Plain Talk

[RETIREDFAN1]

.XII Pg.1

February 1977

Day Of Discovery

Robert F. Turner

A young preacher is confused, disillusioned, frustrated and discouraged. He has discovered that older preachers, in whom he had the utmost confidence, are not worthy of that confidence — they do not agree upon Bible teaching.

Yeah!! I also made that discovery, in the mid-thirties. I still recall the men involved, and my disappointment in them. It is a safe guess that every conscientious young adult whose eyes are open, faces that same awakening. Young man, I am not laughing at you; I am hurting with you. But the picture is not completely dark.

You could have been so blinded by hero worship that you rationalized the whole mess, and concluded that truth is relative to the individual — that there is no standard but man. In despair, you could have chosen blindly — taking the leap of faith that only pretends to see, and wraps God in hypocritical robes. You could have been wed to one party or creed so that party loyalty took the place of honest intellectual objectivity. And you could be using this whole matter as your excuse for copping out, or gratifying selfish liberation from the demands of truth and right.

Failure to agree is no reflection upon Gods word as source of truth. There was great disagreement among those who heard Jesus. We hear with our background, our likes and dislikes, our selfish interests (Matt. 13:9-16). There is little evidence that anyone is wholly objective; and identical understanding, in all details, is rare. The young man was naive.

But one mind in striving for the faith of the gospel is possible, and is necessary (Phil. 1:27-f.). We must have a common desire to know truth, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind (2:1-f). In this spirit we will defer to one another, and help one another to know truth.

And with this spirit the young man will realize he had placed his confidence in the wrong direction-- in man rather than in God. Now he can shed childish dreams, pick up the pieces, and join with brethren world-wide who study and live honestly before God.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIII No.XII Pg.2

February 1977

Our Awful Articles

Robert F. Turner

Our December, 76 issue carried an article headed, THOSE AWFUL BAPTISTS. Reference was made to historic developments of the restoration period, and to prejudices that hinder objective consideration of differences now. My wife told me people would misunderstand the heading — but what does she know about such things?

I received a call from one Baptist who had talked with another, and they agreed this was a fair and informative article. Other Baptists have indicated a willingness to study — and none have kicked about the heading. None of the Baptist, that is. But we have had five or six cancellations from brethren. One was apparently embarrassed by the directness (poor taste) of the article. Another, who didnt cancel, thought the article favored the Baptists, of all things. I figured the Baptists would recognize the tongue-in-cheek nature of the heading, and apparently they did. The rub came as brethren proved they also could be awful or prejudiced. Yes, dear, I should listen to you!

All front page articles are aimed at developing better attitudes. This one, if it did nothing else, demonstrated the need for such an effort. I have never understood why use of a name which the owner accepts and applies to himself, is poor taste. If we fairly and accurately state a historic fact concerning a doctrine, or the denomination holding it, who has been wronged? Is not this better than opposition on a party basis or poorly defined differences? When a good attitude is nothing more than an unwillingness to stand up for the truth and refute error (2 Tim. 4:2-5), it begins to look like poor knowledge and/or a weak conviction.

Brethren, we need not fight doctrinal error on a prejudicial basis. The more fairly and clearly we understand and state anothers case, the better truth will shine and error be defeated. If, in the process, we find error in our own position, thank God for the discovery, and correct it.

The Dec. 76 article suggested the presence of Calvinistic error among brethren — and maybe this is what caused the cancellations. So be it! We regret poorly written articles, or poor judgment in subject matter; but know these are likely to reoccur. While PLAIN TALK lasts, we can only try to write plainly and directly about those things we believe to be helpful to those who would serve God. Of one thing we are certain, God is the Master to whom we stand or fall. He is the final judge! (Rom. 14:4-12)

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIII No.XII Pg.3
January 1977
Situation Slaves
Dan S. Shipley

Pilate knew that Jesus was innocent. Three times he tells the Jews, I find no crime in him (Jn. 18:38; 19:4,6). Still, he delivered him unto them to be crucified (Jn. 19:16). Why? Because he succumbed to the pressures of the moment. He allowed himself to be influenced more by prevailing circumstances than by what he knew to be right. Pilate was a slave to the situation.

Like Pilate, many others have allowed themselves to be dominated by situation pressure to their own detriment. Among such are the rulers who came to believe on Jesus, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess it, lest they should be put out of the synagogue (Jn. 12:42). With them, acceptance and approval of men (avoiding mans disapproval) took precedence over pleasing God (v.43). They, too, became situation slaves.

Peter was another who relented to such people - pressure. Shortly before Jesus betrayal he had said, Even if I must die with thee, yet will I not deny thee (Matt. 26:35). Yet, just a short time later Peter finds himself in a different situation — and here, while warming himself by the enemies campfire, he denies Jesus three times. He proved a slave to the situation. But this wasnt the only time. Peter repeated his mistake at Antioch by refusing to eat with the Gentiles in the presence of certain Jews, fearing them that were of the circumcision (Gal. 2:12). Worse, others were influenced by his example. And the rest of the Jews dissembled likewise with him.. . (v.13). Situation slaves seldom serve alone.

The situation pressures to which Peter and Pilate and others have succumbed continue to enslave. As it respects youth, we have called it peer pressure. God calls it conforming to the world (Rom. 12:2). Whatever it may be called, it means subordinating my character and convictions to the tastes of present company. It means being more influenced by what they are than what I am! And, like those who feared being cast out of the synagogue, it shows a preference for the glory that is of men above that which comes from God (Jn. 12:43). If what Pilate and Peter did seems bad, think of the Christian who actually prefers and courts the favor of the ungodly, worldly-minded sinner above God — and yet, this very thing often happens under the pressures of certain situations. Surely we dont have to hear the rooster crow to know that such conduct denies Christ as effectively as Peter ever did!

May God grant us the foresight to avoid deliberately placing ourselves in compromising and tempting circumstances. This will mean avoiding such places and people (1 Cor. 15:33) that we know will generate conforming pressures. The broad way is filled with former Christians who thought they could run with the world and walk with Christ at the same time. We must be careful not to let our associates determine what we will be like. However, when it is not possible to isolate, we must insulate. That means developing the kind of character that repels every appearance of evil; the kind that yields only to God and His will and not
to transitory temptation.

[RETIREDFAN1]

February 1977

The Believer

Robert F. Turner

The early Greeks and Romans believed in heavenly powers — some even claim they originally believed in one God. But in later years the concept degenerated. Philosophers gave lip service to the gods, but clearly indicated a lack of faith in them. Drama and poetry depicted ridiculous supermen gods, with passions, unfaithful marriages and buffoonery. God respect became more political than religious, as temples became symbols of national glory rather than marks of genuine respect for deity.

In such a clime a believer was a throw-back to the dark ages. When Paul declared the true God to be Spirit, Creator, Absolute, with power over death; some mocked (Acts 17:). A true Believer faces mockery any ridicule today, for much the same reason.

The Jews believed in God, but had a distorted and materialistic concept of the awaited Messiah. With Solomon and David as their ideals of greatness, they had come to expect wealth and military power of a Savior. Even Nathaniel had asked, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? The officers who were impressed by Jesus words (Jn. 7:45-f) were asked, Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? (Implying, No Big-Shots would accept him.) To further intimidate they added, But this people who knoweth not the law (are not learned theologians), are cursed. A Believer, then and now, is often classed with the ignorant.

But perhaps the hardest obstacle to faith in Jesus Christ was, and is, the denial of self — the admission of sin, and need for salvation. The Jerusalem Jews did not lack evidence (2:22), they lacked the will to believe. Peter offered no compromise. God... hath glorified Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate,.. and desired a murderer and killed the Prince of life. If they were to accept Jesus as the Christ they must acknowledge their awful deeds. In a broader view, since He died for all sins, in accepting Jesus as my redeemer I also acknowledge that I am lost and undone without Him. Pride could keep me from believing.

We must recognize, therefore, that Believer is a noble designation indeed, and should not be carelessly applied. It was used by inspiration to denote the saints of God. All that believed were together, them that believed were of one heart and of one soul, Believers were the more added to the Lord (Acts 2:44; 4:32; 5:14).

Todays believer must live above the ridicule of atheists who regard his faith as superstition of the unlearned. He must not be taken in by the theists who would make God an impersonal power only, without word or authority for final judgment. He stands out sharply against modernists who make God identical with revelation subjectively determined; who therefore make man the source of God. He is no kin of the existentialists and their vague leap of faith in blind despair. His is a confident acceptance of evidence. He is taught, he learns, and he comes to God (Jn. 6:45). He is the most noble example of Gods creatures, made in His image.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIII No.XII Pg.5
February 1977
- - - A Study In Principles Of Faith
Robert F. Turner

To believe, to hold as true; an intellectual agent. It needs an object; i.e., we believe some thing, some testimony. There must be, first, the fact; then the testimony (written or spoken); then we can assent or reject; believe or disbelieve. This assent or rejection takes place in the mind of man, is human reaction to testimony. The ridicule of historic faith so common among evangelicals, is often misplaced. There can be no faith without history. But faith is frequently used in the scriptures in the sense of trust and as such is an extension of the basic belief. With this in mind A. Campbell once wrote, Faith in Christ is the effect of belief. Belief is the cause, and trust, confidence, or faith in Christ, the effect. We should not ridicule the first in our zeal to extol the virtue of the second.

The expression, experience of faith is common among those who conceive of faith as something God puts into man; an act of His grace. This illogical use of terms has its origin in human theology: the doctrines of total depravity and unconditional election. Denying Free Will and all human implementation or synergism, these theologians had to treat faith as an act of God rather than a condition performed by the free agency of man. They were, and are, unwilling to concede that man does anything at all in coming to Christ. He can believe, only after God has moved him — individually and directly — with this irresistible grace. An early Baptist journal, explaining the passive role of a sinner in regeneration, wrote, ...the Holy Spirit is the sole agent in regeneration ... the sinner has no more efficient agency in accomplishing it than Lazarus had in becoming alive from the dead. Again, The sinner ... does all he can to ... prevent his own regeneration, until he is made willing by almighty power. This is monergism with a vengeance, but it is consistent with classic Calvinism.

If we can accept the definition of belief given in the first paragraph on this page — acknowledging mans capacity to examine evidence, and to believe or disbelieve as an independent human function — we can appreciate the synergism in Pauls statement that faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God (Rom. 10:17). Faith is the result of an objective approach to divine testimony. God provides the confirmed evidence, but we must do the believing. Our moral responsibility, not only for our sins but also for failure to trust in the remedy (Jn. 8:24) is clearly seen.

The work of God (Jn. 6:29) is not something God does for us, but what He would have us do, i.e., that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. If we can understand that, and recognize the place of obedience in a viable faith; we should also recognize mans obligations in doing the righteousness of God (Rom. 10:3; 1 Jn. 3:7). Saving faith is mans part in the synergism of Gods scheme of redemption. A careful search of cases of conversion in the scriptures will tell us at what point in that faith we are promised the remission of past sins, and other blessings in Christ, who is Savior, specially of those that believe. (Acts 2:37-38; Gal. 3:26-27)

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIII No.XII Pg.6
February 1977
QuĖ Ser, Ser?
Robert F. Turner

Exercise your mind on this: from Adam Clarke, comments on Acts 2:47.

***************************
God is omniscient, and can know all things; but does it follow from this that he must know all things? Is he not as free in the volition of his wisdom, as he is in the volition of his power? God has ordained some things as absolutely certain these he knows as absolutely certain. He has ordained other things as contingent; these he knows as contingent By contingent, I mean such things as the infinite wisdom of God thought proper to poise on the possibility of being or not being, leaving it to the will of intelligent beings to turn the scale.

If there be no such things as contingencies in the world, then every thing is fixed and determined by an unalterable decree and purpose of God; and not only all free agency is destroyed, but all agency of every kind, except that of the Creator himself; for on this ground God is the only operator either in time or eternity: all created beings are only instruments, and do nothing but as impelled and acted upon by this almighty and sole Agent.

Consequently, every act is his own; for if he have purposed them all as absolutely certain, having nothing contingent in them, then he has ordained them to be so; and if no contingency, then no free agency, and God alone is the sole actor. Hence the blasphemous, though, from the premise, fair conclusion, that God is the author of all the evil and sin that are in the world; and hence follows that absurdity, that, as God can do nothing that is wrong, whatever IS, is RIGHT.

Sin is no more sin; a vicious human action is no crime, if God have decreed it, and by his foreknowledge and will impelled the creature to act it. On this ground there can be no punishment for delinquencies; for if every thing be done as God has predetermined, and his determinations must necessarily be all right, then neither the instrument nor the agent has done wrong. Thus all vice and virtue, praise and blame, merit and demerit, guilt and innocence, are at once confounded, and all distinctions of this kind confounded with them.

Now, allowing the doctrine of the contingency of human actions, (and it must be allowed in order to shun the above absurdities and blasphemies,) then we see every intelligent creature accountable for its own works, and for the use it makes of the power with which God has endued it; and, to grant all this consistently, we must also grant that God foresees nothing as absolute and inevitably certain which He has made contingent; and, because He has designed it to be contingent, therefore He cannot know it as absolutely and inevitably certain. I conclude that God, although omniscient, is not obliged, in consequence of this, to know all that He can know; no more than he is obliged, because he is omnipotent, to do all that he can do.

Its basic, for sure; but dont make a talk on it just any ol day.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIII No.XII Pg.7
February 1977
You Know What?
Robert F. Turner

Dear bro. Turner:

When a man is justified does this mean he is
righteous? Please discuss the Bible use of righteousness. DA

Reply:

Paul says the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom (1 Cor. 6:9-) then adds, but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified. . . I would have to conclude that in being washed, sanctified, and justified one is also made righteous.

Read W.E. Vine on righteousness. It may refer to an attribute of God; to the sum total of the requirements of God; or to the man whose life conforms to the will of God. (1 Jn. 3:7 seems to present all three uses.) Vine repudiates the imputation idea we are hearing from some brethren. He says, Righteousness is not said to be imputed to the believer save in the sense that faith is imputed (reckoned is the better word) for righteousness. It is clear that in Rom. 4:6, 11, righteousness reckoned must be understood in the light of context, faith reckoned for righteousness, vv. 3,5,9,22. For in these places is eis, which does not mean instead of, but with a view to.

Righteousness (formerly spelled rightwiseness) may refer to the condition of men (Heb. 11:4, 1 Pet. 3:12;, 2 Pet. 2:8) without implying they were absolutely perfect. Righteousness was reckoned unto Phinehas on the basis of something he did (Psm. 106:31). Abrahams obedience made perfect his faith (Jas. 2:22-23), and the Scriptures were fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness. We must not assume that righteous can refer only to the perfect life of Christ, nor become more particular in application than was the Holy Spirit.

Nor is righteousness a fixed state, once consummated, forever so to be. We come into Christ by an obedient faith (Gal. 3:26-27); but our righteousness in Christ may lm lost, and regained, as we fail to continue in his goodness or abide not still in unbelief (Ron. 11:19-23). This is not to say each individual sin brings about such a change, but we do accept Pauls on the tree, off the tree description.

Our righteousness is made possible by Christs one act of righteousness — His death on the cross (Rom. 5:18), whereby man may be forgiven of sins (Rom. 4:6-8). Continued righteousness is also dependent upon Christ, who ever liveth to make intercession for the faithful (Heb. 7:25). (I.E., continued righteousness is also made possible through forgiveness.) Christ is the means of righteousness; forgiveness is the operation and an obedient faith is the condition.

The continual cleansing that is essential to continued righteousness is available to all who walk in the light confessing our sins (1 Jn 1:7-10; 2:1-6). The present, active, construction in these passages (see Greek grammar) indicates continuity — such walking and confessing is a manner of life; a humble, dependent attitude that ever looks to Christ for forgiveness. It is in this way that Christ is to us righteousness, sanctification, and redemption.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIII No.XII Pg.8

February 1977

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

In depression days one W.P.A. workman had nothing to take for lunch but turnip green sandwiches. He was a patient man, trying to be content with his lot, but turnip green sandwiches have a way of making a fellow long for better things — and that makes for temptation. One day he went to the truck a few minutes before noon, and switched his lunch sack for that of a fellow worker. As he hurried to a distant nook he could hardly wait to feast on his ill-gotten prize. But when he opened the sack guess what he found. Six hickory nuts and a hammer!

Todays working man is not, for the most part, struggling against starvation and tyrannical bosses. He has a more subtle enemy: inflation, and social adjustments that tear at his will to work. The latter has been all but ignored for some time; but now we are hearing more about need for a work ethic, and we may find that the lack of such has had much to do with inflation. Sociologists speak of the Protestant work ethic, and sometimes laugh at its moral background — nervously — but they praise the net results.

Higher wages, longer vacations, and better working conditions have not improved the work ethic. In fact, the more the worker is given the less he seems to care about doing his job well; but this is not to say that going back to poor working conditions and benefits would restore respect for the job. No, the basis for ethics is a sense of moral responsibility. It thrives best where people recognize the presence of God, and laws from a divine source.

Faith in God gives men purpose in life; helps to overcome despair, and binds families together in a way practically unknown in todays blas society. Presidential appeals, laws, and affluence can not restore what atheism and disrespect for authority have taken away. Gods word recognizes a legitimate desire for better things. It lifts one above an indolent, dont care attitude, but it finds satisfaction in that which may be attained by honorable means, and without sacrificing heavenly goals.

The scriptures state it simply: Whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men; Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ (Col. 3:23-24). Thats incentive no lunch can match!

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIV No.I Pg.1

March 1977

Shall I Crucify - Again?

Robert F. Turner

 

When Jesus Came To Birmingham

When Jesus came to Golgotha, They nailed Him to a tree, They drove great nails through His hands,

And made a Calvary. They crowned Him with a crown of thorns,

Red were His wounds, and deep; For those were crude and cruel days And human flesh was cheap.

When Jesus came to Birmingham, They simply passed Him by; They never hurt a hair of Him, They only let Him die.

For men had grown more tender And they would not give Him pain; They only just passed down the street And left Him in the rain.

Still, Jesus cried, "Forgive them, Lord,

They know not what they do:"

 

 

And still it rained the winter rain That drenched Him through and through.

The crowds went home and left the streets Without a soul to see; And Jesus crouched against a wall And cried for Calvary.

 

--by Studdart-Kennedy, English poet. -----------------------

We first read this poem many years ago, but it impressed us so we have never forgotten it. We searched long to find it, and present it in this issue of Plain Talk.

PLEASE read it several times' And make a mental picture of the neglected Jesus, who "crouched against a wall, and cried for Calvary."

The greatest enemy Christ has today is not violent opposition. It is not some foul mouthed woman and her self-serving tirade for Atheism. His greatest enemy is within the ranks of those who claim to respect, and even to serve Him. We blush to acknowledge

His Greatest Enemy Is Indifference:!!

[RETIREDFAN1]

.XIV No.I Pg.2

March 1977

Begin Year Fourteen

Robert F. Turner

With this issue PLAIN TALK enters its fourteenth year. The Oaks-West church of Christ, Burnet, publishes this paper as a part of its teaching program; making it available free of charge to all who wish to receive it. Plain Talk is hardly a medium for the masses — no effort is made to appeal to the "general public." We are trying to offer thought prompters, assistance in Bible study, to serious Bible reading brethren. We seek to promote better attitudes toward God and our fellowmen. We are aware that some who are not our brethren, yet have a desire to be right with God; and we try to offer them something too. We believe that sincere study and conformation with Bible conclusions will bring us together, and we will become fellow saints in the Lord.

Brother Dan Shipley is the preacher at Oaks-West, and the able co-worker in Plain Talk. He will edit the paper while I am in Australia, later this year. I once asked him to take On more of its writing —hinting that some day he might have to do it all —but his reply to that was that he would just have to "go when you go." Since I'm not even sick now, we will leave things as they are for a while.

We are printing 7,650 copies per month, and using most of them. A few back issues are kept for those who request them. We welcome questions or comments about the material covered; and still offer an equal space (two pages each) arrangement for discussions with those who feel our differences should be made public. Neither time nor priorities will allow for lengthy pro and con correspondence, but this does not mean we feel "our" word is final or authoritative. We are just trying to maintain a balance in subject matter.

To maintain a mailing list of folk who really read Plain Talk, we will continue to remove from our files all who move and fail to send a change of address. We pay the post office 25 for each paper returned, so please send change one month in advance of move so we can avoid this expense. We truly appreciate your letters of commendation, and even the occasional sour note. We promise to "read you."

When I announced that my book, STUFF ABOUT THINGS, was available, I deliberately left off the price, trying to avoid any commercialization of Plain Talk. However many tell me I just gave them the problem of double correspondence, so I'll try again. It is $3.50 — from Publishing Systems, Inc., 240 Hawthorne Ave., Athens, Ga. 30601; or from various book stores.

[RETIREDFAN1]

. 
Vol.XIV No.I Pg.3
March 1977
If Baptism Is Optional . . .
Dan S. Shipley

That water baptism is a part of NT teaching cannot be denied. Christ taught it. 'The apostles and other inspired men taught it and sinners submitted to it. However, many (including those who practice it) minimize the importance of baptism in claiming it not essential to one's salvation. To them, it is an OPTIONAL thing, to be received or rejected without eternal consequences one way or the other. If they are right, then certain other things must necessarily follow.

If baptism is optional, then observing the teaching of Christ is optional because He teaches that "he that believcth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mk. 16:16). If one could be saved without doing what Jesus says about baptism, then what of the faith required in the same verse? Remember, God says, "hear ye him" (Matt. 17:5); and "to Him shall ye hearken in all things" (Acts 3:22). However, if observing and abiding in the teaching of Christ (2 Jn. 9) cannot be optional, then neither can the baptism contained in His teaching.

Further, Jesus plainly tells the apostles to "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you..." (Matt. 28:19,20). His instructions include teaching and baptism. Which is optional? Also, note that tile apostles were to teach men to observe what Christ commanded. The apostles taught baptism, therefore it was among those things commanded by Christ. (comp. Acts 2:38; 10:48; Rom. 6:3-ff; 1 Pet. 3:21; Gal. 3:27). If baptism is optional, then keeping the commandments of Christ is optional! Recall in Jn. 14:15 Jesus says, "If you love me, ye will keep my commandments". Is it possible to show love for Christ while regarding His commandments as optional and not keeping His word (v.23)?

Again, if baptism is optional, then obeying truth is optional. Jesus promised the apostles that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all the truth (Jn. 16:13). What the apostles and other inspired men set forth concerning baptism was a part of that gospel truth. Among other things, this truth teaches that men put on Christ in baptism (Gal. 3:27) and that newness of life begins at baptism (Jn. 3:3-5; Rom. 6:4. THAT'S THE GOSPEL TRUTH! Can men please God without newness of life and without putting on Christ? — are these optional matters? To reject this truth is to reject the God who gives it (1 Thss. 4:8) and Paul depicts the fate of all who do not obey it (2 Thss. 1:8, 9).

Finally, if it makes no difference whether one is baptized, then it makes no difference whether one receives forgiveness of sins. Through Peter, God shows that remission of sins follows repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38). Acts 22:16 teaches that sins are washed away in baptism. Christ himself shows that being saved (forgiven) comes after faith expresses itself in baptism (Mk. 16:16). This is why God says that baptism saves as (1 Pet. 3:21). Nothing necessary to the salvation of man can be optional. God, in many ways, says baptism is needful. Will you receive it?

[RETIREDFAN1]

Instrumental Music

Robert F. Turner

A tract (VOCAL MUSIC AND ITS FRUIT) from Portland, Or., proclaims: "The highest scholarship in the world testifies that the word psalmos (Greek word for "psalm") in Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16 properly means a song sung with musical accompaniment. So says the eminent Joseph Henry Thayer." He then quotes, NOT THAYER, but Bishop Lightfoot on Col. 3:16. Thayer has quoted Lightfoot (p.637) for his comments on the synonymous character of bunions, psalmos, and ode; and NOT to give the N.T. meaning or use of psalmos. This is a flagrant misuse of Thayer, which must be first charged to the unsigned tract writer, and then to all who use the tract to justify(?) their cause.

Thayer quotes Lightfoot in his discussion of humnos, NOT of psalmos, as the tract would have you believe. In Thayer's discussion of psalmos (p.675) he recognizes the verbal root meaning of "striking, twanging;' shows its association in early Greek literature with striking the chords of a musical instrument, and says, "hence a pious song, a psalm, Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16; the phrase echein psalon is used of one who has it in his heart to sing or recite a song of the sort,..."

Thayer, on the verb psallo, shows much the same progression of the word and says, "in the N.T. to sing a hymn, to celebrate the praise of God in song, Jas. 5:13." Now why did not the tract writer use that quotation???

I am reminded of an earlier time when a zealous young man showed me that Thayer said (?) "absolutely to play on a stringed instrument, to play the harp." He didn't know that "absolute" referred to a grammatical usage. Too, Thayer cites only secular writers for such interpretation; and translates Jas. 5:13 "sing." The lexicon of Arndt and Gingrich cites Jas. 5:13 as "absolute" and translates, "sing praise." Moulton and Milligan say of psallo: "properly- 'play on a harp,' but in the N.T. as in Jas. 5: 13, -'sing a hymn. "'(emph. mine, rt)

New Testament translators (K.J., A.S., R.S.V., etc.) seem to have no problem with the words psallo (verb) and psalmos (noun). The first they translate "sing" or "make melody" (Eph. 5:19). The second they translate "psalm" or "Psalms" (of David). This uniformity of scholarship must put great pressure on those who try to authorize instrumental music in N.T. worship with psallo. Else why would they make such bizarre and unscholarly use of Thayer and other lexicographers? It is not to their credit. Perhaps this is why most users of the instruments have long ceased to look for New Testament "authorization."

Psao, the root word, originally meant to pluck or twang, and the object had to be supplied. One psao-ed a hair from the head, or a chalk line. Later it was applied to twanging the strings of a harp; hence, psallo-ing. As such psallo-ing accompanied singing, the noun form (psalmos) came to be applied to such praise songs. Then, as the lexicographers testify, in the N.T. it means, "to sing a hymn, to celebrate the praise of God in song." The object or instrument is not inherent in the verb psallo; but the Holy Spirit supplies one: "making melody with your heart..." (Eph. 5:19). (continued next page)

[RETIREDFAN1]

Robert F. Turner

(continued from previous page)

Some instrument users, apparently aware that there is no validity in their psallo argument, claim instrumental music is only an "aid" that is therefore justified by generic authority. They liken it to church buildings, eye-glasses, and walking canes.

"Assemble" authorizes nothing but assembling, and when brethren come together in a rented building, under a tree, or in a building they own, they do nothing but assemble. We believe a place of assembly is expedient, but the place is subordinate to the thing done (assembling), and not something in addition to that which is commanded — not coordinate with it.

One sees with the eyes, whether through glasses or not. One walks with the legs, whether aided by cane or not. The glasses do not constitute some additional sense, nor the cane some additional act. Glasses and cane, are subordinate to seeing and walking.

But when one plays an instrument a different act has been introduced — something coordinate has been added so that now we sing and play. Factually, one does not sing with a piano (i.e., it is not the instrument of singing); one sings with the voice. One plays with the piano — it is the instrument of playing, not of singing. The piano, therefore, is not an aid to singing (the thing commanded), but an aid to playing ( a thing unauthorized). Yes, you can understand this.

On" tract writer makes the instrument the means (aid) "to achieve togetherness in singing," and later, "a method of teaching the tune." Does it cease to be used when the tune has been learned? Are we seriously asked to believe that organ solos and special instrumental concerts are for the purpose of "teaching the tune" so the worshipers can then, without the organ, sing to God? Really::

I do not break fellowship with one because he understands psalto to allow the use of mechanical instruments; or because, for other reasons, he believes it is acceptable to use such instruments in worship. I believe he is in error, but if he shows an open mind and willingness to seek truth in the divine standard, this erroneous conclusion would not prevent my treating him as a brother. But I can not join with him in worship when mechanical instruments are being played. I can not give financial or moral support — I can not be a member of a church — which engages in this error. To do so would be to act contrary to my honest convictions (Rom. 14:23).

This is not to say my conclusions are the standard of truth. I will continue to study the scriptures with all who offer further enlightenment on the subject — but I look for better lamps than Noah's fir sawhorse, hickory hammer handle, and maple workbench. In such a comparison, WORSHIP is the counterpart of the ark, and must consist only of divinely authorized material. The car one uses to get to the worship, is not a part of the worship.

The whole matter can be settled by "Speaking Where the Bible Speaks, and being Silent Where the Bible is Silent." This is the only safe course.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIV No.I Pg.6
March 1977
Interpretation
Robert F. Turner

From my window in a Pasadena motel I see a sentence on the side of a commercial building. "We really move our tools for you." What does that mean? A transfer company? No, "our" tools, not "your" tools. To establish context we note that the remainder, of the sign reads, "K & M Tools, Inc." Tool rentals? We are in an oil country-- may oil well "fishing" tools? Maybe, but let's not be hasty. We take a walk, so we can see all sides of the building, and we find this is a tool rental place — electric, air, yard tools, and a few heavy duty cable winches. Now, is the sign clear??

In the main — yes. But a whimsical "touch" is yet uncovered, a "feeling" the company wished to convey, that is perhaps more important than the obvious "movement of tools." To get the point one must be familiar with advertising "commercials" of this section. A large airline has spent thousands of dollars on billboards and singing T.V. ads that say, "We really move our tails for you'." This little company is capitalizing on the popular theme by a simple pun — "our tools —. Now, the sign actually makes mundane "tool moving' of secondary though vital importance. It is SERVICE that they wish to emphasize in the sign.

And that is interpretation! It is not magic nor mysticism. It does not involve direct operation of the Holy Spirit, nor "spiritual discernment," (in the sense so often used by evangelicals): But it does necessitate an ability to read and understand words. It calls for objective consideration; no "reading into" the sign what we want it to say. 'thorough (investigation of context is demanded — and that goes deeper than a few surrounding sentences. Geographic setting and an understanding of the nature of outdoor advertising is important; and in this case, a knowledge of a popular commercial theme of the period makes the difference in just getting a surface message, and in genuinely understanding the sign.

Is the sign true? Do they really render service? I don't know. I have no knowledge of the source of that sign — nothing to cause me to have faith in its maker — and I refer to the origin of the message, not to the sign painter. If I could believe that God gave that message I would confidently affirm that the K & M Tool company renders a marvelous service.

Man does not do the "transcending" when understanding the Bible. God spanned the gap between things of God and things of man — by revelation. By inspiring the sign painters (Apostles and Prophets) He gave us His message in understandable words. The divine source is confirmed by "signs and wonders." so we may confidently accept the message. And God used a means of communication common to man; so that we must apply the same techniques in studying His word as in all other interpretation. Even puns? Yes, even puns! (Onesimus means "profitable." Now, read Phile. 10-11; or try Gal. 5: 12.) God suited His sign to his man:

The literate "man on the street" can understand sufficient truth to be justly accountable, and saved; but diligent study brings rich rewards the "smatterer" will never taste.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIV No.I Pg.7
March 1977
?You Know What?
Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

Is it scripturally permissible for a Christian to buy or use products or services of a public service institution which is owned operated
and/or supported by a denomination or liberal church? W.M.A.

Reply:

The Lord's church does not sell or rent its services or products, hence we need not expect to find scriptures regulating such an operation. But churches wearing Christ's name may drift so far from His way as to engage in such; and many human religions are little more than social and eleemosynary societies. The question, though quite practical, is not one I can answer with a yes, or no. Each case has extenuating circumstances.

First, we should distinguish between contributions (support gifts) and paying for service or materials. Many hospitals, schools, etc., receive donations from individuals, foundations, and churches — because the donors "have a care" for general welfare. Tuition or service charges are, therefore, seldom the full cost. However, when we pay "market rate" for what we receive, we should not feel we are "donating" our money and in this way "jointly participating" in the institution's program. On the basis of "value received," I would buy a book from a church-owned book store (although I believe the Lord's church would not have such a store); but, I would not contribute funds to the treasury of that store-owning church. As a general principle, I do not believe "value received" transactions with those in error are wrong. But now we must do what some might call "hedging"; or maybe we are saying there are principles more basic, more deeply fundamental, than that which I called "general." It was all right, as a "general principle," for one to eat whatsoever was set before him, as respects meats (1 Cor. 10:25-31). But when that eating encouraged another to do wrongly, for the other man's sake (v. 29, one should abstain Whatever we do, it must be to the glory of God (v.31).

If you have reason to believe that your patronage of a store, school, or pie-sale is contributing to the promotion of error — that by refraining, a contribution to truth and the glory of God is made — then (putting God's glory and the good of others above self) you should certainly abstain. The closer one gets to "home" the more likely this situation is to obtain. Example: you may do little if any harm in buying from a Catholic institution; but buying pies at the liberal "Church of Christ" in your neighborhood, could encourage brethren in further sin. (Now, have a ball with that if you choose; but I believe experience has proven it true.)

Then, especially in matters such as these, we must recognize individual conscience. One brother may, with good conscience, buy services or substance from a church-supported organization, believing no wrong is done. Another may be unable to so act, feeling it is not to the glory of God nor for the good of his erring brother. The line between "general principle" and specific application is such as to warrant charity on the part of all.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIV No.I Pg.8

March 1977

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

Did your string ball get the mumps? Is your spool tractor all gummed up? Are the notches worn on your whooeee slick so that the propeller no longer turns? Take heart'. I'm going to tell you how to make a "Whizzer:"

You'll need a large button, one inch diameter or better; and a cord, about thirty inches long-- strong, but small enough to go through the button holes. Put both ends through holes in the button, using diagonal openings if it is a four-holer. Tie the ends of the cord together. Pull equal amounts of cord to either side of the button, and loop over three or four fingers on each hand to operate, swing the button until it is wound up as tight as the brotherhood. Then, pull your hands apart so that tension on the string will unwind the button rapidly. With a little practice one can "give in" just a bit, as the cord straightens, and its speed will wind it in the opposite direction. Pull again — and again — and you will make the button turn, and turn; whiz and whiz; and you will have a "Whizzer."

Reaction is not, in itself, a bad thing. In fact, good soldiers are supposed to react to enemy action — to bolster defense at the point of attack, and to counterattack. But God's army also has positive goals, and our main thrust should be in their attainment. Unlike the "Whizzer" whose total motion is one of reaction, we should he busily driving toward these goals regardless of what others do or say.

The Whizzer spins only when tension motivates a counter action. In the absence of such opposition it remains at dead center — dead. And some times a challenge to comfortable status quo is the only thing that can cause a church to stir. Then, one suspects the action is defense of pride rather than a deep-seated desire to serve the Lord. Reactions that are nothing more than that, usually result in a pendulum-type swing to some extreme opposite.

The solution is not to cease to react to error, but to smother error in a constant, concerted drive to do God's bidding at all times. If our conscious goal is Heaven, and we move steadily forward, in season and out of season, we will be engaged in much more than a reaction program. We will not wait for crack-pot notions in some distant corner to determine our direction. We will not be "Whizzers" that spin, but go nowhere.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIV No.II Pg.1

April 1977

Quit Doing Nothing

Robert F. Turner

The flamboyant evangelist, Dr. Sam Jones, was well known in some circles for his "Quittin' Meetings." During his revivals he gave people a special opportunity to confess their sins and repent. many quit swearing, quit gossiping, quit drinking, quit smoking, etc. He asked one woman what she planned to quit, and she replied, "I ain't been doing nothing, and I am going to quit doing that!"

Assuming she was true to her word, that was a worthy change. Think what great works most churches could accomplish if about two-thirds of the members would "quit doing nothing."

Yes, I know. The illustration led to an exaggeration. Two-thirds of the members are not "doing nothing." Even those who sleep through the worship are absorbing sound waves, and that makes it easier on the speaker. I learned, long ago, not to expect every called-out person to be all that the Lord says they should be; but I hope and pray I will never give up trying to bring about this condition. When reality becomes cynicism we are done. Aren't you glad the Lord did not give up on you? The Lord was not blinded to the reality of a sinful world when he died for those sins. He must have known that many for whom He died would 'do nothing" about it.

Some brethren "do nothing" because they have been conditioned to think the church does it all — an erroneous institutional concept of church. Some equate the Lord's work with public service, and think they have no talent for that. Some excuse themselves with the fear they may do something wrong. And some "tried once, but no one paid any attention to me." In all these, we are too much concerned with what people think of us, instead of acting in faith and with a view to pleasing the Lord.

Somehow we must reawaken the concept of individual and direct relationship of each saint to Christ. The "priesthood of believers" must be re-established in our thinking. I must know that regardless of what others do, or do not do; regardless of popularity or opposition, of affluence or famine; I must serve my Master in all good conscience (Rom. 14:4-12).

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIV No.II Pg.2

April 1977

Silent Meditations

Robert F. Turner

I lost my voice while preaching in Bowling Green, Ky., and bro. Wayne Earnest, local evangelist, preached the closing sermon of the meeting. The doctor ordered at least one week of silence, so my part in the following meeting, Richmond, Ky., had to be canceled. Bro. Paul Earnhart came, on short notice, to do an admirable job there. Now, I am struggling to keep an appointment in Providence, Ky., and others are standing by to continue the work if I should fail. As an early vaudeville comedian used to put it, "I feel soooo unnecessary!!"

Man seems to vacillate between two attitudes: he and his work will affect the destiny of the world; or, he is nothing, an infinitesimal speck of inconsequence. Neither position is true! Given the slightest encouragement, or none at all, we magnify our place in life and imagine that the world, or at least the church, hangs by our hook. This seems the greater of the two errors. But should we seriously adopt the second position and live by it, we would destroy the self respect necessary to make our life meaningful. The Creator sees us, not as other gods, nor as inert crud; but as intelligent beings having a place in the total scheme of His universe. In a small yet significant way we do affect the total picture, even though there are far too many replacement parts for us to consider ourselves indispensable.

Man's true position can be defined only by the Master Planner. It is God who gives meaning to your little corner, and mine. Lacking faith in God — trying to run the show without Him — we find ourselves on the balloon of egoism, or deep in the trough of despair. True faith in God is the stabilizer. Such faith is possible only for the humble, yet it lifts earth creatures to useful places in the family of God.

As free agents, we are not pawns of fate. But as God's creatures we seek the role He has assigned us. We can serve, with honor; thankful that there are others to take our place as we finish our course. Our trust in God, and in His love, is such that abject fear is cast out; yet our awesome reverence for Deity will not let us forget that His purposes will be fulfilled, regardless of our success or failure as individuals. His sovereignty will be vindicated in a final and irrevocable Judgment.

"If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that" (Jas. 4:13-15). That can be a dirge of despair, or a healthful reminder that "Now is the time" to use ourselves to His glory.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIV No.II Pg.3
April 1977
A Time For Weeping
Dan S. Shipley

"And all the congregation lifted up their voice, and cried; and the people wept that night." (Num. 14:1) God's people have come to the threshold of the promised land. A little earlier, while giving Moses instructions concerning the sending of men to spy out Canaan, the Lord had reaffirmed His promise to give this great land to the children of Israel (13:2). You'd expect great rejoicing, yet we hear weeping. Why? Have they suffered defeat at the hands of enemies? Has the Lord just chastised them? Has He forsaken them? No, none of these. They have just heard the report of the spies returning from Canaan. They ignore the encouraging report from Caleb but are much impressed with what the fearful spies have to say about the enemies' strength, giants and grasshoppers. It truly was a sad time for God's people. But they were sad for the wrong reasons. Their weeping should have been over their own wretched condition and lack of faith.

It is a sad time when the people of God lose their faith; when they no longer trust the Lord. It is a sad time when men place more confidence in what men say than what God says. "And we see that they were not able to enter in because of unbelief." (Heb. 3:19). What kept these Israelites out of the promised land can keep us out! "Take heed, brethren, lest haply there shall be in any one of you an evil heart of unbelief, in falling away from the living God...." (Heb. 3:12). Incredible as it may seem, many still do not believe what God says about many things--such as obedience, baptism, worship, the church, hell and other subjects. It is truly a time for weeping in Kadesh - Barnea, in our home towns or anywhere else when God's people don't care what He says; when they won't trust Him nor obey His will.

Also, it is a sad time when God's people despise faithful brethren. As they had done before, the Israelites began to murmur against Moses (14:2). When Joshua and Caleb sought to admonish their brethren, the were threatened with stoning (14:10. They learned what Moses already knew: that those who turn their backs on God may have little regard for those who will not. How deceitful is -sin when the sinner only despises those who want to help. Paul evidently recognizes this disposition when he asks, "am I become your enemy by telling you the truth?" (Gal. 4:16). It is a time for weeping when false teachers are honored and faithful preachers resented. We need to know what can keep us out of the promised land! Faithful men who will tell us our sins deserve our appreciation, not our wrath.

It is a sad time when God's people are overcome with discouragement. In hearing of the enemy as being greater and taller and having walled cities, the Israelites confessed, "our brethren have discouraged our heart" (Deut. 1:28). They had what some have called a "grasshopper" complex. Like their modern counterparts, they concluded, .,we can't succeed"; "we can't do it"; ..not even with God on our side." In many ways, we stand where they stood. We cannot be more than a few heartbeats from the promised land. Let's not be discouraged and turn back now! "If God be for us..."

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIV No.II Pg.4
April 1977
Saul And David
Robert F. Turner

When the Israelites desired a king the prophet Samuel was told to anoint Saul, a Benjaminite. This "goodly young man" stood head and shoulders above the people (I Sam. 9:2), and was at that time a very humble man (v.21). But soon after he began to reign God indicated displeasure with Saul, and directed Samuel to say, "Thy kingdom shall not continue: Jehovah hath sought him a man after his own heart" (1 Sam. 13:14). David, of the house of Judah, was to be the new king. These two men give us opportunity to examine, from a negative as well as a positive viewpoint, the type of person who is "after God's own heart."

Saul's reign began with an up-beat of courage and success in battle. But he was told to tarry seven days at Gilgal, and Samuel would come there to offer sacrifice unto Jehovah. The prophet was late, and Saul decided to make the offering himself — although he had no authority to function in this capacity. When Samuel arrived, and questioned his activities, Saul excused himself with situation ethics and a passing of the buck. "The people were scattering," he said. "Thou camest not," "the enemy was close, and I had not entreated the favor of Jehovah," and so "I forced myself" to make offering.

Note particularly, he did not hesitate to presume a holy office; and seemed more concerned for the rite than for strict obedience to Jehovah. He excused his flagrant violation of God's laws with protestations concerning his pious desires to serve God.

A bit later (1 Sam. 14:) Saul built an altar unto Jehovah, but Jehovah would not counsel him. He would have killed Jonathan, his son, to enforce his own curse, had not the people rescued him. Yet, when God placed a curse upon a people, he changed the penalty to suit his taste.

God sent him to "utterly destroy" the Amalekites (1 Sam. 15:). "But Saul and the people spared Agag the king.. and the best of the sheep... etc." He blamed this upon the people, and said he had saved the flocks "to sacrifice unto Jehovah." And Samuel said, "Hath Jehovah as great delight in burnt-offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of Jehovah?" This man who was strong on ritual and outward service, but who changed the rules to suit his own ideas of "good works," was rejected from the kingship.

-----------------------
When God sent Samuel to anoint a successor He said, "Jehovah seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but Jehovah looketh on the heart" (1 Sam. 16:7). The trust of that heart was shown when David went forth to meet Goliath, armed only with a sling, but saying, "Jehovah saveth not with sword and spear; for the battle is Jehovah's" (1 Sam. 17:47). In contrast to Saul's priestly presumptions, David showed great respect for God's anointed — even though they were enemies at war (1 Sam. 24:3-7). Unlike Saul, who excused his rebellious heart that he might have flocks to sacrifice; David refused a gift of a place to build an altar, saying, "Nay; but I will buy it of thee at a price; neither will I offer burnt-offerings unto Jehovah my (continued next page)

Vol.XIV No.II Pg.5
April 1977
A Study In The Heart Of Men
Robert F. Turner

continued from previous page)

God which cost me nothing" (2 Sam. 24:18-25). We are reading David's heart. And even in the sins of David — in times when he seemed to forget God — the divine presence seems not too deeply buried. He ordered the numbering of the people, against the advice of Joab who felt this was evidence of a lack of trust in God. "And David's heart smote him (emph. mine) after that he had numbered the people. And David said unto Jehovah, I have sinned greatly in that which I have done: but now, 0 Jehovah, put away, I beseech thee, the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly" (2 Sam. 24:10). When he was given his choice of punishments — two from men and one from God — he chose God, saying, "for his mercies are great; and let me not fall into the hand of man" (v.14). We are reading David's heart.

His sin against Uriah, and the taking of Bath-Sheba was grievous and inexcusable. Bible records do not spare David in this (2 Sam. 11:); but when Nathan made David see "Thou art the man!" David's heart again smote him. "I have sinned against Jehovah" (12: 13). The 51st. Psalm is his cry for mercy and forgiveness. "Against thee, thee only, have I sinned done that which is evil in in thy sight." He knew that all sin is, in the final analysis, against God. He also knew that, in the final analysis, man has only one thing to give to God — and that is himself. In Psm. 51:17 he said: "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: A broken and a contrite heart, 0 God, thou wilt not despise." How different from Saul, who seemed to think the rite of sacrifice would do. Solomon's foreign wives "turned away his heart after other gods; and his heart was not perfect with Jehovah as was the heart of David his father' (1 Kng. 11:4) He '"went not fully after Jehovah, as did David his father" (v.6 . It would be a mistake to that there was no sin in the life of David. He freely confessed his need for forgiveness — repeatedly. But the sacred records recognize something in his character that all of us need to learn. Even sinful man can so love the Lord, and devote himself, that God will take notice of that inner longing to be acceptable in God's sight.

This in no wise lessens our need to live faithfully, nor our need for forgiveness. On the contrary, it puts upon man the responsibility to do the one thing he can do "perfectly," i.e., will to do right, "delight in the law of God after the inward man" (Rom. 7: 22), serve the law of God with the mind (7:25), be "spiritually minded" (8:6). Please note — while Paul did this, he knew his condition was hopeless without the forgiveness that was in Christ Jesus. But without this inner resolve, this giving of tile spirit or eart, we can not have the blessings that are in Christ Jesus.

Paul said, "I serve (God) with my spirit" (Rom. 1:9). Again, "He is a Jew which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God" (Rom. 2:29). Are you a Saul — or a David?? Well know this, God reads your heart; and even the world sees the fruit of your inner character.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIV No.II Pg.6
April 1977
Grace And Works
Robert F. Turner

In the Roman letter the apostle Paul clearly contrasts grace and works (Rom. 4:2-5; 11:6), and some have concluded he makes any act of obedience incompatible with grace. We believe this error is the result of failure to consider the context of his arguments concerning "law" and "works." Will you think with us?

He begins his main argument by showing that God is Just in condemning all, for "all have sinned." Law, both moral and positive, identifies sin. It makes sin apparent, and shows the futility of seeking to be acknowledged "free of guilt" on the basis of law alone. Since a single sin is all that is necessary to establish guilt, and no amount of obedience can remove guilt, once established; it follows that the only way one may be justified (free of guilt) on the basis of law alone is to obey perfectly. In Rom. 10:5 we read, "For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, that the man which doeth those things shall live by them" (emphasis mine). In Gal. 3:10-f. he makes the same point, saying, "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the Law to do them" (emphasis mine).

When Paul says, "If Abraham were justified (free of guilt, rt) by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God;" he is saying there would be no need for the grace of forgiveness if Abraham had never sinned. He is not saying that any act of obedience on Abraham's part would nullify grace. When we recognize that God's grace is expressed in Christ on the cross, and that this "gift" is the MEANS of forgiveness, then we can appreciate the meaning of faith (or trust) in Him. Seeking "freedom from guilt" by (perfect) works, we put our trust in ourselves — and fail. But recognizing that salvation for any but the absolutely perfect (who would need no saving) must be by gift or grace of God, we put our trust in Him who died for us.

The thought of Rom. 11:6 is, therefore: "If by grace, then it is no more of (perfect, meriting) works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work (that is less than perfect, and needs forgiveness) is no more work" (such as Paul has in mind in making these statements.)

With Paul, trust in Jesus Christ involves obedience. Note: "for obedience to the faith" (1:5), "who will render to every man according to his deeds" (2:6-13),"ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine" (6:17), "who walk not after the flesh but after the spirit" (8:4), "for the obedience of faith" (16:26).

God's plan for making man righteous — in right standing with Him — was to forgive those who put their trust in the crucified and resurrected Lord. (Read carefully Rom. 4:6-8.) Christ is the MEANS; forgiveness is the OPERATION; and faith (obedient trust) is the CONDITION. The Jews who went about to establish "their own righteousness" (on the basis of law — Phil. 3:9), did not "submit" themselves, being ignorant of God's way. There is no conflict in salvation by grace, and at the point of baptism.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIV No.II Pg.7
April 1977
?You Know What?
Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

The church where I am presently worshipping has not administered any type of discipline in over 23 years. Where and how do we begin? R.L.

Reply:

Discipline is a form of teaching. The English word is related to "disciple" or learner. It is used in the A.S. version (2 Tim. 1:7) where the K. J. has "sound mind." It may be instructive in nature, or corrective; but we should realize that in both of these the object is to win the mind-not to use carnal force in order to achieve our ends (2 Cor. 10:3-5). When Paul continues, "being in readiness to avenge all disobedience" (v.6), we must recognize that he is not contradicting himself. He was not vindictive, nor trying to force obedience. If parents make no effort to instruct or correct their children — neither commending the good, nor showing disapproval of the bad — for a 23 year period — how then could they begin? Would not undisciplined children resent the sudden effort? Corrective discipline in the church can be effective only when it has been preceded by instructive discipline, given in an atmosphere of love. The wayward sheep must be convinced that the others act only in a sincere desire to assist in his heavenward journey.

Where constructive discipline is not practiced; where there is no mutual encouragement on a regular basis; where the stronger make no effort to bear the burden of the weak as a general and continuing thing; one need not expect corrective discipline to operate smoothly. The sinner will simply feel he has been discriminated against by other sinners.

This is not a matter of not knowing what the N.T. teaches on the subject; i.e., knowing the passages that deal with it. Although a church which has exercised no discipline in 23 years may need lessons on such, they need much more. An appreciation for the meaning and role of a "saint" is needed. Whole-hearted dedication must be engrained — people taught to love God more than father, mother, wife and life (Lu. 14:26-f). "The church" must take on new meaning, and each made to realize its spiritual mission. "Fellowship" with God, and with one another, must become a precious thing — and the former must greatly outweigh the latter.

Of course I am aware that not all the members of a local church will have the same level of spiritual understanding or attainment. Babes can not be expected to have grown so; although you may find that new converts may "take" to such teaching far more readily than those who are just longtime members of the "party." Strong leadership and uncompromising preaching do much to guide the whole church in its disciplinary functions.

Sometimes the church can do little more than recognize the fact that a sheep is gone. Better that, than to continue to act as though nothing had happened. But such rear-guard actions (the limit of most "discipline" today I am sorry to say) are far from being the loving care, teaching, and correction pictured in scriptures.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIV No.II Pg.8

April 1977

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

Eastern New Mexico University, in Portales, is home of the Paleo Indian Institute, first of its kind devoted exclusively to studying the Palen Indians "who hunted extinct varieties of elephant, horse, bison and camel, more than 10,000 years ago in the New World" (so says the sign). Their work is highly respected in its field; so while in a Portales meeting, I visited their building and displays.

After an hour or two amidst hones, pottery and stone implements of that bygone civilization — and after reading all the claims of "finds" and the identification processes — one begins to look more closely for bits of evidence which may lie at our feet. I had walked not more than fifty feet from the museum when I noticed a peculiar eggish object in the grass of the campus. It was about the size of a "dollar" marble, mottled grey in color, but coated with a flaky white substance that made me think it had been buried in a caliche bed. It was a bit light for stone, and had a feel more of leather than of fossil. Hmmm!

Thinking it may have been dropped from the kit of some archeologist, I returned to the institute and asked Dr.______ to identify it. Magnifying glasses came out, lights went on, and various departmental workers gathered about to solve the mystery. One said it was a nut — I'm not sure if he referred to the object or its finder. Another said, no, it was a long-preserved egg, perhaps of a snake or turtle. "It is fossilized." "Absolutely not." "It is organic!" "It's a nut!"

Someone suggested taking it to Dr. _______, and after a reasonable wait the verdict from the other office was, "It is fossil." The first Dr. objected. "That is wrong — go tell them I said they were wrong." The office crew politely declined that assignment. Someone suggested the object be taken to Zoology, but that was immediately squelched. "Anthropology can handle this!" So, the search went on. Finally the object was taken to a lab. It was rubbed, pricked, and tested with acetone. Then the investigator raked it with his teeth, tasted, and laughed aloud. "It is candy," he said. "Someone got tired of a jawbreaker, and threw it into the grass." Moral? Well, the object is final authority, be it fossil or word of God. The student's guess, or wish, cuts little ice in determining truth.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIV No.III Pg.1

May 1977

Questions & Answers

Robert F. Turner

When someone questions your faith or some practice of the church, what is your reaction? Do you immediately regard the querist with suspicion? Do you rush to tell others that he is a heretic, liberal, or even atheist?

If you are confident in your faith and can "give answer to every man that asketh you a reason concerning the hope that is in you" (I Pet. 3:15) is not this an opportunity to teach and assist a friend or brother in their spiritual growth?

Young people sometimes "become atheists" when in reality they do not know enough to be atheists. They simply begin to mature, and want to know why this or that; and we drive them into defensive and antagonistic positions by failing to treat their questions seriously, and really help them find the answers. They do not know enough to believe either; and some times our failure to assist them is a sign of our own ignorance. We throw them a traditional "we've always done it that way" line, and then blame them for rejecting the establishment, or thinking "faith" is superstition. An honest question deserves an honest answer. We should also realize that sometimes the "trick" or debate type question did not originate with the querist, but is being passed on from some third party. We may go far by getting the querist to realize the nature of the "old say" they have been led to ask. Love "thinketh no evil" — gives benefit of doubt.

And when we have reason to believe the querist is quibbling, baiting, or is otherwise insincere, perhaps the best course is to explain patiently why you so judge, and then decline to continue such fruitless wrangling. Make it clear that you will he happy to engage in serious study when it can be conducted on a mature and respectful level. On occasions one may "answer a fool according to his folly" but extensive and imbalanced use of this technique will but feed one's pride in his "professional debater" status. It is not conducive to serious and genuine teaching of truth.

Questions and Answers are the basic ingredients of teaching and learning. Use them to God's glory.

[RETIREDFAN1]

.XIV No.III Pg.2

May 1977

Introduction To "Romans"

Robert F. Turner

Beginning with this issue, we will use the center spread for a series on the Roman Letter. I have attempted to reduce Paul's letter to direct statements and bite-size arguments, hoping this will assist in the study of that complex epistle. 'The seriousness of the undertaking, and my own inadequacies, team up to give me the "willies," but it seems a needed effort. 'There is a revival of interest in the Roman letter — no doubt the result of the so-called "grace-fellowship" movement, and neo-Calvinistic studies. We welcome more serious Bible study, for whatever cause, and this is but a meager contribution.

PAUL, TO THE ROMANS is in no sense a translation. It is not even a loose rendering of the text. It is simply what one man believes Paul is saying. No effort is made to repeat all of Paul's thoughts. We limited ourselves to the main arguments, chapters 1-11. The King James version was used as chief guide, although the American Standard, Marshall's Literal English, and various word studies were freely applied. No effort was made to follow any commentary. For better or worse, these are my own conclusions.

The Roman Letter is amazingly complete. Paul does his own explaining, if we will give him half a chance, so I have tried to state Paul's material without distracting notes. Perhaps in the future this can be published with special attention given to cross-reference within the letter; then a secondary reference made to Galatians, Philippians, and other places where Paul discusses these same matters. The series should take three issues.

The Roman Letter says: (1) Mankind is Lost in Sin. We have individually sinned, despite opportunities to do better. God judges us individually, in keeping with our deeds. He is Just in condemning each of us. (2) Law is Not the Remedy. It emphasizes man's failure. Right doing can not correct wrongdoing. (3) God's Plan for man's Rightstanding is one of Grace. It was promised through Abraham. It was perfected in Christ's death, and resurrected life. Its operation is forgiveness, the fruit of love and mercy. (4) "The Condition is Whole-Hearted Faith. Man must individually give himself, his heart, his spirit, unto God in complete trust, in order to benefit from God's offer. Obedience "from the heart" must be manifested both in coming to Christ, and in living unto God. (3) God's Grace is Extended Invitation to ALL Men. The true "Jew" is the individual, Jew or Gentile, who submits himself to Christ. Paul deals repeatedly with Jewish misunderstandings, and Jew-Gentile problems, which this principle evokes.