general placement of the book (Old or New Testament) and then read the first few paragraphs. Many books contain their own introduction. If your Bible has center reference (the scripture citations coordinated with the text by numbers or letters) read all that pertain to names of people and places. (Skip other reference in initial study.) Use maps in back of your Bible to locate places.

Now, using large print text, read whole book completely through. Most N. T. books are short, and this can be done easily at a single reading. If the book is very long, read large sections at a time. Read rapidly, not stopping to study a particular verse. Purpose of this first reading is to acquaint yourself with general context and subject matter.

This may seem extreme; but actually you should read through two or three times -- or until you begin to see the book as a whole, and can note its natural divisions and subjects. Only then should you try to study a particular verse, or come to some conclusion about some teaching.

A Bible dictionary is extremely helpful, and later you may want a concordance. But nothing can take the place of reading and meditation upon the text itself. Why not start today?

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.III Pg.6

April 1965

False Prophet Folly

Robert F. Turner

This is our "Quotations" page, and is usually devoted to quotes from the pages of church history. This month, however, we quote from a booklet now out of print, and not easily available to the public.

MILLI0NS NOW LIVING WILL NEVER DIE was written by J. F. Rutherford, and printed by the International Bible Students Assc., in 1920. Its argument is fallacious and foolish, and its predictions utterly false.

The next time a so-called "Witness" comes to your door; or current "radio Prophets" begin their calculations on "the last days"; remember this bit of foolishness. The mighty "Judge" Rutherford has fallen; as will all those of today who pattern after him.

"The Lord commanded Moses to institute the Sabbath system the year that Israel entered the land of Canaan, which was 1,575 years before A. D. 1; Lev. 25:1-12) and every 50th. year should be unto them a year of jubilee. This was done on the 10th. day of the 7th. month, the day of atonement.****

Other Scriptures show that there were to be 70 jubilees kept. (Jer. 25:l1 2 Chron. 36:17-21) A simple calculation of these jubilees bring us to this important fact: 70 jubilees of 50 years each would be a total of 3,500 years. That period of time beginning 1575 before A. D. 1 of necessity would end in the fall of the year 1925, at which time the type ends and the great antitype must begin. **** The chief thing to be restored is the human race to life; and since other Scriptures definitely fix the fact that there will be a resurrection of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and other faithful ones of old and that these will have the first favor, we may expect 1925 to witness the return of these faithful men of Israel from the condition of death, being resurrected and fully restored to perfect humanity and made visible, legal representatives of the new order of things on earth." (pp. 87-88)

(According to elaborate calculations - symbolic times of 360 years, to total 2,520 years of "Gentile dominion" Rutherford said the world would "begin to end" and Messianic power and "the new order" manifested, in the year 1914. pp. 14-16 rft)

"As we have heretofore stated, the great jubilee cycle is due to begin in 1925. At that time the earthly phase of the kingdom shall be recognized. The Apostle Paul in the 11th. chapter of Hebrews names a long list of faithful men who died before the beginning of the selection of the church. These can never be a part of the heavenly class; they had no heavenly hopes; but God has in store something good for them. They are to be resurrected as perfect men and constitute the princes or rulers in the earth, according to his promise. (Psalms 45:16 Isaiah 32:1 Matt. 8:11) Therefore we may confidently expect that 1925 will mark the return of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the faithful prophets of old, particularly those named by the Apostle in Hebrews chapter 11, to the condition of perfect perfection." (pp. 89-90) FALSE PROPHET - (Deut. 18:20-.)

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.III Pg.7

April 1965

Queries And Answers

Robert F. Turner

Dear Sir:

Who was commissioned by the "great commission?" If it was not the church (and candid honest consideration favors this conclusion) then by what authority does the local church send evangelists into "all the world"?

Reply:

"Candid honest consideration" is rare these days, but it uncovers the truth. Who was commissioned by the "limited commission?" (MAT.10:5). Not just anyone who reads the passage, but those addressed in context (Use dictionary for "commission"; comparing JOH.5:22; ROM.3:2; 2CO.5:19 etc.).

MAT.28: MAR.16:; and LUK.24:, record a commission which the Lord gave his apostles (Note LUK.24:48-49). They were sent forth "with power" to "bind on earth" that which was bound in heaven (MAT.18:18). The apostles occupied a unique position with reference to the gospel (cf.GAL.2:7-9). They were ambassadors in a sense that can not rightfully be applied to any who preach the gospel today. Thus the "apostles and prophets" (inspired men) were the "foundation" of the church (EPH.2:20). Authority was given the apostles; i.e., they were endued with power by the Holy Spirit -- were vessels, "with portfolio" (2CO.10:8). The "church" was not so commissioned.

But there is divine approval (or "scriptural authority") for preaching the gospel today "to all the world". Disciples which the apostles made were to be taught to "observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" (MAT.28:20). Faithful men were to "teach others also" (2TI.2:2)

If it be objected that this points up individual obligations, I would remind you that Christ envisioned the spread of truth, and the influence of truth, in terms of salt, leaven, etc. Every Christian is expected to "do and teach," individually as well as collectively.

Authority for collective support of the gospel is found in PHI.4:15 2CO.11:8 3JO.8 ACT.11:22 etc. Bro. Turner:

When one congregation is disciplining a brother who is in sin, what is the responsibility of neighboring congregations? Should they receive a man who is rejected by the first congregation?

Reply:

Common sense, and respect for the actions of brethren whom we hold to be sound in the faith, should make a church wary of one who is disciplined by another church. It seems reasonable that the "home" church would be better able to determine the light or darkness of his course than others.

However, it is error to consider the rulings of one congregation binding upon all others. Fellowship is hinged upon truth (God's word) not upon the actions of any congregation (1JO.1:3-7 2CO.10:12-f). Sometime men keep fellowship with one who has walked in darkness, and is no longer in fellowship with God (1CO.5:1-f). It is also possible for men to refuse fellowship with some -- -putting them out of the church -- whom God continues to fellowship (3JO.9-10).

Disfellowship calls for collective action (MAT.18:17 1CO.5:4) and the organizational structure of the church is limited to that of a single congregation. One church can not take disciplinary action for another, any more than it can take any other action on behalf of another. Each must make an independent decision as to whom they receive into their number, with a view to pleasing God, according to His word. Any other standard will denominationalize the church.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.III Pg.8

April 1965

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

A friend of mine, discussing a sermon she had heard and enjoyed, said she was surprized that this particular preacher did so well, because "he had a good education."

That's no misprint. She was surprized that sermon of value could come from one highly educated. Nor is my friend a victim of ignorant superstition. She values secular education. But experience had taught her that "degrees" have a way of pushing into the foreground, so that sermons become pedantic and real spiritual concern for lost souls is overshadowed. Plain, old-fashioned Bible preaching is not good enough for Dr. Rev.; and what suits him doesn't stir the heart of the man who needs salvation.

Several years ago on a Sunday when a sore throat would not permit me to speak, two college boys were invited to "fill in." I heard both sermons, and later the two boys came to my office and asked for my criticisms.

One boy (we'll call him Joe) had the makings of an after-dinner speaker. He had personality - plus, a few jokes, illustrations from current events and sports, and just enough emotional appeal to make his "talk" sound like preaching. I knew he had "gone over great" with the crowd. The other (call him Dan) showed "stage fright" and spoke in a halting, half-stutter. But he had compiled a fine list of scriptures on his subject, and used his time reading and explaining them, and making direct application to the hearers.

I tried to make a fair and encouraging report to the boys; but told Joe that he was on the wrong track. I urged him to use his talents to present the Word, not himself; to warn people of their sin and damnation, and make them know his concern. Joe thought this was "out of date."

Both boys graduated from an outstanding "Christian" college, married, and chose secular jobs. But Joe has now joined a denomination, where fun, frolic, and "youth devotionals" are substituted for Christianity. Dan is teaching a Bible class in a sound church, preaches as he has opportunity, and grows stronger day by day.

Fault of the college? Not per se. But one boy succumbed to the modern "social gospel" concept of Christianity, and one had faith in God's word.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.IV Pg.1

May 1965

So

Robert F. Turner

You "Disagree"?

 

For 30 years I have preached and written my convictions re. the Bible. the church, etc.; and for 30 years people have "disagreed." Catholics, Mormons, Protestants, and occasionally my brethren-- "disagree." T h a t doesn't bother me-- much. At least not enough to cause me to squelch my honest convictions and "sell out" to majority opinions.

Sometimes one disagrees, and proceeds to teach me more perfectly the way of truth. I find I have been wrong. Now I dislike being wrong, but not as much as I dislike teaching error. Changing to truth is a pleasure, and I am grateful to my teacher.

Thirty years of disagreement has taught me something else. Some people say they "disagree" when in reality they know so little about the subject they can't explain their own position and know even less about mine. Perhaps they were born in the objective mood and kickative case; or more likely, I have pointed out the error of their ways, and they want to keep on going, regardless of truth or consequences. Honest disagreement, based upon convictions established through careful study of God's word, is honorable. I can respect such disagreement even when I am reasonably sure my opponent is in error. Two such persons can study together to profit-- and will be anxious to do so.

But there is no honor, and I have little respect for the person who seeks to discredit my work with prejudicial name-calling or the glib use of weight-swinging "I disagree."

You "disagree" with WHAT? Is there a fallacy in my reasoning? Have I misused the scriptures? Have I overlooked some Bible truth that would alter my conclusions? Give me a specific point of disagreement and I will be happy to consider it.

A fellow once wrote that all I had said was true (he flattered me) but he feared it would lead to error. Hm! Truth never leads to anything but truth. To fear the consequences of truth is cowardice of the first order, and our disagreement is with God. Let such a one rather fear Hell.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.IV Pg.2

May 1965

Does Error Have "Rights"?

Robert F. Turner

"Catholic Principles of Politics," a Roman Catholic approved textbook, says: "Error has not the same rights as truth. Since the profession and practice of error are contrary to human welfare, how can error have rights?" (P. 318)

We can agree with this philosophy, and feel that God's ultimate judgement will prove its truth; but we can not agree that the Roman Church is our standard of truth, hence the one to enjoy all "rights" here and now. By "error" the writers of this book mean anything contrary to the doctrines of the RC church. (p. 314)

To the objection that the foregoing can be turned against Catholics by a non-Catholic state, the writers say, "If such a State should prohibit Catholic worship or preaching on the plea that it was wrong and injurious to the community, the assumption would be false;--" (I.E., we're right and you have no right to say we are wrong. RFT) (p. 318)

Of course such a doctrine puts the product (the church) before the Word which produces the church. In a predominantly Catholic country, with the union of church and state, civil authorities could be used to curb your teaching of the word of God. (P. 317; above book authored by J. A. Ryan and F. J. Boland; MacMillan Co., 1941.) What the Roman church has clearly stated and avowed (this book bears the "Nihil Obstat" of their Censor Librorum, Arthur J. Scanlan; and the "Imprimatur" of Francis J. Spellman, then Archbishop of NewYork) many Protestants and others disavow -- but practice. With some their written creeds and disciplines are the standards of truth, and woe to him who is opposed. They may call it "advice" instead of "church authority" but as "Raccoon" John Smith once said, "I'd as soon be decreed, as advised, to death."

God does not use carnal means (and that includes the sword, economic boycott, power politics, and name-calling) to build His cause. All men are free agents (Jn. 6:45) drawn to God by truth which commends itself to their conscience. (2 Cor. 4:2) Teaching His word, we seek to bring "into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ." (2 Cor.10: 2-5) This battle is for the hearts of men. The victory can not be forced -- and hence the "right of error" is recognized in this day of grace.

Zealous love for souls has nothing in common with high-handed arrogance of religious intolerance.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.IV Pg.3

May 1965

Non-Christian Church Members

Robert F. Turner

Not all church members are Christians! This is true in more ways than one; but because different people use these terms differently, a careful study of this matter is in order.

The church, in its universal sense, is the kingdom of Christ (COL.1:13). This refers to the relation of individuals to Christ, as subject to King. If Satan is allowed to rule in our lives, we are in Satan's kingdom (Cf MAT.12:26 JOH.8:44 ROM.6:16 etc.). Neither Satan's, nor Christ's kingdom function as a visible organized unit, but these terms depict the relation of subject to ruler in a figure.

When one becomes a Christian he becomes a citizen in Christ's kingdom, a member of His body, a branch on the vine, and a part of the called-out people, the Church (ACT.2:47 EPH.1:22-23 JOH.15:1-6 etc.). In this sense all Christians are members of Christ's church, and all true members of Christ's church are Christians. We enter this relationship by obedience to the commands of King Jesus; and those who refuse to obey Him, no matter how "good" or how many denominations they join, are neither true Christians nor members of His church.

But "church" is used in another sense -- those Christians who agree to work together as a collective unit; having Bishops (overseers) deacons (servants of the church) and pooling their means and abilities to function as one (PHI.1:1,4:15-16). This is the "local" church, dependent upon the mutual agreement of its members for its existence (see ACT.9:26-28). Let's apply our subject to this. Certainly God intended that the members of the local church be Christians. But because the human element is here involved, sometimes people are accepted as members who are not what they seem (1JO.2:19) and sometimes people truly "bought" by the blood of the Lamb (2PE.2:1) make shipwreck their faith (1TI.1:19-20). Only a few in the church at Sardis were acceptable to God (REV.3:4)

Christians are commanded to keep the local church pure. This is done by restoring the erring brother (GAL.6:1) or, failing this, to deny him their fellowship (1CO.5:1-f.)

Of paramount importance here is the fact that such breaking of fellowship, to be acceptable before God, must be done with God's word as the standard -- not majority rule (JAM.2:12,4:11-12 ROM.16:17). The church at Corinth accepted the incestuous man, but God denied him. Diotrephes led a church which cast out John's brethren, but God received them.

Yes, one may be a member of a local church, yet not be a Christian. Such a thing does not argue against the importance of the church, but it may bring shame upon the church that allows such to go uncorrected (REV.2:20). Fellowship with "church members" must never be allowed to take precedence over fellowship with the Lord.

Perhaps the greatest lesson learned here is that heaven is not gained by following a "party" of people, by stying in a certain building, or by agreeing with the majority. We must be faithful to God and His word.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.IV Pg.4

May 1965

U S E Y O U R B I B L E

Robert F. Turner

. . . . . . 

 

WHAT CAN DESTROY A LOCAL CHURCH?

God's truth can not be destroyed (1 Pet. 1:23-25) (Matt. 16:18)

Even as the "gates of hell" could not prevail against the univ. church.

But local fellowship can be broken, and the usefulness of a local church may be destroyed, as shown in letters to the churches of Asia. (Rev. 2: 3:)

Read and study these scriptures carefully, making application as needed.

PERSECUTION CAN NOT DESTROY Acts 5:41-42 6:7 8:1-4 It may even strengthen--- 1 Pet. 5:10 

LOSS OF A CHURCH BUILDING CAN NOT DESTROY Such, while authorized, is unnecessary. Col. 4:15 Jn. 4:21-24 

LOSS OF HUMAN CREEDS, DOCTRINES, CAN NOT DESTROY Truth doesn't depend on such--- Acts 19:19-20 1 Cor. 2:4-5 

BECOMING A MINORITY CAN NOT DESTROY For God is a Majority--- Rev. 3:4, 8. 

BUT THESE THINGS CAN DESTROY AND CONDEMN: 1. The observance of days, months, etc. Gal. 4:8-11 (Paul said "I am afraid of you"-- i.e., for you.) 2. Desire to be subject to law of Moses; Gal. 4:19-f. (and Paul says, "I stand in doubt of you.") 3. Allow divisions over men to exist-- 1 Cor. 1:10 3:1-4 (and "I can not speak unto you as unto spiritual--") 4. Fail to bring forth fruit ... Matt. 21:33-43 (Jn. 15:1-6) (and "kingdom given to others") 5. Allow love for Christ to become secondary -- Rev. 2:4 (and your candlestick will be removed from its place.) 

TO SURVIVE, ACCEPTABLE UNTO GOD, THE CHURCH MUST BE: Sound in doctrine, Pure in life, and Diligent in service.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.IV Pg.5

May 1965

The "Audience" Complex

Robert F. Turner

The spectator" sports provide the "show" for an "audience." A few players carry the ball, bat and run, swim or skate; while the vast majority get their thrills by seeing and hearing -- and mentally associating themselves with the participants. Yes, even in a spectator sport the audience must give attention to the plays, and in a sense "become a part" of the game, to really enjoy it.

But in the worship of God many "church goers" are satisfied with an "audience" status; and worse still, are often an inattentive audience.

We "go to church," arrive late, thumb through the song-books, play with the children, note the neighbor's new hat, take a nap, absentmindedly partake of the Lord's Supper, and bow our heads for the "Amen!" This is WORSHIP????

Under the Old Law (Judaism) the Levitical priesthood offered the sacrifice and did all mediatory service at the altar and in the Holy Place. The people were participants in an empathic sense only, once the material for the sacrifice had been provided. Catholicism, growing out of an earlier "falling away" with respect to authority, developed the bishopric system into a full-grown hierarchy, with a "priesthood" that closely paralleled that of Judaism.

Many Protestant churches began with efforts to limit the power of the "clergy" but most of them sought to maintain "brotherhood" machinery which required "high offices," so the "'priesthood" conception continued. The people (called "laity" to distinguish them from the "nobility" (?)) may pay the bills, but the priests must "serve at the altar." And even today many "worshippers" are content to "attend" worship -- approaching the throne of God only through empathy (imaginative association) with some "pastor" or "priest."

But New Testament Christianity has each Christian a "priest." We are "a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." (1 Pet. 2:5) Christ is our High Priest, under a new and different law. (Heb. 7:12-28)

In Christianity there is no hierarchy. (Matt. 20:25-28) We have ONE Master, even Christ; and all the rest are "brethren." (Matt. 23:8) Even the overseers of the local church must not be "lords over God's heritage" but examples to the flock. (1 Pet.5:3)

Instead of "attending worship" you should be a worshipper. Instead of trying to build greater "audiences" we need to work for more "players"-- more participators. The worship is not "up front"-- tied to an altar, gold-plated cross, or preacher's platform. You are more than a "spectator" if you are truly a Christian -- you are a priest of the Most High God, gathered with other priests to offer up spiritual sacrifices.

When prayer is to be offered, YOU pray. YOU sing -- not for aesthetic reasons, to please your neighbor, but to express your praise unto God. Give your body "a living sacrifice" (Rom. 12:1) and save your soul.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.IV Pg.6

May 1965

The "Issue" 100 Years Ago

Robert F. Turner

The struggle of the independent local congregation against organized brotherhood activities is ever present. This month we quote from "Search For The Ancient Order," a two-volume history of the church by Earl West. (Vol. 2, P.386-f) (Available in Burnet County Library) 100 years ago the "issue" was exactly what it is today: centralization, or local independence.

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

"Alexander Campbell and a corps of younger preachers consisting of Isaac Errett, W. K. Pendleton, C. L. Loos, W. T. Moore, and D. S. Burnet satisfied their minds that human institutions, whatever their nature, were acceptable to the Lord.

The church universal, not the church local, was divinely commissioned to evangelize the world, teach the Bible, and exercise benevolence in works of charity. Since God had not told the church what methods to use to do its work, any method the best wisdom of the church devised was permissible on the grounds of expediency. And so, largely through the influence of Campbell and his younger corps of lieutenants, the missionary society was inaugurated. So also were Bible Societies, Publication Societies, Educational Societies, and Bible Colleges. The church could establish, maintain, own and operate these human institutions. In doing so it was using a method which God had left the church at liberty to use. This was one school of thought.

These, however, of this school of thought recognized prominent dangers. Chief of these was that the child of their creation might become strong enough to become their master. The human institutions must be subservient to the church, not masters over it. The church must control the institutions, not the institutions the church. Some, fully cognizant of this danger, launched into the promotion of these institutions with the same disquietness of an individual nursing a baby tiger. There was always the question, when the monster would grow up, would it devour the person that fed it?

In the process of time their worst fears were realized. J. H. Garrison and the Christian-Evangelist cried more and more for centralization. The General Convention should become the voice of the brotherhood and the C-E, the agent of that voice. The Christian Standard viewed this trend with alarm, and the result was-- and is-everything but an open division in these ranks.

Meanwhile others could not accept the viewpoint of Campbell and his lieutenants. They could find no scriptural warrant for the church universal acting as the church universal in an organic sense to do anything.

The formation of human institutions to do the work of the church was a human addition do a divine plan; an assumption of the prerogative of God in making laws for His people, besides being a threat to the local independence and autonomy of the individual congregation. On this basis Jacob Creath, Jr. and Tolbert Fanning waged a relentless war against the Society."

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.IV Pg.7

May 1965

Queries And Answers

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

A sister claims a scriptural right for her divorce and remarriage on the grounds of 1CO.7:39. As a widow (member of church) she was unaware of this passage, and so married a non-Christian. Later she read the passage, realized she had done wrongly; so divorced this non-Christian, and married a Christian. Please comment.

Reply:

Will wonders never cease -- and -- it is just possible that there aren't two Christians in this last marriage.

Accepting the woman's statement at face value -- and that isn't easy -- we must still question her conclusion.

Immorality is not the issue at stake in the qualification "only in the Lord" Paul is concerned with unequal yoking, that would hinder the Christian in his or her service to God. Earlier in the chapter (1CO.7:10-15) he recognizes this problem (even in a first marriage) but says that if the unbeliever "be pleased to dwell with" the Christian, "let him not put her away" -- "let her not leave him". And in 1CO.7:11, Paul says, "But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried.

Under the trying circumstances of the times Paul recommended that the unmarried Corinthians remain unmarried, (1CO.7:26-35) "that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction". But even here he says it is better to marry than to burn with lust (1CO.7:1-9). It is absurd to conclude that Paul would sanction divorce and remarriage on the part of the widow who married a non-Christian, when he had already said that even if differences in religion brought about separation, the parties should remain single.

Two wrongs can't make a right!!! 

 

Dear Sir: 

The eunuch (ACT.8:30-f) couldn't understand the scriptures "except some man should guide me". Doesn't this prove that individuals can not understand the Bible today, but must look to the church leaders for guidance?

Reply:

It was the fulfillment of the prophesy that the eunuch could not see. Until the New Testament was given the Old could only prepare and point toward Christ -- it did not reveal Him.

The mystery of the gospel -- i.e., the unrevealed truths, were unveiled by the Holy Spirit to inspired men; (see 1CO.2:6-13; EPH.3:2-7) and we who have the Old and New Testaments have this information, and no clergy or "church authority" is necessary.

What the inspired man Phillip did for the eunuch -- telling him about Jesus, and showing him how Jesus fulfilled prophesy and made salvation available to all man-kind -- the written New Testament (including ACT.8:) does for us.

Of course a Bible scholar may help others to understand -- "teaching others" (2TI.2:2); but our faith comes by God's word, not by man (ROM.10:17).

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.IV Pg.8

May 1965

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

A HYPOTHETICAL THOUGHT

(We devoutly wish we had thought of this, but we didn't. Credit must be given to Bro. Glenn Rogers, editor of "Along The Border," McAllen, Texas.)

Once upon an ingenious time when automation was flowering, a certain hypothetical scientist built an entire automated factory, operated by an "electronic brain" which he enbued with the "knowledge" and "power" to reproduce itself - complete with "brain."

As time passed (as time does), the original machine wore out (as men and machines do); but this was of no great consequence, as the new ones took its place (as new things do).

Then it came to pass one self-satisfied day that a question was fed into one of the shiny new computers concerning the genius who started it all. Whereupon the computer, although very adept at reproducing computers, yet unable to "think" beyond the information that it was given; typed a little note to the effect that such a man never existed.

********** "POCO POCO"

Which is an expressive Spanish phrase meaning "little by little." on a recent trip to El Paso I heard it used often as a soft-spoken senora described her family's conversion to Christ.

Over twenty years ago one member of the family broke with traditional Catholicism and became a simple New Testament Christian. She was ostracized, rejected by friends. But "poco poco" - little by little, the truth prevailed. In April of this year the last member of the immediate family-an aunt-- was baptized into Christ. Down in the interior of Mexico I heard it again. "How goes the work?" "Ah! Poco poco!" Deep sacrifice here; long hours, much prayer; but little by little the cause of Christ grows.

Christ likened the kingdom to the small mustard seed that, when grown, becomes a tree. And to leaven, which affects the whole loaf. "Who hath despised the day of small things?" Zech. 4:10. The materialist sets God's plan aside, and builds his tower of Babel; but the faithful work on, poco poco, and conqueror through Jesus Christ.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.V Pg.1

June 1965

He Understood "Authority"

Robert F. Turner

When a Roman soldier asked Jesus to cure his palsied servant, who was "grievously tormented," Jesus said He would come and heal him. (Matt.8: 5-f)

The Centurion said, "Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed. For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me; and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it."

This man understood authority. He was both subject to and a possessor of authority. He realized the import of power in a given field, and recognized the validity of Christ's position in the realm of healing. It was like his own authority with reference to men under him -- absolute.

The centurion knew that the personal presence of Jesus was not necessary. Forces of nature, like the demons of Satan's kingdom, bowed to a stronger force than themselves. There is power in His word. With the Father He spoke the world into existence. He stilled the sea with "Peace!" And now "Speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed." He understood authority, and was humbled in its presence. Not frightened; not condescending in hypocrisy; but truly humbled because he did understand authority. "I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof."

How wonderfully blessed we would be if we would so understand divine authority; and understanding, respect it. God's word, so accepted, would end foolish strife. We would hasten to measure our practice by that word, for we would want nothing more than to speak where the Bible speaks, and be silent where the Bible is silent. "The word only" would be more respected than "the majority of churches in Texas" or anywhere else.

Lip service to God's word would give place to honest soul-searching, and willingness to "give an answer" to those who ask a reason of the hope within us. In this vein, "Anti!" or "Liberal" would not pass for argument.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.V Pg.3

June 1965

Jailer Bound, Prisoners Free

Robert F. Turner

The jailer had received strict orders to keep certain prisoners safely. He bound them in stocks, in the inner prison; but at midnight a great earthquake loosed their bonds. Thinking his prisoners had escaped, the jailer was about to kill himself, when one of the prisoners said, "Do thyself no harm: for we are all here".

Small wonder the keeper began to think that these men, jailed because of religious practices, might have information he sorely needed. Bringing them out, he said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" (ACT.16:23-)

The answer, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ -- " is a broad, all-inclusive reply. It says, "sir, to be saved, you need a Saviour;" for mark it well -- salvation is no more purchased by "faith" than it is by "baptism". The jailer must "believe" -- put his trust in -- Jesus. Here is the one on whom he must depend; the one who had died for the sins of the world; the one who had divine authority to tell him "what to do".

Respecting the authority of Christ, the prisoners then "spake unto him the word of the Lord". They gave the jailer the message Christ had sent them forth to proclaim. I see no objection to calling it the plan of salvation as long as we remember that this simply means the instructions we receive from the Saviour, in whom we trust. We "rest our case" upon Christ when we are humbly submissive to His will; (JOH.14:23) which obviously means we must know His will, and do it. In a sense, Paul and Silas were telling the jailer what it really means to "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" when they "spake unto him the word of the Lord". Jesus had said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved -- " and "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (MAR.16:16;MAT.28:19). Through Peter He had said, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost" (ACT.2:38). This is the "word of the Lord".

And so the jailer "took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway". This was his way -- and the proper way -- of "believing in God with all his house" (Why not read the whole record for yourself -- ACT.16:23-34).

The prisoners, Paul and Silas, were "tied" to the stocks, but in a far more disastrous way, the jailer was "bound" in his own sins. His was a binding that could damn his soul, while their's meant only physical discomfort, and that was apparently forgotten in their rejoicing that they could suffer for the cause of Christ. They "prayed, and sang praises unto God" while in this condition.

Please note -- the jailer did not "rejoice" (ACT.16:34) until after he had been loosed from his bonds of sin.

Dear Reader, there is a vital message in this for you. Have you really and truly "believed in Jesus Christ"?

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.V Pg.4

June 1965

Use Your Bible . . . . . .

Robert F. Turner

In our April '65 issue we used this space for the first of a promised series on HOW TO STUDY. Before reading article two, which follows, we wish you could and would read the previous matter. Questions re. STUDY are solicited from our readers.

Context

This is the magic word-- the most necessary ingredient of all interpretation. Your purpose is to determine what the text says, i.e., what ideas it carries-- what it means. Application, and consequent benefit, can not be yours until you know the message.

But the message must be regarded as a whole. Before any of its parts can be understood, we must grasp the general theme of the writer-- be able to follow his general argument, and see the particular verse as a piece of that argument. This is CONTEXT.

Some books of the Bible are more closely knit than others (Ex.: Romans vs. James) but none can be properly studied verse at the time, with the exception of portions of proverbs, or other compilations of materials. Yet we frequently are in Bible classes where a single verse is read, and the class is expected to "get something" out of that. They do, too; but often it is a bit of "sermonizing" wholly unrelated to the text considered.

WHO is writing? To WHOM written? WHY? These are the usual questions that should be answered in order to grasp the context. But there is more than this to context. We must seek the mood and "feel" of the material. PECULIAR USE OF WORDS

John establishes a special use of "ho logos"--"The Word" (Jn.1:1-) which can be seen even in the English. This affects several of his arguments. In Romans, Paul is contrasting a system of law with a system of faith; as can be seen by carefully studying his first three or four chapters. This affects his use of "faith" "works" "law" and other terms; and a verse taken out of context may be almost impossible to correctly understand.

The ability to "find another passage" to explain the first is greatly abused, even though wide familiarity with the Bible must be admired. Until we carefully establish our subject, by immediate context, we will surely add confusion by bringing up another verse whose only kinship is use of some of the same words as our text.

Analyze And Outline

Don't be frightened by this suggestion. After rereading the section containing the verse in question--and several rereadings are in order-- try to write down: (1) the general subject (What is he talking about-- trying to prove?) (2) a list of "points" (How does he prove his contention?). If the material is history (Acts) or biography (in a sense, Mark, etc.) just list the order of happenings. By writing these things, trying to see the "order" in the author's mind, you will open new avenues of thought.

Work? Certainly it is work? Where did you get the idea it was all easy? BUT THE REWARD MAKES ALL WORTHWHILE.