Plain Talk

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIII No.V Pg.5
July 1976
Our Father Calls His Children
Robert F. Turner

When the Biblical concept of word of God is conceded we are mightily compelled to acknowledge that this message sent from God, framed by His Spirit, intended to instruct His creatures, is certainly capable of accomplishing its purpose. To say it is not understandable, or is ambiguous and contradictory, is to reflect upon its author. (We are here considering the original writings. We believe the message is reliably preserved in current versions, but that is a separate subject we cannot here discuss.)

To say that latter day hearers must have some immediate assistance of the Holy Spirit in order to understand, is to reflect upon the Spirits first work in assisting the Bible writers. Much of this error stems from the sacerdotal view of church as an institution which alone makes known the light of revealed truth; or, the evangelical doctrine of election and grace, directly bestowed. Both positions deny the true Biblical teaching re. the word of God — and both encourage men to trust in traditional history of theology to the detriment of reliance upon the work of God.

Then why is there so much misunderstanding? The wide influence of the above Catholic and Protestant concepts has greatly affected Bible Study. Major portions of those interested in Christianity are divided into church or creedal camps, and do little serious investigation fir themselves. Others seem to think that the freedom to study means freedom to draw whatever conclusion they please, and each man becomes a law unto himself. There is no genuine submission to divine authority is such an attitude. Modern theologians encourage the idea that TRUTH is wholly relative to the beholder, and has no fixed quality. This is purely subjective, and denies the most basic principle of a God who speaks. The Bible is no Ouija board with messages for the mystics and occult.

Although it is a library, a compilation of the literature of people of God, it is more than that. It has a central theme, despite its 66 books, some 40 writers, and 1,500 years in the making. God loved his creatures, even when they rebelled against Him. He promised redemption! (Gen. 12:1-3) He developed a people by whom He revealed Himself at sundry times and in divers manners, and through whom He sent His Son (Gal. 3:16-29). His dealing with the children of Abraham is the basis for types and shadows which prefigure His deliverance from the bondage of sin all who will put their trust in His Son. By the resurrection of His Son from death, He instilled hope in mortal man and lifted his eyes to eternity. And in the vivid apocalyptic flashes of the last book He shows us Victory! This theme gives a unity to the Bible such as is found in no other literature.

The word of God should not be read piecemeal. While obviously one can not read it all at once, the theme and framework can be recognized in early lengthy readings, and then each part can be studied intelligently. As its message unfolds, and we are led down its halls of duty, mercy, grace, truth and life, we will be pointed toward heaven by the word of God.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIII No.V Pg.6
July 1976
Did God Act And Speak?
Robert F. Turner

Few if any of our readers will ever read G. Ernest Wrights God Who Acts — and I do not recommend this book. But its theme is interesting. The writer deplores the concept of the Bible as a text for systematic theology; or for spiritual values. He says the latter makes Christianity little more than competition for pagan religions. He says  Biblical theology is first and foremost a theology of recital — and seems to want to say that the Bible is a history of Gods activity — that it records what really happened. (Amazing, isnt it?)

But he doesnt say that at all. By such revolutionary ideas one must acknowledge 0. T. miracles and the resurrected Nazarene; so Dr. Wright says the Bible simply records the peoples explanation of great periods of their history (as, the escape from Egypt) in terms of acts of God — and their theology became a recital of these happenings and explanations.

At the center of Israelite faith lay the great proclamation that the God of the fathers had heard the cry of a weak, oppressed people in Egypt. ...As slaves for whom the justice of the world made no provision, they were delivered by a most extraordinary exhibition of Divine grace. This was a sign, a wonder, not to be explained by fortune or irrational chance, but solely by the assumption (my emph., rt) of a personal Power greater than all the powers of this world... Israels doctrine of God, therefore, was not derived from systematic or speculative thought, but rather in the first instance from the attempt to explain the events which led to the establishment of the nation. (P. 44) Dr. Wright puts the faith of the early church on exactly the same basis. Christs coming was a historical event which was (by their assumption, remember; rt) the climax of Gods working since creation. The gospels are confessional recitals of historical events and traditions together with inferences (emph. mine, rt) derived from the events and seen as an integral part of them (Pp. 56, 68.) The Bible thus is not primarily the Word of God, but the record of the (so-called, rt) Acts of God, together with the human response thereto. (P. 107, my emph.) (My injections are in lieu of more lengthy quotes; rt.)

My purpose in reprinting such modernistic rubbish is to awaken you to a type of atheism that long ago invaded denominationalism and is filtering through to our intellectuals. To them, faith is make believe, suited to worship or solving emotional problems or religious yearnings, but does not demand actual acceptance of verbal inspiration of the Bible. Dr. Wright is apparently backing away from 19th. century modernism and considers himself a conservative Presbyterian, but true Bible believers need no sop from his kind.

My generation may die without being much affected by such matters. But what college Ph.D.s teach today, our grandchildren learn tomorrow; as they grow up in a climate of total unbelief or rationalistic explanations for Bible faith. We must recognize and give thought to these problems.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIII No.V Pg.7
July 1976
You Know What?
Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

Why are older preachers less certain about things, and grow soft in their preaching against sin? C. B

Reply:

The querist probably thinks I know some older preacher who could give us younger fellows the answers. Ill guarantee the querist is younger — for he is so certain about the older.

Well, some folk do grow soft after awhile. They begin to worry about financial security as health fails. They realize they can no longer start over with the vim and enthusiasm that once won them praise, and support. No doubt the faith of some is weakened — they wear down under the strain and stress of pressure. It is much easier now to compromise than to say what they know will involve them in another battle. Im afraid some have built a BIG PREACHER reputation, and want to enjoy its fruits on earth —Oh, what a short-sighted dream! And some were soft all the time. It just took a long poker to prove it.

Of course there is another side to this story. It is possible that long study and experience has given the older man a better knowledge of Gods word. He may have better judgment then the younger man who criticizes. None of us, young or old, are the final word in the matter; but the older man may have learned enough to become uncertain about matters that are not as black or white as the younger man believes them to be. Of course he should be able and willing to demonstrate his superior learning, and not use this claim as a cover-up. Sometimes the older, more experienced man who differs with popular or consensus opinions is actually showing great courage and strength. As a young man he may have known no better or felt compelled (since he was just getting started) to fall in line with his peers. But his trust in the Lord has grown, he realizes his first positions were more to please brethren, or be different, so now he says what he really believes is true. He may be wrong, but the man who speaks his honest convictions is not soft.

I wonder how Sauls early Jewish companions must have felt when he began to preach the faith he once destroyed (Gal. 1:23). Did they think he had grown soft?

Sometimes the years make us more considerate of others. We feel closer personal bonds. We have learned better how to understand frailties, having needed forgiveness more often. This can cause us to lose sight of eternal values, and put men before God; but it can also cause us to use greater patience and wisdom in helping our brother.

The problem is not youth, or age. Each have peculiar advantages and disadvantages. It is a wise old man who can encourage the young mans vigorous battle against sin, and offer advice for the struggle. It is a wise young man that can carry on an active fight for right without running roughshod over the older, slower soldier, who is fighting sin in his own way. Neither fire and thunder, nor gray hairs make for victory: but the way each of us follow our Lord and King.

[RETIREDFAN1]

8

July 1976

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

Dont know about you, but that lizard really liked last months Stuff About Things. I think he is bucking for front page notice.

The day after that article was written, as I prepared for bed, I noticed a lizard on the outside of the bathroom window screen. He was underneath a branch of shrubbery that had grown up against the screen, and apparently intended to spend the night there. Nothing to get excited about. I talked with him awhile, bid him good-night, and turned in. Next morning at 6:30 he was still there, awake now; and soon took off. Ho hummm!!

But that night he was back in his favorite place — and continues to sleep in that spot nearly every night. He missed two or three nights after Vivian washed the window with ammonia — who could sleep with those fumes? And he missed one night when we had a heavy rain. Otherwise, he has become one of the family. He turns in early — no one told him about daylight savings time — and he sleeps upside down about 50% of the time. Stay tuned — and well keep you posted.

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

BUS EVANGELISM NEWS — so read the heading on a bulletin article that came to our desk. It gave a report of workers and riders for four trips.

Workers / Riders

5 4 4 7

5 8

5 5

Just why a bus was needed for that I cannot say, unless — it was to give the workers something to do.

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

WILL SOME READER HELP US FIND) A USED ELLIOTT ADDRESSOGRAPH MACHINE, ELECTRICALLY OPERATED, that handles the standard 4 1/2 x 2 inches stencil. It is becoming quite a chore to address about 6,600 papers with our old hand-operated equipment. Information, including price, should be sent to the church address given on page 2.

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

A letter from Ron Lloyd, Tyler, TX. says some sound brethren are meeting in the home of bro. H. D. Grimes, 302 Pine Lake Drive, Pineville, La. 71360, and hope to establish a church in the immediate area (near Alexandria). You may call 318/ 443-2236 or 487-0712 for further information re. this work.

Now who says we are not diversified??

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIII No.VI Pg.1

August 1976

John And Cousin Jesus

Robert F. Turner

Have you considered how John could have felt about his cousin Jesus?

Sibling rivalry (as the books say) could have arisen between these two at an early age. John was about six months older; and his father was a priest, while Jesus apparent father was a carpenter. For that matter Johns birth to aged parents was more unusual (to the public eye) than the seemingly normal birth of Jesus.

John was well known, and already had a following when Jesus began his earthly ministry. And, after all, Jesus came to him to be baptized. What an opportunity here to crow a bit, and act superior.

John was a strict ascetic, and came neither eating nor drinking, while Jesus led a normal social life, eating and drinking (Matt. 11:18-19). How easy it would have been for John (had he been like many today) to feel that Jesus was worldly. Here I am, wearing camels hair and existing in the wilderness on locusts and wild honey; and he lives it up at a banquet with publicans and sinners. But John didnt act like so many of us act today. When Jesus asked for baptism John said, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? John practices his preaching, having said, He that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear, (Matt. 3:11, 14).

Some of Johns disciples seemed to resent, or at least question, the growing popularity of Jesus (Jn. 3:25-36). What an opportunity to show some peevishness, with friends to console and comfort. But John said, A man can receive nothing except it be given him from heaven. I am not the Christ. He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegrooms voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled. He must increase, but I must decrease.

And Jesus said, there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he (Lu. 7:28). Is there no lesson here for todays children of the kingdom??

[RETIREDFAN1]

XIII No.VI Pg.2

August 1976

What Is Teaching?

Robert F. Turner

Readers of this paper are vitally interested in teaching, and many of them devote full time to this work. Much attention is given to what to teach; some consider how to teach (usually giving emphasis to props or devices for expressing themselves; but few seem concerned with understanding the fundamentals of the act of teaching. What is teaching? What must we do to really teach?

Teaching is not the demonstration of the teachers learning, although obviously one cannot teach what he does not know. It is not the mere presentation of information, for one may present without communicating. Communication takes place only when there is reception as well. It is helping another to reproduce an experience, thus making it common to both teacher and pupil. Knowledge cannot be poured from one mind to another, like water from one bucket to another It must be recognized, and rethought, and relived by the receiving mind.

True teaching is not that which gives knowledge, but that which stimulates the pupil to gain knowledge. TEACHING IS THE AROUSING AND THE USING OF THE PUPILS MIND, TO GRASP THE DESIRED THOUGHTS, OR MASTER THE DESIRED ARTS. ( Seven Laws of Teaching by Gregory, for further study of these principles.) There is no teaching without learning. The teachers function is to create the most favorable conditions for self-learning.

At this point I hear many teachers say, We are willing to try this, but our pupils have no mental appetite. They do not seem to want to learn. Knowing this probably seems harsh, we must insist teaching involves creating that mental appetite. This is the very core of successful teaching.

Dewey said, THINKING BEGINS WITH A FELT DIFFICULTY. We think when our emotional or physical needs arouse in us some doubt or uncertainty. When we consider various solutions (accumulate the evidence) and select or reject until we reach a satisfactory conclusion, we have engaged in reflective thinking. The audience does not think just because the preacher steps to the platform. He must cause them to analyze themselves, see needs, and seek solutions. All explanations and expositions are useless unless they excite and direct the pupil in his own thinking.

THE ACTUAL WORK OF THE TEACHER CONSISTS OF THE AWAKENING AND SETTING IN ACTION THE MIND OF THE PUPIL THE AROUSING OF HIS SELF-ACTIVITIES. We must consider the pupils more, and the sound of our own voice less.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIII No.VI Pg.3
August 1976
The Best Bequest
Dan S. Shipley

The most important things that parents leave their children are not to be found in the legal language of a will. Peter writes of certain ones having been redeemed from a vain manner of life and says that such a life was handed down from your fathers (1 Pet. 1:18). Or, as the NASV puts it, redeemed. . . from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers". Obviously, then, parents do bequeath a way of life to their children. No other heritage means more; none could be a greater blessing — or a worse curse; none other is so wrought with eternal consequences. Since the way of life determines the way of eternity, there is a very real sense in which parents may leave their children a legacy of heaven — or hell. Not that children are not free moral agents to determine their own life and destinies (these of our text have changed), but God recognizes parental influence as a powerfully persuasive force in helping or hindering ones manner of life.

Seeing then the possibility of having inherited and, worse, the possibility of passing on a kind of life God calls vain, it is important that we identify and avoid such living. Peter is talking about a kind of living that is aimless; that is void of effect or result. The same word (mataios) is used to describe talk that is without profit (Titus 1:10; I Tim. 1:6); the uselessness of religion with an unbridled tongue (Jas. 1:26) and the emptiness of faith without a resurrected Christ (1 Cor. 15-17). Such is the life where Gods rule is not allowed and where heaven is not a goal of primary and urgent concern. Nowhere is this vain living better depicted than in Ecclesiastes where the wise man shows that all of mans life and labor apart from God is meaningless; it is vanity, an exercise in futility.

As Peter shows in v. 14, the vain life is characterized by lust and ignorance. For the most part, men are governed either by appetite or intellect; by what they want or by what they know. Vain living is a desire-dominated kind of existence. Paul refers to a time when we also once lived in the lusts of our flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the mind.. . (Eph. 2:3). The vain manner of life could not be better defined. Now it is not to say that all who live thusly are backward, uneducated, and irreligious people. On the contrary, the divine viewpoint sees many among the church-going, the wealthy, the educated, the cultured and the high-principled whose lives are not really going anywhere — they are living in vain, seeing only what is near, strictly oriented to the world and its values. They rarely see themselves as needing to be redeemed, much less as doing any disservice to their children in so living.

I think it would not over-simplify Peters principle to say that ANY life is vain that does not give God first place. Not merely to say that Hes first; not just to have some sort of special religious feeling, but to actively, urgently and continually seek to do HIS WILL. This is the point and purpose of life. God deserves it. Our children need such an heritage.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIII No.VI Pg.4
August 1976
Those Fatal Steps
Robert F. Turner

At Freed-Hardeman College (1934) President Hardeman made a chapel talk on Psm. 1:1-2. He said walk not by the pool room, nor stand there, nor sit and watch the players. In typical Hardeman fashion, he was telling us to avoid the first steps to a life of delinquency. The
Latins have a proverb for it: Obsta Principiis, or, resist the beginnings. Changes in our life, and in the church, come gradually. They often develop with little opposition because we do not recognize the fatal steps to error.

It has been charged that there are. Religious Steps to Atheism but this obviously cannot refer to genuine Christianity. Truth does not lead to error. One must acknowledge, however, a correlation of Heresy, Sectarianism and Denominationalism (abuses of true religion) to current rejection of the church, and to subsequent infidelity and atheism. We seek to define these developments, and determine the fatal steps that lead to each.

HERESY is doctrinal opinion that departs from orthodoxy; automatically assuming a standard. The Jews called Paul a heretic (Acts 24:5, 14) and Christianity a sect — using Judaism as the standard of orthodoxy. But heresy is more than honest difference in religious matters. Vine says it, Denotes a choosing, choice; than that which is chosen; and hence, an opinion, especially a self-willed opinion which is substituted for submission to the power of truth... There will always be differing conclusions drawn by honest men as they grow in knowledge, and this alone is not heresy. But babes and adults in Christ must have identical attitudes: be of one spirit one mind striving for the faith of the gospel (Phil. 1:27). When one forgets that God is master of all and allows personal preference or the prospect of advantage (see Vine) to dictate his conclusions, he is soon trapped in heresy. The fatal step is taken when one becomes opinionated and self-willed — loses his cool if he is questioned, or crossed. Heresy is best tested by open Bible study.

SECTARIANISM is kin to heresy, and comes from the same word. It is the party spirit; and a SECT is formed when self-willed and opinionated people are drawn together and allow their conclusions to form the boundaries of their fellowship. This is a cunningly deceptive step, so easily taken. We reason: the true church is that body of people who accept and obey the truth — right? We accept and obey the truth, therefore we are the true church — right? Then, only those who do as we do are members of the true church!! The switch from divine to human standard is made so smoothly that even members of a group called Church of Christ may not recognize its presence. We couldnt be wrong!

Since we must act in keeping with our convictions (Rom. 14:5, 22-23), and honest convictions may differ, some think this is a dilemma. It is not. A true Christian acts, and fellowships, in keeping with his convictions, but remains open for further enlightenment. The Fatal Step toward Sectarianism is taken when we measure ourselves by ourselves (2 Cor. 10:12-f); when the way we do it is substituted for honest Bible study. (continued on next page)

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIII No.VI Pg.5
August 1976
To Heresy, Sectarianism, And Ruin
Robert F. Turner

(continued from preceding page)

DENOMINATIONALISM refers to the spirit or policy of grouping churches under various distinctive names; making what is commonly called brotherhoods — although in reality they may more accurately be called church-hoods. In the early stages of the forming of a denomination the party spirit is strong, so that the first indications of a move toward denominational status is the organizing of local parties (congregations) into some form of functional entity — that they may act as one. The brotherhood of churches (churchhood) concept is encouraged — and some may adopt the Catholic view of a universal body of churches, having work responsibility. The church should do thus and so, and a means must be devised so that every part (congregation) may contribute resources and function as one.

Denominational history indicates that later the party spirit wanes, and denominationalism views the one body of Christ as consisting of many bodies or denominations. Compromise of conviction is now encouraged, for the sake of unity, and the masses of the movement (now three or more generations removed from the original heretics) are ready for the fourth stage — discussed below. The fatal step to denominationalism is collective action on the part of churches; for in such cooperation funds are pooled, a common oversight is accepted, and churchhood action begins.

Upon reflection it becomes apparent that the heretic allows selfish (human) interests to overcome trusting faith in God, and that this lack of faith produces all that follows. HUMANISM is not so apparent at the first, for heretics are usually zealous, and place great emphasis upon their adherence to Gods word The emphasis upon distinctively human interests or ideals comes later, as the sect or denomination becomes "respectable and affluent. So called Evangelical groups have a built-in road to humanism, in their reliance upon the Holy Spirit within to guide them. Matters are determinedly feelings or conscience — subjectively determined — and human desires assert themselves here. Those who reject the evangelical concept seem to approach humanism via social welfare. Surely Christianity must do good for the people, in this life; and so they too allow their ideas of what is good to rule. Situation ethics is a bad phrase, reserved for modernists; but when human reason judges or makes choice of Gods commands (Jas. 2:l0-12; 4:11-12), we are on our way to ruin.

The fatal step to Humanism is the acceptance of subjective, rather than objective authority; looking inside ourselves, rather than outside, to Gods revelation of His will. What is at first barely perceptible — hidden beneath doctrinal concepts of how one receives communication from God, or sincere desires to serve our fellow men — later becomes a full-grown human philosophy. Gods word is redefined — is no longer a verbally inspired message, but is only the witness or pointer to revelation, whose validity is determined subjectively. Finally, as Barth wrote, God is identical with his revelation and is no longer the eternal personality of the Bible. Beware those fatal steps!!

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIII No.VI Pg.6
August 1976
Romantic Utopianism
Robert F. Turner

In his book, No Little People Francis Schaeffer dares to include a chapter on The weakness of Gods Servants. We try to quote   enough to deal fairly with this thought mover.

*****************
I have said that sin is a serious business and we must never minimize that. But we are also being less than biblical if we slip into romanticism and utopianism... Utopianism is terribly cruel because it expects the impossible from people. These expectations are not based on reality. They stand in opposition to the genuine human possibilities afforded by the realism of the Scriptures.

Utopianism can cause harm. In the home, in the man-woman relationship, nothing is more cruel than for the wife or husband to build up a false image in his or her mind and then demand that the husband or wife measure up to this false romanticism. Nothing smashes homes more than this. Such behavior is totally contrary to the Bibles doctrine of sin. Even after redemption, we are not perfect in this present life. It is not that we avoid saying sin is sin, but we must have compassion for each other, too.

Utopianism is also harmful in the parent-child relationship. When apparent demands more from his child than the child is capable of giving, the parent destroys him as well as alienates him. But — and this is a special twentieth-century malady — the child can also expect too much of his parents. It cuts both ways. All over the world, perhaps especially in the Western world, children are expecting too much perfection from adults. And because the parent does not measure up to the childs concept of perfection, the child smashes him.... If we demand, in an of our relationships, either perfection or nothing, we will the nothing.

Utopianism enters another area to injure Christians, especially serious Christians: A Christian can build up a romantic, idealistic concept of himself and begin expecting absolute perfection from himself. This, too, is a destructive monster.... Many Christians vacillate between being permissive in regard to sin toward themselves, on the one hand, and demanding perfection from themselves, on the other. They end up battered and crushed because they do not live up to their own image of perfection. The worst part is that often this image does not have anything to do with biblical standards, with the true law and character of God.

A Christian must understand that sin is sin and yet know that he should not establish for himself a model of perfection or nothing. In other words, a Christian can defeat himself in two ways: One is to forget the holiness of God and the fact that sin is sin. The Bible calls us to an ever deeper commitment in giving ourselves to Christ for him to produce his fruit through us. The other is to allow himself to be worn out by Christians who turn Christianity into a romanticism. The realism of the Bible is that God does not excuse sin but neither is he finished with us when he finds sin in us. And for this, we should be thankful.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIII No.VI Pg.7
August 1976
You Know What?
Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

Did the Corinthian church send contributions to non-saints, 2 Cor. 9:13?

Reply:

If they did there is no evidence of it. This passage is clearly a reference to the collection for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem (Rom. 15:25-27; 1 Cor. 16:1-3; 2 Cor. 8:4; 9:1-f.). Laws of context indicate this, and commentaries generally acknowledge the same. Unto all (men is not in the Greek but is supplied) refers to all of like characteristics as the them.

Remember, the donors of these gifts are Gentiles, and the recipients are Jews. Paul felt the rift in Jewish-Gentile relations night be helped by this Gentile concern for Jewish brethren; but the situation was so ticklish that he asked the Romans to pray that my ministration which I have for Jerusalem may be acceptable to the Saints (Rom. 15:30-f).

Now, in 2 Cor. 9:12, the ministration of this service these two things. It 1) not only filleth up the. .wants of the saints i.e., satisfies their physical needs; but it 2) aboundeth also through many thanksgivings unto God i.e., causes the recipients to praise and thank God. Verse 13 expands this last thought by saying the recipients glorify God for (epi, on account of) two things: 1) the obedience of your confession unto the gospel of Christ; and 2) for the liberality of your koinonias (fellowship). This fellowship (K.J. distribution; A.S. contribution) is unto 1) them and 2) unto all. Some debaters tell us that the unto all (eis pantas) is found five times in the N.T., and that it always refers to non-saints. One need not know Greek to see this is illogical. How could unto all in and of itself refer to saint or non-saint? That must be determined by the context in which unto all is found. Also, in 1 Thes. 3:12; Paul commends the saints love toward one-another and toward all (eis pantas) even as he loved the brethren of Thessalonica. The context here strongly suggests all saints. The all (pasin) of Acts 2:45 refers to saints — clear enough here, and enforced by the detailed accounts of such benevolence in Acts 4:34-f. and Acts 6:1-4. Likewise, an unbiased study of 2 Cor. 9:13 shows that unto all refers to other saints.

But when careful analytical study fails to justify a false position the devotees often turn to prejudices. We are accused of a heartless unconcern for the needy of the world. I remind you we are discussing what the church did from its treasury, in an organized capacity. The church has an obligation to widows indeed that it does not have to widows who are the responsibility of individuals (1 Tim. 5:16). This does not warrant the conclusion that there is no concern for other widows. It simply defines and limits collective responsibilities.

The church distributively — individual saints — have many social, domestic, civil, and other responsibilities that are not the assigned work of the church collectively — as an organized unit. The Lords church allows the Lord to settle such matters.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIII No.VI Pg.8

August 1976

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

I Remember Mama in thousands of ways — but perhaps most vividly as the fiery, determined little woman who did things that couldnt be done.

During depression days dad came in with tears in his eyes. The banks will not open today, he sobbed. The only cash we have is the change in the cash register. We are ruined!!

Fire snapped in mamas eyes. They cant have my money, she said. Dad tried to tell her the signs were up and there was no way to get into the bank; but mama threw a little black shawl around her shoulders and headed for town. She came back after awhile with $2,000 — the only capital we had to start over — and if anyone ever knew how she did it they would not tell. No, mama didnt own a gun.

We had a black cook who made wonderful pineapple pies — when she was not eating the starch. But on an important day, when mama expected big company, Sevella didnt show. Inquiry revealed she was in jail. So, mama called the jailer and told him to send her up there to make those pies, and she would be sent right back. (By now you have probably guessed that we lived in a small southern town, and mama knew everyone, top to bottom.) But the jailer said he couldnt do that. Sevella had stabbed a man and might face murder charges. Well — on went that little black shawl, off went mama, and soon back came Sevella. The pies were made, Sevella returned to jail, and we didnt see anything unusual about that.

Mama had a thing about the court house. It was all right for those who needed it, but she wouldnt go about the place. I dont remember her even voting. Then one day a man brought a summons. Judge wanted her to appear as character witness in a trial.

No, she said, Ive never been in the courts, and Im not about to start now. The man was puzzled. The Judge had ordered it, and Hell send the Sheriff to get you if you do not appear. Mama exploded, Theyll have to carry me over there, and Id like to see George Newman do that. Im not trying to justify this; Im just telling it like it was. She didnt go!

Yes I remember mama! She taught me to take on the world if I thought I was right, and would keep at it. Her memory is like a little black shawl, so handy to throw about my shoulders.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIII No.VII Pg.1

September 1976

Stand Up And Say It

Robert F. Turner

PLAIN TALK is written for mature people, and we dont mean X-rated. We try to write as we speak — kindly disposed, yet with no desire to coddle or baby the reader. It is our nature to be a bit whimsical, and no effort is made either to hide or to exaggerate this. We read a lot, and are told we tend to write in a bookish fashion — except by those who say we are downright country. We have long sought to develop an objective approach to matters, hoping not to forget people in the process. Some say we never go in the front door of a subject if we can find a back door; but we say we are trying to get to the bottom of an issue, and avoid prejudices by the presentation.

All of which is said (back door) in order to say that we believe nature people should be able to speak plainly to one another. If we believe a man is going to Hell, we would like to be able to tell him so, and convince him that we are sorry about it. If we believe he is going to Heaven, we would like to be able to rejoice with him without having him think he is being buttered up for a donation.

We do not believe abusive language is a sign of soundness; nor, for that matter, that kind and respectful communication is a sign of weakness. We must confess that we tend to judge a man somewhat unstable when his words are ambiguous and he is always being misunderstood. We are also wary of one who will burst out with some wild statement, and then when it is challenged, adopt a sweet and hurt attitude. Sometimes this happens when one speaks or writes hastily, with too little thought for what he is saying. But if this becomes a habit, that man should learn to keep quiet.

Paul wrote to the Colossians, Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer each one (3:6). The seasoning is neither sugar nor hot peppers; but is wholesome, palatable, wise and beneficial. Seems to us this calls for directness — perhaps a yea, yea or nay, nay.

Mature men and women, with genuine interest in spiritual matters, will lay their chips aside, and communicate in a fair and meaningful way.

[RETIREDFAN1]

XIII No.VII Pg.2

September 1976

Disturbed Men

Robert F. Turner

Disturbed men are no new phenomena among brethren. A study of religious journalism will reveal there have always been Voices of Concern by men who are upset by what they see, and want to do something about it. Their clamor makes us aware that all is not perfect, we are pressing toward the mark, active minds are at work.

A small percentage of these disturbed men will think they have found new material, or are Don Quixote's, Saviors of the church. Some will become iconoclasts, swinging destructive axes in all directions. Many are sincere but immature, having a childlike utopian spirit, wholly incapable of dealing with reality. Yet, mature saints will try to be objective, test each point by Gods word, and try to profit by this free-thought process.

What disturbs me at this writing is my reflection upon what has happened to the disturbed men of the past. Where are they now? Is their present position indicative of the disposition or frame of mind that triggered their earlier activities? Plainly, did they become what they, knowingly or not, set out to become?

Some former Voices have lost all faith — are complete atheists. Were they struggling with themselves at the time they challenged brethren on other matters? Did they blame others for turmoil within themselves?

Many have taken secular jobs and are building earthly treasures. Were they unwilling to do the Lords work, and trust Him for daily bread? Was the longing for Country Club status the real itch that had to be comforted? Calling others hypocrites can be a cover for a real hypocrite.

Certainly, not all disturbed men have ulterior motives. Some simply quit the canned sermons of earlier years, and were amazed at the truth they found when they really began to study the Bible. But these do not blame the brethren; they go to work preaching and teaching the truth.

Some find, after several years of trying to preach, that this is just not their dish. Their desire is very admirable; and now that they recognize they cant preach, they go right on being faithful saints, encouraging those who can.

Still, I am disturbed by the wreckage of once faithful Christians, now scattered upon humanitys shore. A college professor, or successful business man may not seem like a wreck to you, but if he is one less worker for the Lord, I am disturbed.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIII No.VII Pg.3
September 1976
Our Tattling Priorities
Dan S. Shipley

As someone has wisely noted, life is governed by esteemed values. Its what men consider important that really counts in the ordering of personal priorities. Obviously, not all consider the same things important. What one views as trivial may be anothers treasure, and vice versa. But this much is sure: no man ever treats his own treasure as a trivial thing.

On the contrary, ones devotion to his special interests will likely be conspicuously manifest, even when he might wish it otherwise. As Jesus has said, for where thy treasure is, there will thy heart be also (Matt. 6:21). Again, for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh (Matt. 12:3b). The heart is where the treasure is and the mouth will soon reveal where the heart is. Our priorities tell on us because we like to tell about them. Sooner or later, the topic of conversation will be centered on our interests — maybe not with the enthusiasm of a golf or fishing nut, but like ants at a picnic, theyll keep on showing up. Our auditors hear what we are concerned about. What do they hear? Is it ever spiritual subjects? It may be enlightening to see a list of what our friends consider to be our priorities. Chances are, they wouldnt be far off because if our conversations didnt tell on us, our schedules would.

Like our speech, the employment of free time says much about our interests. Thats why we always seem to find time for doing what we want and seldom find time for the dont-wants. Worse, we may even become unconscious to making such distinctions — even to the extent of habitually first doing what we want, then, if necessary, invent excuses for our failures. Mostly, Christians with excuses are just Christians with wrong priorities. Think, for instance, of how Christians could redeem the time, not only by attending Bible studies and worship, but by visiting the sick and weak and teaching the lost. Yet, it is not unusual to hear of those who put in more time watching TV in one or two evenings than on all of these activities put together for a whole week! We ought to be ashamed! — not for watching TV, but for neglecting the other. Redeeming the time (Eph. 5:16) becomes an impossible task without right priorities.

Finally, the use made of financial resources says something about what we consider important. In fact, some say it says most and loudest. Anyway, like time and tongue, it does tell where the heart is and its use can be a proof of love (2 Cor. 8:24). Certainly, that which we profess to be the most important and urgent cause on earth deserves to be supported accordingly, financially and otherwise.

Remember, our priorities do tell on us. And they always tell the truth! The Lord hears what they say. The brethren hear. So does the world. The real question is, do we? If so, we may conclude that changes are needed. Not superficial changes that force external improvement, but the kind that get to the heart of the matter — the kind that come from facing up to our true condition and real needs and make us see the need for the Lord and seeking Him FIRST.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIII No.VII Pg.4
September 1976
Miraculous Gifts
Robert F. Turner

Surely no Bible believing student doubts that various signs and wonders (miraculous gifts) were manifested by members of the early church. Nor can such a believer doubt that God has the power to give such gifts today. The question is, does He?

It is ridiculous to argue He must, or be a respecter of persons. Not all early Christians had the same gifts (1 Cor. 12:4-11). He made Paul an apostle, not me. Nor is our lack of faith the answer. The apostles hands seem to have been required in usual cases of spiritual gifts, even for believers (Acts 8:12-18; 19:2-6; Rom. 1:11).

Some say God has promised such powers (Mk. 16:11). If this verse refers to all believers in all ages, it certainly raises questions about those who do not manifest such powers. But if not all believers are included, then who are intended, and why? For a starter, notice the immediate context of the citation. The apostles went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. For special reasons (the why?) only special ones (the who?) had miraculous gifts and powers. Even Jesus said, That ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins. . . and then healed. (Mk. 2:5-12)

A lady once told me she was tarrying for the Spirit (Lu. 24:49), and was embarrassed when I pointed out she must tarry... in Jerusalem not in Urbana, Illinois. We must not appropriate to ourselves promises made to others. Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to the apostles as another (allos, similar to Himself, Trench) Advocate. He had been their teacher, but now the Spirit of Truth would guide them (14:16-17, 26; 16:12-13). Inspiration would stand by their side when they were brought to trial (Lu. 21:12-15). Attention to context would remove many so-called promises of Holy Spirit functions claimed for today.

The apostles confirmed the word with signs following. Bagster says confirm means establish, render constant and unwavering; to establish by arguments or proofs, ratify. Notice its use in Heb. 2:3-4, confirmed unto us by them that heard him; God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, etc. The Holy Spirit miraculously delivered truth, and miraculously proved its divine origin. (Compare signs of an apostle 2 Cor. 12:12.) Will charismatics of today claim apostolic powers?

A distinctive outpouring of the Spirit (as on us at the beginning) marked the bringing of the gospel to Gentiles (Acts 11:15-f), and there is no evidence of a repetition of this. Do those who claim current miraculous spiritual powers believe new divine revelations are being given, or that the New Testament needs reconfirming?

The apostles were accompanied in their work of delivering the New Covenant by others, called Prophets (see Eph. 2:20; 3:5); and it seems spiritual gifts served the same purpose with them. Stephen (Acts 6:8-10), and Philip (8:6, 26-39), are examples of men who, in the absence of the written New Testament, were directly aided by the Spirit to deliver truth. (continued next page)

[RETIREDFAN1]

Pg.5

September 1976

- -The Who, The Why, And The When

Robert F. Turner

(continued from preceding page)

The use of spiritual gifts could be abused by early saints, for The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets (1 Cor. 14:32). Remember that when you are told The Spirit is moving me; I cant help myself. Peter acted hypocritically (Gal. 2:11 -13), and Paul had to buffet his body lest he be rejected (1 Cor. 9:27). But the message which the Spirit gave, using the earthen vessels as a mouth piece, was inerrant and unified. The case of Baalam (Num. 22:24:) is an 0. T. example; and 1 Cor. 14: is an account of N.T. saints who could misuse their gifts, but through whom a unified truth was presented. This emphasizes the true purpose of such gifts.

The message was the thing. Paul could say, I speak with tongues more than ye all: Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue (v. 19). He told the Corinthians, I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied (taught, rt) for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying (v. 5).

The unification of the message is apparent in that Paul could say, If any man think himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord (v. 37). The testing of one who claimed to have the Spirit was done by comparing his message with that of John and other inspired men, (1 Jn. 4:1- 6). So-called miracles were also tested by the message, or content of teaching, (See Deut. 13:1-3; 2 Thes. 2:9-l2).

Further study of 1 Cor. 12: 13: 14: shows us that although Paul wanted the Corinthians to have and use spiritual gifts, he recognized their transient nature. Note, Covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet show I unto you a more excellent way (12:31). The more excellent way was not a new or different way (love was intended for all saints) but it was an enduring way as opposed to spiritual gifts that would serve their purpose, and them cease. Miraculous prophecies, tongues, and knowledge were to cease; for we know in part, and we prophesy in part (i.e., piece by piece, rt) but when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away (13:8-10). Some say this refers to Christs coming at the end of time, but that which is not He who. Marshalls interlinear translates, When the perfect thing comes, the thing in part will be abolished. The perfect (mature, full - grown) thing is the complete revelation. Miraculous gifts served, in the child or developmental stage of New Testament revelation, but when the job was done, the scaffold — the trappings of development — would have accomplished its purpose, and cease.

The Holy Spirit did His work well, delivering through chosen messengers a confirmed and established standard of truth for all men and all tine. We believe the WHO? WHY? and WHEN? study of miraculous spiritual gifts will make clear this truth. Current ecstatic gifts (?) do not conform to N.T: teaching, hence are not of God.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIII No.VII Pg.6
September 1976
Social Slavery
Robert F. Turner

On a recent Wednesday night one of our
members (Byron Boucher) presented a fine talk on Avoiding Bad Habits. With his consent I am reproducing the salient points on this quote page.

***********************
Webster says Habit implies a settled disposition or tendency due to repetition. One can not form a habit without first deciding to try it. It follows, therefore, that our bad habits — the ones we would like now to break — began by choice. In this sense, we have none to blame but ourselves. We stew in our own juice.

But why does one light the first weed, or take the first drink, or do whatever becomes a damaging habit? We should not seek to escape personal responsibility — our fleshly appetites, youths desire to experiment, etc. But many of these specific reasons can be summed up in one general category, and that is social pressures. Our T.V. and movie idols do it, advertisement says it is the fashionable thing to do, ant most forceful of all, our immediate associates do it.

There is a sad irony in the current desire to do your own thing, for more often than not your own thing is not your own at all, but what your peers are doing. You dress, and talk, and drink, and do, as your peers dictate. In fact, many young people (and some older) live in dire fear that they will not conform to the expectations of the gang — even while they are loudly explaining that they are independent, and are determined to be on their own. This would be bad enough in harmless practices. It becomes infinitely worse when the habit is of such a nature that it becomes an addiction and the victim loses the ability to exercise his will. Apart from drugs that so dominate us, many sins make us their slave. One lie demands many covering lies; and some appetites, once developed, are never satisfied. All sin, unforgiven, has dominion over you (Rom. 6:11-18). There is no slave so cursed as one who is dominated and ruined by his own sinful habits.

We are surrounded by a world where sin is king and whose pressures are therefore pushing us in the wrong direction. James says, ...the friendship of the world is enmity with God (14:14). Whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God. We would emphasize that this makes the world your own worst enemy. There is no better way — actually there is no other way to really show free will and independence in your own best interest, than to determine to live above the world.

You can not drift in this direction; it is an up-hill pull. And here the fellowship of brethren in Christ can be truly appreciated. Members of the church are not perfect — they are also pulling up-hill against the tide of social pressures — but they aim to do better. By making Christians your peers, by looking for your life mate among Christians, by cultivating a social life among Christians, you will ease your journey immeasurably. But Christians are examples only so far as they follow Christ. It is in Christ alone that we may finally overcome bad habits, and the world.

[RETIREDFAN1]

:Vol.XIII No.VII Pg.7
September 1976
You Know What?
Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

In 2 Jn. 9, does the doctrine of Christ mean what Christ taught, or teaching concerning Christ come in the flesh? Does the Greek clarify? BT

Reply:

I dread these Greek questions for they mean slow, laborious searching through material that is over my head. Ill explain this as clearly as my knowledge will allow. Of Christ is genitive — the case of genus or kind. A. T. Robertsons Grammar (and at $17.50 it had better be a good grammar) says, In itself the genitive is neither subjective nor objective, but lends itself readily to either point of view. Four other grammars in my library are in substantial agreement. The context must determine the meaning. Viewed purely from the grammatical angle we could translate: Whosoever goeth onward and abideth not in the Christ-kind of teaching..

Every Greek expositor available to me, with the possible exception of Wuest, says this passage refers to teaching that has Christ as its author. Robertsons Word Pictures has Not the teaching about Christ, but that of Christ which is the standard of Christian teaching as the walk of Christ is the standard for the Christians walk (1 Jn. 2:6). See Jn. 7:16; 18:19. Meyer says, tou Cbristou is not the objective ... but the subjective genitive ... the doctrine which, proceeding from Christ, was proclaimed by the apostles. Wuest says, teaching with reference to Christ, but broadens this to the limits of true doctrine. His barbs are aimed at Unitarian, Modernist, or Liberal. Wescott says, the doctrine which Christ brought and says the usage of the N.T. is uniformly in favor of such an interpretation. Alford also pleads uniformity of N.T. usage, and between them they cite Matt. 7:28; Mk. 4:2; Jn. 18:19; Acts 2:42; Rev. 2:11-15. Both mention and repudiate the idea that this is an objective genitive.

It is not my practice to array the scholars for you, but in such a technical matter this seemed wise. It seems to me that both context and N.T. usage require 2 Jn. 9 to refer to that which Christ taught, personally and through His apostles. John warns of a particular error (that Christ had not come in the flesh) but this does not negate a more general application of the principle given. In 1 Jn. 4:2 are we to understand that the only test for determining those of God is the confession that He is come in flesh? Or is this simply one example (currently needed) of a broad principle? (Note v.6). Do all who say Jesus is Lord, have a spiritual gift? (1 Cor. 12:3). See Deut. 13:2 for O.T. example of citing a specific error to teach a general principle.

The teaching that came from Christ would, of course, include the fact that He came in the flesh. So far as immediate context is concerned, it would also include His commandment concerning love (vs. 5-6), and all the truth. ..which abideth in us (v.2).

Limiting this passage to the error concerning Christ in the flesh is convenient for those who would broaden fellowship, but neither scholarship, context, nor Bible usage sanction it.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIII No.VII Pg.8

September 1976

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

Wish I could share with you some of my mail without having you think I attract such correspondence. Maybe Stuff About Things and my correspondents have a mystical affinity.

Some time back I made the mistake of quoting a Nigerians appeal for finances to buy a wife. I received one check, and another inquiry about how to forward the-money — both being an embarrassment to me. I tried to make it right by personal letters.

Thanks for the mail asking about my lizard friend and telling me your lizard experiences. Cant write much more about that, for little children are saying, Thats the man who talks to lizards! Anyhow, Rusty was home only once during this past month.

Had a letter from a church consisting mostly of women. Said when a male member came he wanted one of them to lead the prayer for his communion. I first suggested shoot the man and make a problem for which I have some solid answers (viz., you shouldnt have done it), and I could give lots of scriptures. Then, thinking this might not be practical, I tried to show the Supper is not administered and the man could pray silently. A very nice letter from a new contact in Australia, wants a study on spiritual gifts. (Letter answered, and study is in this issue.) Another nice letter from a lady who thought my note about a Bus Ministry that used a bus and five workers to pick up four riders, indicated I did not properly appreciate small things. I assured her I meant to convey that the bus was a BIG thing, which in this case should have been supplanted by individual contact and transportation. A letter about labor unions had already been answered in You Know What? and another letter about birth control, I didnt know how to answer.

Then this fellow wrote that he had tried to preach a point I had made, and it got him INTO a hole. He said he meant INTO, not UNTO. Said he was UNTO it when he started preparing the lesson. Said he told the brethren not to worry about hair problems — if we live long enough well probably lose our hair anyhow. He had a hunch this wouldnt go over, and it didnt. I sent him some good stuff on nature (see McKnight on Eph. 2:3, note 3) and hope he can get us OUT OF the hole.

The real ego-builder was a request for a sermon preached in 1969. Wow!!

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIII No.VIII Pg.1

October 1976

A God-Ward Attitude

Robert F. Turner

Of godliness, Vine says, piety which, characterized by a God-ward attitude, does that which is well-pleasing to Him. Lenski says, The base of godliness is in the spirit; its great field lies in the spiritual virtues ... When the truth fails to produce godliness the truth has not entered the heart. Some day we will get around to recognizing that except for instructions in details, telling people what God wants them to do is not nearly as important as prompting them to want to do Gods bidding.

We have assumed a false premise; i.e., that our hearers are ready and anxious to obey the Lord, and all we have to do is tell them of the divine commands. We tell them, and make it very clear — and just cant understand why they do not obey. But failure to do Gods bidding, even failure to know what God wants done, is, in our land of Bibles and education, more lack of interest and concern than lack of knowledge. Even sincere truth seekers may make no distinction in the Bible and some far-East Gurus pronouncement. It is becoming increasingly important that we delve more fully into the essence of Christianity, and sell its basic principles. People must be brought to see that God is real, and their need for such a God is equally real. A proper attitude must be formed — a God-ward attitude — before we can bring souls to Him, or expect faithfulness.

Mint, anise and cumin follow or come as a result of judgment, mercy, and faith (Matt. 23:23); and are of value only as they manifest the first. In our (commendable) zeal to urge the necessity of obedience we must not neglect to recognize that genuine obedience can come only from a heart properly turned toward God. It is as much our job, as teachers, to turn hearts toward God, as it is to teach that which must be done from the heart (Acts 8:37 Rom. 6:17).

An emotional turn toward God may be purely subjective, or even a hypocritical effort to avoid obedience; but we cant know this until fruit is produced. Try building on the heart, instead of trying to turn it off. It may be this fellow has the first important ingredient for godliness.

[RETIREDFAN1]

XIII No.VIII Pg.2

October 1976

Dying To Live

Robert F. Turner

Dr. Kubler-Ross is quoted in the Aug. 76 Readers Digest as saying, We can not live fully until we have faced our finiteness and inevitable death. She reached her conclusion by observation and experience; but we can know this by faith. Jesus taught that man was a fool who refuses to reckon with death (Lu. 12:16-21). And fools are plentiful. I heard recently of a man who has become obsessed with his desire to remain young. He is breaking up his home in his effort to prove his virility. But years and natural waning can not be denied. He is going to age, and die! His unwillingness to accept the inevitable is robbing him of a graceful and satisfying senior period, and worse, of hope for heaven in the eternal after-life.

Christ used a simple illustration to show that there is profit in the right kind of death. Except a grain of wheat fall into the earth and die, it abideth by itself alone; but if it die, it beareth much fruit (Jn. 12:24 f.). Christ died to conquer, and this involved separation in more ways than physical. He gave up heaven and his former life (Phil. 2:4-12) in order to serve the Father, and save us.

Most of us recognize baptism as a burial of the old man — hence the importance of dying to our former life. But this dying must continue — it is not a once for all dying. We must continue to reckon yourselves dead unto sin (Rom. 6:11-13), so that we let not sin reign neither yield members as instruments of unrighteousness. Mortify your members (Col. 3:5-f), means keep on putting to death our fleshly appetites.

And the meaning goes still deeper. If we have died, and are risen with Christ we live above this life and its demands. We are not out of this world yet we are not OF the world (1 Cor. 5:9-11). Food, raiment, and lodging are temporal necessities, but we will not allow them to dominate or possess us (Matt. 6:24-34). Baptism is an empty form if we have not truly died to material desires and anxiety.

We are not advocating an ascetic life. Dwelling in a cave doesnt separate us from the world in the Christian sense; it only isolates the leaven that is supposed to influence the world. We are dead when our life is hid with Christ in God (Col. 3:3); when we are strangers and pilgrims on the earth (Heb. 11:13); when we desire and live for a better country, that is a heavenly (v.16).

For such an one death is swallowed up in victory. Old age is no blind alley, it is a vestibule. Each day is a golden coin, to be spent.

[RETIREDFAN1]

.Vol.XIII No.VIII Pg.3
October 1976
The Abridged Bible
Dan S. Shipley

Strange as it may seem, one of the most popular versions of the Bible has never been published. It is what I call the Abridged Version. Its contents may vary considerably, depending on the discretion and tastes of the abridger. His method of abbreviating the Scriptures is very simple — elimination by ignoring. He merely disregards all passages except those he chooses to recognize and emphasize. Scissors couldnt be more effective!

Many seem satisfied with only a slight abridgment, maybe one or two verses. One popular unpopular verse among the discreet abridgers is 1 Cor. 16:2 — you know, the one about giving as prospered on the first day of the week. Some dont much like the giving part; others dont care for the as prospered part and still others would like to ignore or minimize every week giving. Otherwise, they are apt to be as strong as horse radish on most of the remaining 7,958 verses in the N.T.

Another popular verse among the less-active scripture pruners is the one about not forsaking the assembling (Heb. 10:25). Now, theyll debate baptism at the drop of a sprinkle — more than likely quoting the right passages in doing so. Likely, they can tell you what the NT has to say about the work and worship of the church. Trouble is, you never know if theyll be present for the work and worship because they have forsaken what God says about not forsaking. Abridgment of Divine truth is serious business, even when done in small portions — and even when done by those claiming to be Christians. On the other hand, many abridgers seem perfectly willing to disregard greater portions of Scripture. Some, in fact, have been known to wind up with little more than a one-verse Bible! Take, for example, the singular emphasis often given to a passage like Jn. 3:16 —- almost as if it were the very epitome of the gospel. True, this beautiful verse does say much, but it doesnt say everything. The faith it mentions is all-important, but not all that is important! When seen in the light of other NT teaching (as all passages should be), the faith of Jn. 3:16 can be understood and appreciated as the kind that includes works of obedience, rather than excluding them. It is a passage to be complemented by others (such as Jas. 2:24) and not arrayed against them. Whether one passage is emphasized to the exclusion of others or whether just one is excluded and all others emphasized, the sin is the same. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is become guilty of all. For He that said.. .said also.. (Jas. 2:10,11). To disregard law is to disregard the lawgiver; whether in one instance or many is academic.

What men need to hear and heed today is what Paul said he preached nearly 2,000 years ago: THE WHOLE COUNSEL OF GOD! (Acts 20:27). All Scripture was given by inspiration and given for a purpose — and that purpose involves making man complete, as God would have him (2 Tim. 3:16-17). An abridged gospel cannot make a complete man! Only one thing can, and thats the truth, the whole truth and nothing but.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIII No.VIII Pg.4
October 1976
The Dominion Of Sin
Robert F. Turner

The exegetes and commentators have a field day with Rom. 7: and Pauls inner struggle. Is this the regenerate or unregenerate Paul? Context indicates that ones struggle against sin continues, regardless of regeneration. Paul had to buffet his body, lest by any means, after that I have preached to others, I myself should be rejected (1 Cor. 9:27). Dominion of sin was broken, as respects the curse of law (Rom. 6:14, Gal . 3:10f); but sin continues to enslave and reign in those who yield their members to unrighteousness (Rom. 6:12-13). WHY is it so hard to overcome temptation? WHY has sin so great a hold on us? Let us carefully study the enemy.

Paul says, I am carnal; sin dwells in me; in  my flesh; in my members (Rom. 7:14, 17, 18, 23). Together, these circumstances constitute the law of sin — that observable norm or inclination of man to sin. Some tell us this is inherited (genetically) from Adam, but guilt is not a genetic trait. Each person is individually accountable for response to the will of God (Ezek. 18:19-f). The consequences of sin are upon us because we have sinned (Rom. 5:12). But there are circumstances related to a mortal existence which provide Satan with open doors and incline mankind toward sin.

FLESH (literally) is not evil. The gnostics of the first century made this mistake (1 Jn. 4:3) and we should not repeat it. But flesh hungers, and this may be an avenue for Satan. When Jesus was hungry he was tempted to turn stones into bread. Flesh seeks a comfort zone (for self-preservation) and this can become a pleasure seeking bent that gives Satan another door upon which to knock. Flesh is self-serving, and this can be extended into sinful pride. (Study Matt. 4:1-11, 1 Jn. 2:16.) Flesh is not evil, per se, but its proclivity to sin is such that fleshly often means sinful. It is strike one on mankind.

Early environment or BACKGROUND, to a great extent programs our later life. God knew this earlier, and more accurately, than the sociologists. Peter says the Lord redeems us from the futile way of living in which you were brought up (Goodspeed, 1 Pet. 1:18). Meyer comments, This attribute emphatically shows that the vain conduct is peculiar, not to the individuals only, but to the whole race, and has been from the earliest times, and consequently is so completely master of the individual that he can not free himself from it. We were born into a world cursed by sin — a climate that may be considered an immoral primer. I believe this is that to which David referred, Psm. 51:5. Our background is strike two against us.

And Paul wrote (Eph. 2:3) that we were by nature.. .children of wrath. NATURE can refer, of course, to physical laws of procreation, but it also has other meanings. In Rom. 2:14 it is used for reason and conscience by which one develops a sense of right or ought. It also refers to practices so general as to be the norm for propriety. When Paul wrote, Doth not even nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair it is a shame unto him? he did not say physical nature would not grow long hair on men. He meant general practice was such (continued next page)

Vol.XIII No.VIII Pg.5
October 1976
- -Rear-Guard Action Is Still Needed
Robert F. Turner

Continued from preceding page)

that society associated long hair with women, shorter hair with men (1 Cor. 11:14). McKnight lists five ways in which

phusis (nature) was used (Note 3, on Eph. 2:3). The question is, how is it used in this text?

Eph. 3:1 says the Ephesians were dead through their own trespasses and sins (see A.S.). Verse 2, K.J. verifies this, reading, wherein in times past ye walked. Walk refers to a manner of life, which was according to the course of this world. Clearly our text says they were children of wrath because they yielded to social pressures — gave in to nature, i.e., the general course of the world about them. In our world evil men and seducers wax worse and worse (2 Tim. 3: 13), hence the friendship of the world is enmity with God (Jas. 4:4). The worlds fashions, the standards of our social peers, the influence of our day-by-day existence, becomes that big strike three against mankind.

And so, we sin, and sin enslaves. Under such circumstances, the desire to do better, acknowledging that the law is holy, just, good, is marvelous tribute to the fact that we are made in Gods image. But all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23). We sinned in the past, and we continue to sin. In the final analysis, just how Paul used himself in Rom. 7: (regenerate, unregenerate; as under the law, or not) is of secondary importance. The lesson that comes through clearly is that mans real self recognizes mans helplessness before a just God, and cries out in despair. In such a clime Pauls thanks for Jesus Christ is the cry of joy that bursts from the heart of a slave released from bondage. We can neither comprehend nor appreciate the meaning of the gospel of Christ until our heart so yearns for freedom.

Jesus died on our behalf, so that there is no violation of justice when the heavenly Father forgives our sins (Rom. 3:24-26). But fanciful theories concerning Christs perfect life, imputed to us; or the personally indwelling Holy Spirit, that protects us, or empowers us to overcome sin; may actually be devices by which Satan prompts us to let down our guard. We are still in the flesh in a very important way — having members that can be yielded (Rom. 6:13) and affections that must be controlled (Col. 3:1-f). Our early environment or background still influences our thinking, often with prejudices that require psycho-therapy to unearth. And the sin-filled world about us continues to dictate much of our daily life. We have, in Christ, the dynamite with which to overcome Satan —- and in this sense Christ has overcome Satan-- but our individual battle goes on. The greater part of the New Testament is directed to saints, urging them to use the armor provided.

If we walk in the light and if we confess our sins (1 Jn. 1:7-f), we have an advocate, a helper to plead our case, and through whose blood our sins may be forgiven again and again This keep on walking and keep confessing (present active) leaves no room for emotional protestation of security. With confidence we fight. We look to heaven, but we remember that Satan and Hell are close behind.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIII No.VIII Pg.6
October 1976
Campaign Tactics
Robert F. Turner

The December, 1975 issue of Human Behavior reported the results of an investigation of The Billy Graham Revival Machine. Sociologists from N. Carolina State University, the U. of Tennessee, and from Richmond, Va. were the investigators. We detect some prejudicial wording, but felt you would want to read the report.

************************
Many sociologists and evangelists including Billy Graham, the present dean of them all —- insist that conversion is a complete and permanent turnaround. But the researchers feel these conversions are really ritualized reaffirmations of existing values.

In this sense, they point out, the crusade becomes a ritualized opportunity for people to show what they claim to be, namely, bona fide Christians. To test this theory, the investigators and about 50 assistants attended a Billy Graham crusade at a local football stadium. Through a questionnaire they randomly passed out to 368 people, they found out the crowds religious preference and affiliations, church attendance and other background information....

There didnt seem to be many lambs who had wandered away from the fold in the audience; 91 percent reported church membership. In fact, over 70 percent made it to church at least once a week and thats 32 percent higher than a national sample of Protestants. Promotion of the crusade wasnt aimed at those who were unfamiliar with church. In fact, 31 percent came with a church group. Those who made decisions werent older folks who felt they should settle their score before it was too late. No less than 73 percent were in their teens or younger, showing that conversion was an affirmation of individual beliefs.

The hoopla around the impending crusade began 18 months before the Graham organization hit town. There was a petition campaign to convince the evangelist that enough souls were planning to be saved to make it worth his while. Then there were media spots, buildups in the churches, special prayer meetings and Bible study classes, as well as training sessions for local church members who would counsel decision makers. The concept of instantaneous conversion and Grahams unique powers as a catalytic agent were touted all through this well-executed planning.

Instead of viewing crusade goers as the type who speak in tongues or have fainting fits, the researchers note that they bore a strong resemblance to a large-sized type of Protestant church service. Instead of waiting for the spirit to call them, many got in line to go forward long before there was a cue that the invitation was about to begin. They looked calm, say the investigators, not particularly ecstatic. Each decision maker very deliberately filled out cards asking for the usual vital information.

Its no miracle then that the researchers concluded that changes in values and behavior are gradual and slight, even though the perception of the convert may be otherwise.