Jump to content

Plain Talk


RETIREDFAN1

Recommended Posts

.XIV No.IX Pg.7
November 1977

Queries And Answers

Robert F. Turner

Dear bro. Turner:

Please discuss the meaning of the "moral" law. HT

Reply:

The term "moral" is evidently undergoing some changes — at least in the minds of brethren — so much so that without adequate definition many discussions are ambiguous. The term is not used in the Bible (in any version I have seen) although there are passages which seem to refer to that which is "right" by its nature.

Webster defines "moral" as springing from, or pertaining to, man's natural sense or reasoned judgement of what is right or proper." Thus morals exist among people who have had no access to revelation, but their standards of morality will vary according to the people who develop them. These standards, enforced individually by the conscience, and upon the society by regulations self-imposed, make "moral law," apart from revelation.

But when we consider the laws of God (i.e., God's revealed will) we must carry our definition of "morals" much further. Divine regulations have to do with man's conduct in society as well as in his relation to God. It is inevitable that God's regulations will overlap, and perhaps even duplicate laws of such a nature as man has or would make for himself — without revelation. (Ex.: murder, theft, etc) Thus some revealed (Bible) laws may be classified as moral" in nature, and yet occupy a different position from that of morals of society. When God gives a "moral" regulation the source of that law is such as to put it above human judgement. Changes in the customs and practices of men cannot affect God's laws. They remain as given unless or until He sees fit to alter or remove them.

Division of God's laws into "moral" and "positive" (while serving some good in study) is a man-made distinction, and must not be used as a rule for judging any of God's laws. (Heb. 4:11-12)

Space forbids a study of Rom. l: ff. Here, but please note that the basic sin of the Gentiles ("without law") was their refusal to recognize and respond to the information God made known to them in creation — ("things that are made") namely: (1) God's eternal power; and (2) His Godhead, or Divinity — Deityship. Because they "glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful" (Rom. 1:21) He "gave them up" to immoralities. (1:24,26,28)

Apparently God expected these Gentiles to (1) recognize the existence of a Creator; (2) accept this Creator as something more than man — worthy of worship and service — and (3) within the imposing boundaries of such a conception, to live discreet, moral ("by nature" "conscience" 2:14-f.) lives, until the time came to further reveal unto them His will.

We are in deep water here (let us hope we do not confuse "muddy" water with depth) and it is wise to move with caution. I fear that some have jumped boldly into discussions of the "moral law" without making adequate preparations. Personally, I feel my inadequacy on this great subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.XIV No.IX Pg.8
November 1977

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

On various occasions I have taken part in worship services which are broadcast to a radio audience. Every time this happens I notice the special attention given to the singing, prayer, etc. Just before we go on the air the mothers are cautioned to take their children out if they become noisy; announcements are planned with care; the one to lead in prayer has been carefully selected. Even the preacher puts a little extra spit-and-polish into his sermon.

We are talking to people outside our" group now — perhaps this in being recorded — only the best will do.

Last Sunday we were only worshipping Jehovah God, our Creator. There is some justification for extra quietness, and crisp announcements as we go "on the air" but I suspect we sometimes consider the advertisement value of such programs more highly than we do the worship value. If so, we are defeating our purpose.

I recall accepting a phone call once, which turned out to be an ill-tempered brother with a sharp and nasty tongue. Switching on my magnetic recorder, I made a record of part of his tirade. Then, remembering the law on such matters, I informed him the recorder was running, and asked for permission to use the statements made.

Such sputtering!! Finally, he said he supposed it was all right, but maybe I had misunderstood just what he intended to say. He then reworded his statements — dressing them down to fairly decent conversation. I accepted the revised version, saying I would erase the earlier portion of the tape — which I did.

But just as we closed our talk I asked him to remember one very important fact, viz., "GODS TAPE RECORDER RUNS DAY AND NIGHT." More sputtering!

Most folk are quiet and respectful when someone is praying — man talking to God; but they may whisper, pass notes, spank children, etc., when the Bible is being read — God talking to man. Does this show faith in God??"

When God becomes more real to us, when we really begin to believe in His abiding presence, His all-seeing eye, the freedom of His access to our very thoughts — then, and not until then, will we truly reverence Him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.XIV No.X Pg.1
December 1977

"I'm Satisfied"

Dan S. Shipley

To many, the measure of acceptable religion is whether it satisfies the individual. Few would likely admit it, but we see it in the "church-shopper" whose search for a church is mostly based on personal preferences. We see it in the advertisements that encourage attendance at the "church of your choice." We see it in those who discourage questions and discussions about "their church" because, as they put it, "I'm satisfied". I could see it in the lady who once told me that she didn't want to discuss the Bible any further because she had just joined the Catholic Church and had never been happier.

Obviously, multitudes are satisfied with the course they have charted for themselves in religion, but more importantly, IS GOD? Have men so forgotten the whole point and purpose of life, not to mention religion? The wise man's conclusion was NOT, "Fear God and serve Him as you please", but "Fear God and keep His commandments" (Eccl. 12:13). To emphasize obedience (doing as God pleases) is neither narrow minded nor legalistic. In fact, it puts the emphasis exactly where God put it! Salvation is promised to "all them that obey Him" (Heb. 5:9). Heaven awaits only those who do the Father's will (Matt. 7:21). The apostles were told by Jesus to teach men "to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" (Matt. 28:20). The Bible clearly teaches that men must do something to be saved. But more, that "something" is not left to man's discretion; it must be a doing of God's will as set forth in the N.T.

Saul of 'Tarsus was apparently well pleased with his life as a religious leader among the Jews — but God wasn't. In order to please God, Paul had to make some drastic changes, which he did. His life-ruling aim was to "be well-pleasing to Him" (2 Cor. 5:9). As people-pleasing religion increases in popularity, how great the need for men of like ambition today! What Paul sought, he also taught. He reminds the Thessalonians of his teaching concerning how they "ought to walk and to please God" (1 Thss. 4:1). Perhaps men still need reminding about how they ought to live and whom they ought to please — and who will judge them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.XIV No.X Pg.2
December 1977

Hash Again - - -

Dan S. Shipley

With the prospects of bro. Turner returning from Australia next week, I am preparing to vacate this over-sized editor's chair and would like to thank all of our readers for bearing with us in getting out these past three issues. I would like also to thank bro. Dee Bowman and Jim Ward for their fine articles. Both are good writers and good preachers.

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

Now, there are several matters I'd like to mention before going back to page 3 permanently. First, with most repairs completed following our fire, we are back in our regular meeting place after being out for 12 Sundays. It never looked better and we've never been more thankful.

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

Next, in the Oct issue we asked for a response from any who would be in favor of reprinting and binding back issues of PT (about 13 yrs. of it), not as a solicitation, but as an indicator of interest. Frankly, and to my personal disappointment, the response was only fair — certainly, not convincingly sufficient. I still feel bro. Turner's writings deserve circulating and preserving. If you agree, help me convince him! Drop us a line.

------------------- As you may have noticed, we have switched to a new addressing system, which, hopefully, will be better for you and for us. Regrettably, however, the company that sold us the equipment made a few mistakes in preparing our new address cards. If the address appearing on your copy of PT needs correcting, please let us know. If you know of others who did not receive their copy, tell them to notify us as soon as possible. Thanks.

Also, if you plan to move, please remember to do these two things: Let us know where you are moving TO and let us know the address you are moving FROM. BOTH are important to us because our address cards are filed according to ZIP codes, not names. Besides, we have to pay 25 for each returned copy.

One other thing. We appreciate all new readers, but, alas, not all of them appreciate us, as this recent note indicates: "Please, please, STOP sending us "Plain Talk"!! We have moved and must pay 10 postage due to cover forwarding charges every time we receive your newsletter. What a nuisance!! We never requested your publication in the first place. I consider your paper so much "junk mail". God bless you. In another note, a mother requests that her 10 yr. old son's name be removed from our mailing list, adding, "how you ever got his name is beyond me". So, make sure it's OK with them, then send us their name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.XIV No.X Pg.3
December 1977

How God Changes Men

Dan S. Shipley

The apostle Paul writes of a most remarkable change having taken place in the lives of certain Romans. Whereas they were once the servants of sin, they had now become the servants of righteousness (Rom. 6:17,18). The word he uses to describe this radical alteration of character is "transformed" (Rom. 12:2). It comes from the Greek word (METAMORPH00) from which we get our "metamorphosis", a term used in biology to denote a change in form, structure, or function as a result of development. Such is the process by which the ugly caterpillar develops into the beautiful butterfly. Spiritually, as used by Paul, it denotes the extraordinary change from sinner to saint. Its inward nature is seen in its means of achievement: "by the renewing of your mind". Here is the starting place for true "newness of life" (Rom. 6:4). Perhaps we need to be reminded that making Christians begins with changing the mind, not externals! Conversion is more than getting the sinner OUT of false religion, OUT of beer halls or OUT of bad company. It is more than getting the sinner IN Bible classes, IN worship services, or even IN the baptistry! If all of these things are done without really changing the sinner's mind, he is not IN Christ; he HAS NOT been converted! Now, externals are important, to be sure, but as the EFFECT of conversion; as the fruit of genuine repentance (Matt. 4:8). Repentance IS a change of mind (see Vine's); an inward change with outward effects, as with the Romans. They quit doing wrong in favor of doing right as the result of changing their minds. BUT WHAT CAUSED THEM (OR ANY SINNERS) TO CHANGE THEIR MINDS? What the Romans did was the result of what they LEARNED! Like the Ephesians (Eph. 4:17), they were darkened in their understanding because of ignorance: However, with the teaching they received (Rom. 6:17), their understanding was enlightened and when it was, they "became obedient from the heart." They were taught of God. When they heard and learned from the Father, they came unto Christ, just as He said they would (Jn. 6:44,45). Thus, knowledge of truth made them free (Jn. 8:32). Paul Says plainly that these Romans were "made free from sin" in obedience to teaching. Such is the happy effect when good hearts receive the good news.

But the conversion of the Romans was not different from others recorded in the N. T. Without exception, what the converts DID, was the result of what they HEARD AND LEARNED. Take the Pentecostians, for instance (.Acts 2). "Now when they HEARD this..." (v. 37) they asked what they should do. Peter instructs them and "They that then RECEIVED HIS WORD were baptized" (v. 41) and, as Christ has promised (Mk. 16:16), were saved. Like the Romans, they were made free from sin in obedience to teaching. So were the Samaritans who, after hearing and believing the gospel preached by Philip, were baptized into Christ (Acts 8:12). Restudy the conversion of the Ethiopian, Cornelius and the jailor (Acts 8,10). All have in common the hearing and learning of words whereby they might be saved (Acts 11:14). Those who would seek salvation in some other way do so in vain. Only the gospel can change the vile sinner into a beautiful saint!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Call For Sincerity

Robert F. Turner

In our age of intense and concentrated advertising efforts, the finding of an open mind is indeed a rare thing. All of us are so bombarded with ideas from others that even from our earliest years we form prejudices which affect our lives from then on. Customs, traditions, backgrounds of various sorts influence the most insignificant decisions.

The only solution to the problem of prejudice is a serious effort by every individual to obtain and maintain an attitude of sincerity. A sincere person is, first of all, a truth-seeking person. His quest in every situation and circumstance is for the truth. A person who is determined to base all his decisions on the truth has laid out for himself a most difficult course, for truth is not always easily accessible. However, prompted by a sincere desire to be right, he will not be deterred.

The sincere person is looking for ALL the truth. Half-truths have ever been the major cause for man's demise. If the powers of evil can cause a person to subscribe to only part of the truth, the end is the same ruination as if he had subscribed to no truth at all! Such has been the problem of Protestant denominationalism from the very beginning. It is based on part, but not all of the truth.

"Getting to the bottom of a thing" is characteristic of him who sincerely seeks truth and that means he must engage in a sincere effort to find ALL the truth. Any person who seeks to excel in any area will solicit as much information as he can about that area. And the sincere person is interested in knowing as much as possible about a situation before rendering any decision about that matter.

The sincere person applies the truth. The truth known, while it may thrill the intelligence of him who procures it, is not really valuable until it is applied. The person who knows a truth and does not apply it is only slightly better off than the person who does not know that truth at all! The Scriptures compare that person who fails to apply truth to a foolish man who views his physical imperfections in a mirror and walks away unconcerned about what he has seen (Cf. Jas. 1:23-25). On the other hand, the person who applies the truth as he sees necessary "shall be blessed in his deed."

Furthermore, the sincere person applies the truth without regard to consequences. Faith in God requires that we put our complete confidence in Him. That is, when lie says a situation calls for a certain application of truth, we obey without consideration of any circumstances and with full confidence in Him. The sincere person is fully persuaded that God's way is the right way and that He would not require of man that which did not benefit him.

A sincere person is respectful of the opinions of others. He has such a high regard for truth that he will not be guilty of forcing what he knows is opinion. Conversely, he has enough knowledge of truth to not allow you to force your opinions on him either! The sincere person is totally honest with the truth. --- Dee Bowman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Characteristics Of Apostasy

Robert F. Turner

In speaking of the rise and fall of nations, Paul S. McElroy once said, ...the pattern of these civilizations or nations runs something like this: from bondage to spiritual faith, from faith to courage, from such courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency and from dependency back again into bondage." It seems to me that the pattern of apostasy in the Lord's church follows much the same predictable course. It is at the first small and poor; its principles become recognized as true and practical; it grows; it becomes strong, popular and rich; it becomes complacent, indifferent; it again lapses into apostasy.

Several of these deviations are so slow and so slight they are not recognized in their seedling forms. A move toward a thing may not seem so dangerous at the time, but may be forming a bond that later will be almost impossible to break. A good example is the trend among the more liberal churches toward embracing the charismatic movement. Who would have thought that the emotional appeal made by institutional brethren in the 1950's would have resulted in entire congregations being lost to holiness doctrines? But it is my opinion that the emotionalism used to promote the orphan homes and other "brotherhood" projects has lent support to the move toward the emotional doctrines now such a problem in some churches.

Apostasy is a peculiar thing. But it is also to same degree predictable. In Acts 20, we are given a hint of the path followed by apostasy. It has always been the case that "from among your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, seeking to draw disciples away after them..." Every apostasy follows this same design. From internal sources the doctrines are sown. From inside the camp the evil is more easily planted and more difficult to recognize and deal with, because it is done by men in whom we have confidence. And such internal work, done subtly and "in sheep's clothing" is difficult to deal with on account of the fact that its proponents have usually already polarized several "cell" groups by the time it is discovered. This exact procedure is being utilized presently in some churches.

There seems to me to be some significance to the fact that there is almost always an organizational departure before there is a doctrinal one. I suppose that those who demand a "thus saith the Lord" first then go about doing the work are just naturally less likely to become involved in departures. Once an organizational departure has been made, it is no great difficulty to find ways to make the Scriptures fit, even if it becomes necessary to change them somewhat! It is obvious, and historicity is the best witness to such, that changes in organizational structure (such as surrender of congregational autonomy) have always been the springboard to full blown apostasy. When elderships, who are charged with the feeding of the flock become derelict, then the spiritual body must suffer the consequences of such lack of proper feeding and the church loses its resistance to such unauthorized practices!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

XIV No.X Pg.6
December 1977

"He Hit Me First"

Robert F. Turner

A howl comes from the yard. I investigate. "Why are you crying?" I ask.

He hit me," the howler replies, pointing to his brother.

"He hit me first," charges the hitter.

"He made a face at me," accuses the howler.

"He wouldn't let me swing," retorts the hitting Pacemaker.

He wouldn't play catch with me," counters the howling swinghogger. "Enough," I shout, knowing I'll never unravel this. "The survivor will please clean up the blood," I scream wittily. The witty screamer then stalks away...

Retaliation seems almost as natural as breathing, doesn't it? Kids are masters at it, but, then, so are some of us grown-up kids. The desire to hurt people who hurt me is one of my major stumbling blocks.

It helps me, though, to think about King David. He had learned the lesson of Proverbs 24:17: "Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, And do not let your heart be glad when he stumbles..." he knew that God forbids not only vengeance against an enemy but even gloating over misfortunes that you do not cause him.

For example though Saul hounded David into outlawry and would have killed him, David would not raise his hand against his king. Once, just for humiliating Saul, David's heart smote him (1 Sam. 24:5). Finally, when Saul died, David mourned and composed a dirge for him and Jonathan his son (2 Sam. 1:17-27).

Again, David showed his great heart at the death of Abner, general under Ish-bosheth after Saul's death. For years David and Saul's house struggled for supremacy. Finally, Abner came to David to make peace, but Joab accused him of deceit, and, to avenge the death of his brother Asahel, slew Abner Rather than rejoice, David denounced the perfidy of Joab. Then the king mourned Abner, saying, "Do you not know that a prince and a great man has fallen this day in Israel?" (2 Sam. 4:35).

Solomon, David's wise son, may have had the example of his father in mind when he wrote: "If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; And if he is thirsty, give him water to drink; For you will heap burning coals on his head, And the Lord will reward you" (Prov. 25:21f). Paul referred to this when he urged Christians in Romans 12: "Never pay back evil for evil to anyone ... If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men... Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good" (vv. 17f, 21).

Human vengeance is as punishable as the guilt of the enemy.

'Thinking about David helps me cope with the spirit of revenge — to "turn the other check." I hope it helps you, too. — Jim Ward

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.XIV No.X Pg.7
December 1977

?You Know What?

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

Church support of colleges and benevolent institutions is often likened to "the Missionary Society." Why is this done, and what is the point?

Reply:

The division among saints, that resulted in the "Christian Church" and the church of Christ, had its beginning with the "society" question. In 1849, following a "build up" of "cooperation" meetings by which a number of local churches pooled their funds to work as one in evangelism, the American Christian Missionary Society was formed. This was the "wedge" that started the division. "Matter of methods" and "Expediency" arguments, used to defend the society, were later applied by the same liberal brethren to put mechanical music in the worship.

Historically, therefore, the M.S. has a bad reputation among, knowledgeable members of the church. Some may compare a thing to the M.S. simply to discredit by association — which is an unfair tactic. However, there are valid comparisons to be made — easily recognized by those who understand what was wrong with the M.S. in the first place. (We are not concerned with "abuses" of the society — such as "dominating the church"; but with the basic principles involved.)

First, the society grew out of a misconception of the universal church; considering the body of Christ as a brotherhood of churches, instead of a brotherhood of individual Christians. The universal church was thought to have certain obligations, as a functional entity; and some means sought by which "the church" (universal) could" do her work." They failed to see that the single independent local church is the only organizational structure divinely authorized. Oversight, treasury, and work must remain local in scope; i.e., no "brotherhood" organizations are scriptural.

Second, (and here Campbell "broke" completely with his earlier teaching) the divine plan is complete and sufficient; no human organizations are necessary or desirable for doing the work which God gave the church to do. But the missionary society was admittedly a human institution through which the churches were to function. Under this second objection, it would have been unscriptural if only one church had functioned through it. We are not at liberty to abandon God's plan of operation and favor our own.

Now "society" is just a word, descriptive of an organization. Boles Home is no less a benevolent society, and Campaigns for Christ, Inc. is no less a missionary society because they do not use the word "society". The arguments (?) used to defend them are often identical with those used in the last century to defend the missionary society; as one may see by reading the Otey-Briney Debate, etc.

The same basic misconceptions that fathered digression in the 19th. century are at work today, with the same results. Now, as then, those who oppose these innovations are called "Anti" — if not worse — and a sectarian spirit forbids open Bible study of the true issues. "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge." Amen!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We Have A Name

Robert F. Turner

Concerning the church at Sardis the Lord said, "I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead" (Rev. 3:1). Now think, where did they get that name?

"Name" is here used in the sense of reputation — the popular opinion. But the smallness and insignificance of the cause of Christ in the world at that time negates any suggestion that this was a "name" in the world's hall of Fame. The world couldn't care less. Yet, someone had to give them that name, and give it such general acceptance as to warrant significance. The Lord certainly did not sanction this appraisal; so we are forced to conclude that their peers, or social circle, gave them their "name."

Other churches, others of their professed "kind," must have talked of their "good works" "wonderful spirit" "liberal contributions" or whatever that generation considered great. It is apparent that brethren of that age were no more qualified judges of what God approves, than their current counterparts. Doesn't it shake you? They had a good reputation — they got it from their own brethren — and it did not amount to a hill of beans (when beans were cheap). No wonder Paul said those who "measure themselves by themselves, and compare themselves among themselves, are not wise."

For the Lord said of Sardis, that Big Name church, "then art dead." What remained was "ready to die." The "few names in Sardis" who had not defiled their garments must have stood out from the rest like a sore thumb — a few cranks or "fanatics" who would not line up with the majority. Perhaps those "on the march" wished them gone, so as to remove that source of criticism and embarrassment; not realizing that they were the last bit of salt in the whole stinking mess.

The majority "had a name"— and it seems the ''name" was more valued than the truth. Well, we all have a name-of some sort-- with both God and man. Our concern for what men think often blinds us to what God thinks of us —and that's what I'd call real near-sightedness. Man, a good reputation is not enough. Weve got to consider who gives us our name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Our Spare Time---

Robert F. Turner

Dan Shipley did the expected fine work with Plain Talk during my trip to Australia — as you readers know. In fact, a few more months like that and I'll discover how unnecessary I am to this operation. Thanks to him, and to Dee Bowman and Jim Ward, for their good articles. I have never worked with one I respected more than Dan S. Shipley — and that ain't "ministerially speaking" either.

But "home" is onto a brief rest stop on the way to another year of work, the Lord willing. 1978 meetings begin with a Jan. 22-27 appointment at O'Connor's Rd., San Antonio, TX. Before some of you get this I will also be with Woodlawn in San Antonio, Feb. 3-10, and with Spring Branch in Houston, Feb. 12-17.

We will have a few days home, then off to Easley, S.C.; Mar. 5-10 Bradenton, Fla., Mar. 12-17; Embry Hills in Atlanta, Ga., Mar. 19-24; Dyersburg, Tenn., Mar. 26 -31; Summerhill Rd. in Texarkana, TX, Apr. 2-7; Magnolia, Ark., Apr. 9-I-1; Southside in Fort Smith, Ark., Apr. 16-21; Raymore, Mo., Apr. 23-28. If we can still wiggle and speak, we may spend two weeks in Ontario, Canada; at Sundridge, May 7-12; and at a yet undesignated place.

After a few days home we go to Lewisville, TX, June 1-9; and to Las Cruces, N.M., June 14-23. A July debate on institutionalism has been in the mill for some time, but seems to be stalemated. If it does not develop I have promised some time at Richardson, TX, or at Port Arthur, TX.

In August it is Sweetwater, TX., I3-I8; and Clute, TX., Aug. 27-Sept. 1. Also have a meeting date in Tampa, Fla. (Temple Terrace), Sept. 10-15.

On Oct. 1, I begin a Sunday-Friday engagement in Odessa, (Crescent Park); then go further west to Glendale, Ariz., Oct. 15-20; and into California to Fullerton, Oct. 22-27, We may have a short break then, before going to Armona, Nov. 5-10; Porterville, Nov. 12-17; Paso Robles, Nov. 19-24; Clovis, Nov. 26- Dec. 1; and finally to Antioch, Calif., Dec. 3-8.

Brother Shipley's meetings are: in Mar., Sweetwater, TX.; Apr., Maryvale, Phoenix, Ariz.; and Ashford, Ariz. In May, Sparks, Nev.; June, Shelbyville, Penn.; July, Kerrville, TX.; Aug., in Hondo, TX.; and in Oct., Pecan Valley of San Antonio, TX. Sorry I can't give specific dates at this time, but you can see Dan is going to be busy.

Throughout the year, Dan is on the radio each week (Burnet); and we both continue our PLAIN 'TALK writing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.XIV No.XI Pg.3
January 1978

Growing In Littleness

Dan S. Shipley

There was a time when king Saul was useful to God's purposes. At that time he was anointed king of Israel; at a time, as Samuel tells him, "When thou vast little in thine own sight" (1 Sam. 15:17). The sense of littleness that helped qualify Saul for his crown is no less essential for those who seek a better crown (2 Tim. 4:8).

In fact, nothing is more needful in the quest for godliness (acquiring a right attitude toward God). Man's view of self determines his view of God, and vice versa. When Saul was little in his own sight, God was big. When Saul came to be big in his own sight, God became smaller. That is, God and God's will became of less importance to him. Nebuchadnezzar had the same problem. After being made to live as a beast of the field and to eat grass as the oxen for a time, his sense of littleness and understanding returned. When humbled, he could see God's bigness; that "the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever He will" (Dan. 4:32). Then, he blessed and praised and honored "Him that liveth forever" (v. 34) — as do all "little" men.

Only the man with a sense of littleness acknowledges his inability to direct his own steps (Jer. 10:23) and willingly submits to God's leading. Others, like king Saul, presumptuously set aside God's will when it conflicts with their own — not in all things, mind you, nor even in most. Many are willing to do much of what God says, but, as with Saul, we learn that partial obedience is not submission at all. In fact, God calls it "rebellion" (1 Sam. 15:23). Sound harsh? It shouldn't. Not when you realize that man arrays himself against God in every act of deliberate disobedience and says, in effect, "NO, I will not submit!" Perhaps this is what prompted someone to observe that the first lesson to be learned in serving God is humility. Whenever men conclude (by any process of reasoning or rationalizing) that their ways are as good as God's, they prove themselves too big to work in God's harness.

But, not only does man change his attitude toward God in losing his sense of littleness, he also changes his attitude toward men. As men acquire those things that make them "somewhat" (whether thrones, money, position, success or education), they are apt to see their peers as somewhat less. The kind of pride that kept Saul from appreciating David is still a threat to the unity of God's people — and not only in others, for all can forget their littleness at times (like the man who became proud of his humility). God's way is "doing nothing through faction or through vainglory, but in lowliness of mind each counting other better than himself; not looking each of you to his own things, but each of you also to the things of others" (Phil. 2: 3,4). When every brother looks up to all other brethren and looks down on none, we are growing in the kind of littleness that makes us strong (2 Cor. 12: 10). May God help us to cultivate this sense of littleness; the kind that truly appreciates God and brethren; the kind that confesses weakness and wrongdoing and says, "God, be thou merciful...".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.XIV No.XI Pg.4
January 1978
Australian Travelogue
Robert F. Turner

Bob Harkrider and I arrived in Sydney, Australia on Friday, Sept .23.'77, and on Saturday flew 850 miles north to Bundaberg, Q' Id. Rolly McDowell preaches there and we made his travel trailer our home. Learning that small churches farther north had requested our services, we "split" the work so that I taught in Bundy while Harkrider visited Rockhampton, 250 mi. north. The work is growing there, with A.M. Johnson as preacher and guide. Then Bob returned to Bundy, and I flew 950 mi. north to Cairns. The Ron Doyle and Ian Harland families are working hard to establish a church there. We had Services in a school building Saturday, through Tuesday, making contact with an episcopal couple who seemed interested in N. T. Christianity. On Wednesday, Ian took me to Innisfail, 60 mi. South. Five families have their own building there, and Cam LaSpina preaches, and works on a tea plantation. I worked with them, Wednesday through Friday, and learned to love the LaSpinas, where I stayed. On Saturday, I flew south, meeting Harkrider in Brisbane. Here, as when we came north, brethren met the plane and we had an airport visit. We flew on to Sydney, beginning two weeks of work there. But this too was "split. Bob made a weekend trip to Armidale and Inverell (300 plus miles north), and I spent one night in Gosford, visiting brethren there. The work plan in Sydney' (Miranda church) was classes from l0: a.m. to 12:15; Bob teaching Revelation and me teaching Romans. At night we divided the time, Bob teaching his excellent series on the Cults, and me preaching on the scheme of redemption and the church. Sydney needs a full-time worker who could concentrate on building up the church in that place of 3 million souls. They have their own meeting place and a nucleus of dedicated saints.

Came Saturday, and I was off to Wagga Wagga (300 in . SW) and Bob went to Warner's Bay. Wagga work was disappointing due to a foul-up in dates; but I taught in one home; and on Wednesday and Friday nights and Sunday mornings, in a public hall. Sunday nights we had services in Tarcutta — 30 mi. east. There are good people in Wagga but I believe they must decide on a permanent meeting place, or two, before they can hope for fixed gains.

Max Burgin came up from Melbourne on Friday, and on Monday we drove to Albury, met Bob's plane, and continued south to Lima, Vic., where Randy and Judy Hilburn (Antioch, Calif.) manage a camp for the Victoria school system. We spent several days resting there, but we also bad two long studies with members of the Brethren church. 'The Hilburns worship regularly in their home, and work hard at trying to teach others. Friday, at 10:30 p.m., after a long Bible Study, we "took off" for Melbourne (250 mi.).

In Melbourne we stayed in a travel trailer as guests of Max and Kathy Burgin. Three mornings each week we drove 30 miles one way to Heidelberg, to teach Revelation and Romans. For two weeks we preached in a school building in Baronia at night, taking "turns" there; and also preaching on Wednesday nights and Sundays at Heidelberg. This church has had a shakeup but seems ready for solid growth now. (continued on page 5)

Vol.XIV No.XI Pg.6
January 1978
Australian Summary
Robert F. Turner

For three months, from September 20 to December 12, Bob Harkrider and I journeyed to Australia and worked among brethren there. We contacted 22 congregations, and preached to 15 of them. I traveled over 7,000 miles and Bob traveled about 6,000 miles within the country. We tried to stress training for service; and we taught classes in Romans, Revelation, and The Cults, because of the need for information in these fields in day-by-day encounters. We cannot know the true measure of accomplishments, nor do we desire to publish glowing reports. We only know that we tried to save souls and strengthen brethren.

As reported in Sept. '77 P.T., the Australian brethren paid all of my travel expenses. Most unexpectedly, they also assisted in my personal support, and in bro. Harkrider's support. This is supposed to be a "touchy" subject; but I believe there is a genuine awakening in Australia to such responsibilities, and recognition and thanksgiving for such is in order.

Australian churches are small and widely scattered. We did not visit a conservative church with more than 45 members, and oftimes we met with six or eight. With 50 in attendance, we "stood before a great sea of faces." Where such conditions prevail, there or in the U.S., family problems, petty jealousies, doctrinal peculiarities, etc., become major problems and detract from the Lord's work. Perhaps associated with smallness in number, yet growing out of an ultra conservative background and honest conviction, are other hindrances to growth. Only seven of the fifteen congregations to whom we preached had a permanent meeting place. Some either object to, or are not positive in their efforts to obtain such. "Mutual edification" is something more than a necessity to a few. They have seen preacher abuses and will have to recognize mutual edification abuses before they are likely to sort out this matter. And there are always some who are satisfied to "keep house for the Lord." Need I remind you of comparable U.S. problems?

But there are encouraging signs in Australia. Some congregations have grown numerically and spiritually since my last visit (1973). We met perhaps a half-dozen young men who study and are anxious to prepare themselves to preach full-time; and there are churches willing to support them to the extent of their ability. An attitude of self-sufficiency is developing, and a recognition of the need to move forward. Two men have bought a press, and plan to print tracts and study materials. Liberal brethren who accused us of "dividing churches," have greatly underestimated the capacity of Australians to think for themselves. A highly sectarian history (?) of "Neo-Conservatism" in Australia has backfired. One brother told me he had two copies; one to study and mark; the other to lend to anyone interested. He found the book answered itself in unprejudiced hands.

The "needs" in Australia are about like "needs" here in areas where few brethren exist -- like "needs" in the Dakotas, Montana, Maine, Nebraska, New Hampshire, etc. Workers, support, and genuine prayerful interest in the "faithful few" are sorely needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With Summary On The Following Page

Robert F. Turner

I baptized Neville Hayes in 1971; and soon afterwards he and his wife began worshipping in their home.Max Burgin moved near by, and the Boronia church began to move. There is an aggressive spirit here that is missing in some other Australian churches. It shows in newspaper ads, special lectures, etc.; and in their growth. In my judgment, they need to obtain a permanent meeting place of their own (we met on Sundays in a CWA hall, and had the "mission" in a school room); but if they will continue to probe, teach, and follow up, this group will accomplish much for the Lord's cause. Boronia is a suburb of Melbourne.

Traveling Saturday arrived, and I caught a Train for Bairnsdale (150 mi. east) and Bell left for Albury with Rolly McDowell (who had come down to assist in the work). Bairnsdale is an old town, with old-world atmosphere. Bob Wickham and family, and the David Hanley family, make up the church in that place, meeting in a community hall at the Library. We had a few visitors, and I presented informal studies on Bible interpretation and the church, hoping to strengthen saints as well as reach out for others. One night during the sermon the Salvation Army Band came down our street, playing full blast. I had to stop until they passed, whereupon our one visitor remarked aloud, "They sound like the Devil to me." No comment!

After one week in Bairnsdale, I came back to Melbourne and caught a plane to Launceston, on the island of Tasmania, 200 miles south of main-land Bob arrived there on the same day), and we made ready for our last two weeks of work in Australia. Tassy is a beautiful island, with wonderful people. I baptized a lady here in '71 and have since seen her husband and children grow into fine Christians. In 73 I had a one-night debate here (on church organization, although my opponent never did grasp the issue); and I feel almost a part of the fine Newnham church. Bob taught his series on Revelation and The Cults during the first week — giving me opportunity to visit Hobart and Port Arthur — and I taught Romans in a series of sermons during the second week. (Bob returned to Warner's Bay, north of Sydney, to try and finish a good work he had begun several weeks earlier.)

The Launceston (Newnham) church has a neat little building, and some members who are truly growing. Several young men are actively training as teachers, and some wish to devote full time to this work. I stayed in a trailer at the home of Max Hillier, but felt equally at home with the Grimditch family, Barry and Jackie Hume, and the others.

Then came the l-o-n-g Saturday. I flew to Melbourne, then to Sydney (where Bob joined me), then to Auckland, New Zealand, then through the night, to arrive in Honolulu — and it was still Saturday morning. We got a hotel room and tried to catch up with "jet lag" that afternoon and night.

Sunday we worshiped with the Leeward church, Waipahu. I taught class, but Bob preached that morning. I was in the pulpit that night, almost too tired to know if I preached. And on Monday — we came home!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.XIV No.XI Pg.7
January 1978

? You Know What?

Robert F. Turner

Dear bro. Turner:

Do Christians sin when, through ignorance of the Scriptures, they use the piano in worship or support other unauthorized activities? Does the Bible make a distinction in willful sin and sin of which one is unaware? MQ

Reply:

Willful sin (Heb. 10:26) is comparable to presumptuous or "high-handed sin"' (Num. 15:22-36), and is distinguished from "unwitting" sin. But the distinction does not remove the later from the category of "sin," and as sin offering had to be made for that done "unwittingly" (Num. 15:). Paul's desire to do better (Rom. 7:19-f) did not remove the reality of sin; and he found relief only in the forgiveness offered through Jesus Christ.

Is ignorance bliss? When one asks concerning a "Christian" we deal with those who have access to the standard of truth — and who have an obligation to determine the validity and authority for their actions. The point frequently overlooked in discussions of this sort is the willful ignorance of many who could know the truth. (Study 2 Pet. 3:5 2 Cor. 3:14-16; 4:3-4.)

How many organ playing, institution supporting, social-gospel promoting church members do you know who have made, and continue to make careful study of the Scriptures to determine God's will in these matters? Who manifest an open, inquiring mind, and show a willingness to change their practice in order to conform to all truth learned? Who will allow you to study these matters with them? Don't start counting until you have made a serious effort to study with them. You need not tell me that but few church members have this attitude. We must not measure ourselves by ourselves (2 Coy. 10:12); and, "but few" will be saved. It is this unwillingness to strive for the divine standard-- to "water down" religion to the level of the majority, or "the way we have been doing it" — that makes the liberalized "fellowship" movement so attractive to church members today.

None of us are perfect! There are, no doubt, some individuals who are involved in sinful activities "unwittingly" and despite efforts to learn the truth. This does not erase the existence of sin; it does not give those who know better the right to engage in the sinful practice; it does not remove the responsibility of the taught to instruct the untaught- reproving as well as exhorting. Because we are all subject to unwitting sin is the more reason to "prove all things" and continually pray for forgiveness (1 Thes. 5:21; 1 Jn. 1:9).

What God will do, in final judgment, about the person who sins in ignorance is not mine to determine. I can only study my Bible, live in good conscience before God, and teach others to do likewise. It is not "playing God" to set forth clearly what we believe the Bible teaches on a matter. Those who assume God will accept that for which He gave no authority are the presumptuous ones; and those who find comfort in willful ignorance, or encourage others to do so, are not very far behind. The "mark" we miss is set by God, and not by man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.XIV No.XI Pg.8
January 1978

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

A preacher once worked with a man who repeatedly complained about how much the church paid the evangelists who came for gospel meetings. (And it wasn't all that much either!) But the preacher couldn't argue the case, for he also did some meeting work and would be suspected of having a personal interest in the outcome of the discussion. Then, the preacher received a letter concerning a meeting which read, "— bring a song leader if you can. We will support him also."

He hurried to see the complaining brother (a fine singer) and asked him to he the song leader in the upcoming meeting. The brother said, "I'd like to go, but if I leave here my income will cease."

"I know," said the preacher. "I do not draw support from the church when I am away."

"But I have bills —" "I must have a continuing income to meet them." "Of course you must," said the preacher. "Perhaps I failed to tell you that the letter said they would support the song leader also. They make the same promise to you that they made to me."

The brother thought that over for a while, then he looked at the ground and asked, "How much will they pay?"

"Oh, I don't know about that," replied the preacher. "You know, we can not ask such questions — it would seem so commercial. We just go, do the best we can in the meeting, and then take what is given us."

There was a painful silence — and then the brother, still looking at the ground, shook his head. "I just can't operate that way," he said.

The story should end right there — but it doesn't. The preacher had not yet learned that it is possible to over-sell a point. He just had to say, "Well, if you can't, you can't. But I don't ever want to hear you complain again about the support of those who can and do operate that way." Many of us show up better as the defeated or the under-dog, than we do in triumph.

Times are better now, and brethren are much more considerate of those whom they support. I didn't drag this story out to complain. I thought of it as a nostalgic reminder of the day when preachers fought to save alien sinners, stingy brethren, and also to keep the wolf away from their door.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.XIV No.XII Pg.1
February 1978

Me Against The World

Robert F. Turner

Elijah once thought, "I am left alone," the only one right (Rom. 11:3). But he was wrong in this judgment, even though right in his God service. The "one against the world" attitude is self-inflating, and has wrecked the work of many a would-be reformer.

When one recognizes a truth which he had not before seen — and if you have not done this you are not growing as God intended — this should be a humbling experience. Should one not think, "Until now, I have failed in this matter." Is it not presumptuous to conclude that you alone have such marvelous insight?

What if others are yet unaware of this truth — or perhaps fail to give it the emphasis it deserves? Will we help them by adopting a superior air, and treating them as if they were stupid, or do not love truth? Quite often it is the one who has newly "seen the light" that was — well, not as bright as they now seem to think. It is often the case that others have long known this particular truth, although they may not have set it forth with the clarity it deserves. Our attitude may push good men into defensive positions. (What pushed the "reformer" into his "one against the world" attitude?) When will we learn to teach such truth as we believe we have found, with vigor, application, documented by scriptures, but with no personal "credit" line? I get the impression that some think they invented the gospel.

Besides being the Christ-like spirit, such humility will be very helpful when someone examines our "new" truth, and finds it is an old error. Those who have recently taken excursions in "imputed righteousness" need to do a bit of research on this line.

We do tend to traditionalize our preaching; to emphasize one point to the neglect of others. But if someone knows the truth more perfectly let him balance his preaching and set it before us with clarity. It is not the scriptural, whole-truth scheme of redemption that riles truth lovers. Good men constantly learn more truth, they just don't like to be fed 16th. Century error, and be classed as legalists if they refuse to eat it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, As God Made Him

Robert F. Turner

If asked to name the ONE main doctrinal difference in N. T. Christians and nominal Christians of the world — a little discussed, poorly understood concept would vie for the place. We refer to the nature of man, his power of choice, FREE AGENCY.

The "masses" of nominal Christians claim to believe in free will, but their theologians deny it. Doctrines to which many hold can not be maintained if man is truly a free agent; and the exegetes know this, even when the laymen do not. Those who give lip-service to free will may be unaware of their inconsistency, or taken in by the double-talk used in discussion of the subject. Many others have not recognized the relation of what they are supposed to believe to doctrines that fathered these concepts.

Augustine (354-430), influenced by his own struggle with sin, concluded that man was so far depraved as to be incapable of implementing his move toward God. (Theorist have a field day speculating about man before the fall, etc., but we are concerned with Joe Dokes, now.) We believe God made man capable of saying "Yes" or No to His will; that he has consistently dealt with man on this basis (before and after the "fall"), and that Jesus Christ is freely offered as the remedy for sin to all mankind, effective to each particular individual only as that individual wills, consents, and seeks to obey. (We believe "faith" is man's response to divine evidence; not some "work of grace" that God puts into man irrespective of man's will.) God's sovereignty will be vindicated in final judgment, when man must answer for his "No" --- but for now, the choice is up to man. This is not equivalent to man's saving himself, for "all have sinned and come short...." (Rom. 3:23); and can stand free of guilt only through forgiveness, made possible by Jesus Christ. Christ is the means of redemption, but it is man's choice as to whether he uses that means or refuses it. There is no human element in the provision of means of redemption, but we must meet the divinely ordained condition. This is not a question of what God could do, but a question of what His word says he will do; and that is all we can know about it.

Concepts of Adamic sin that deprive man of this capability; of the direct operation of God's Spirit in man's conversion; of the "enabling" indwelling Spirit in his understanding of the word, or Christian life; or any other concept that negates the free agency which God saw fit to give man; is an affront to God's revelation of His will in His word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.XIV No.XII Pg.3
February 1978

Overemphasing Baptism?

Dan S. Shipley

Those holding to the New Testament pattern are often accused of placing too much emphasis on baptism. As might be expected, such charges come mostly from those who view baptism as optional and unrelated to salvation. If they are right; if baptism has no bearing on one's salvation, then it deserves no emphasis at all. If God does not require it, then neither should men. In the words of a popular creed book, "...whatsoever is not read therein (the Holy Scriptures, dss) nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation". To that all should wholeheartedly agree, whether applied to baptism or any other subject.

First, where did anyone get the notion that baptism is non-essential? Not from Jesus, that's for sure! The One claiming all authority commands the apostles to go, teach - and baptize (Matt. 28:18-20). Jesus says, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved..." (Mk. 16:16). Undeniably, He links baptism with salvation! Who is it that Jesus says, "shall be saved"? It is "He that believeth and is baptized"! Surely, anything so vitally connected with salvation by our Lord cannot be overemphasized.

Since men never learned baptism to be non-essential from Jesus, did they learn it from His apostles? Certainly not from Peter! As one divinely guided into all the truth (Jn. 16:13), he tells a believing Jewish audience to, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.." (Acts 2:38).

Like his Lord, Peter associates baptism with salvation ("remission of sins"), just as he does in 1 Pet. 3:21. In Acts 10:48 we read of his commanding Cornelius and others to be baptized. No, you won't get the idea from Peter, that baptism is unnecessary.

And neither will you get it from the apostle Paul. In his own baptism he was told by God's messenger to, "arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16). Paul submitted to baptism with the understanding that his past sins would be washed away in so doing. No wonder, then, he can later write that we have "died with Christ"; that we have been "buried with him by baptism" from which we arise to "walk in newness of life" (Rom. 6:4-11). In Gal. 3:27 he writes, "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ". If, as Paul states, men put on Christ in baptism, then how can baptism be optional for those who seek salvation? So, it was not from Christ, not from His apostles, and not from anywhere in the Bible that men have learned that baptism is unnecessary to one's salvation.

Further, men will not learn from these sources that baptism is a "one-step-to-heaven" process or that it somehow secures the eternal favor of God. The Bible knows of no meritorious baptism wherein one earns God's favor, nor one that is anything less than an expression of faith. Scriptural baptism does deserve the emphasis and place God gives it in His word. To some, that will be excessive. It makes more sense to give less emphasis to concepts of men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.XIV No.XII Pg.4
February 1978
An Alms-Giving Principle
Robert F. Turner

In Phil. 4:12 Paul said he knew how to be full, and to be hungry; how to abound, and to suffer need. These are opposite extremes -- conditions poles apart — and they imply a mid-position of "just enough" where there is neither an over-supply nor a lick. In fact this level of sufficiency is the norm, from which abundance or want must be determined. We thus have the CONDITIONS OF

IN WANT SUFFICIENCY ABUNDANCE Now, this mid-position of sufficiency is sufficiency for what? There must be an answer to this; a limitation; or else there could be no such thing as "abundance." One "abounds" when he has more than enough for something — and the obvious answer is — more than enough to meet his own need. "Sufficiency" is therefore measured by the basic requirements of a unit; that which is necessary for self-maintenance. As respects the biological needs of an organism "in the fasting and resting state, when it uses just enough energy to maintain vital cellular activity, respiration, and circulation" this is called basal metabolism. Technical, but graphic.

An "independent" unit is NOT DEPENDENT upon any other unit for its existence and functioning. As the dictionary says, it is "self-sufficient." "Having a competency; not dependent for support or supplies; not subordinate; etc., etc." All of these conditions are measured on the basis of self-maintenance. How ridiculous it would be to say one was "in want" because he couldn't supply world needs. Want is measured against sufficiency.

A man comes to you with a tale of woe. He says he is "in want" or need. This calls for "alms" on your part — if you believe his plea to be valid. If he lacks food, clothing, shelter — or other necessities for self-maintenance you judge him "in need." But if he has more than enough to care for his responsibilities in such matters, you do not consider him a proper recipient for "alms." The principle is so well known that I feel a bit foolish for giving it this much space.

But churches also have "abundance" or are "in want," as the members of a church (who supply the collective treasury) are in want or abound. (See 2 Cor. 8:14; Rom. 15:25-f.; 1 Cor. 16:13). No less so than in our first illustration, this too implies that the local church may have a sufficiency, and that its want or abundance must be determined by measurement from that. An independent church is NOT DEPENDENT upon others for oversight, support or supplies, etc. It "has a competency" to manage its own affairs and supply all support necessary for its functions. It becomes a legitimate subject for "alms" only when it lacks the ability to meet basic needs (those necessary for self-maintenance). How could it be otherwise?

Judgments may differ as to the condition of the man asking alms, or the church asking alms; but we can be one in our understanding of the principle. An individual, or a church, that has become dependent (unable to meet basic needs for self-maintenance) can be legitimately supplied with alms, to the point of restoring independency (self-sufficiency), and no further.

Vol.XIV No.XII Pg.5
February 1978
Its Relation To Church Independence
Robert F. Turner

Now, what are the basic needs of a local church? What must it have for "self- maintenance;" in the absence of which it is "in want," or having more, it has an "abundance"? Suppose I reply that I do not know — that I can not specify such limitations? Would this change the fact that such basic needs must exist? As surely as "want" and "abundance" exist (2 Cor. 8:14), so must a level of "sufficiency." It is an indisputable characteristic of all independently functioning units.

If you believe a local church is an independent functional unit —- that one church alone can, without assistance of any kind from any other local church, do all that God requires of it — then you believe it can have a sufficiency, and function acceptably according to its ability. It is my firm conviction that this is exactly what God intended every local church to do. I am further convinced that He authorized no organizational structure for the church other than this.

But, did not a plurality of churches send assistance to the Jerusalem saints? They certainly did, and its reception (in the first instance) by the "elders" (Acts 11:30) justifies the conclusion that it could be sent to a local church as a unit. It is clearly shown, however, that assistance was being sent to "needy" saints, or to those in a condition of "want" (Rom. 15:25-f.; 2 Cor. 8:14). That sent was called "alms" (Acts 24:17). The recipient (viewing the church as a whole) had less than a "sufficiency," and had therefore become dependent. This condition was not expected to be permanent (2 Cor. 8:14). When their "want" was supplied, they would again have a sufficiency, and again be independent as respects supplies. In fact, future abundance was anticipated, so that they could help others.

Could not a very poor church send alms to others? Yes indeed (2 Cor. 8: 2-f.; Mk. 12:44), but this only shows their liberality, and does not alter the principle I am discussing. Paul did not expect such (2 Cor. 8: 3,5). Can a church be in spiritual want? Well, can it have "spiritual" sufficiency? This can be a semantic "trap" asked to avoid applications. Alms are given only when they are needed to gain or restore self-sufficiency. Is a meeting place a "need" that could be supplied by others? In most cases I believe a church can supply its own place of meeting; and I fear many appeals are made on the basis of "want" as a verb (i.e., desire) rather than a condition of want (noun). It is conceivable (to me) that a meeting place might be a genuine need. But if you are following my thinking here, you realize that I am asking all to agree to the principle involved, viz., that scriptures authorize supplying only a church that lacks self-sufficiency — that has become dependent due to its condition of "want." If we agreed on this principle, even though we might differ in judgment as to the need, we would be acting in accord.

Advocates of the sponsoring church arrangement ignore this principle, so essential to congregational independence. They apply "alms" scriptures as if they concerned the pooling of supplies in the hands of a rich church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Union Versus Unity

Robert F. Turner

Ponder these words from "A Short History of the Baptists," by Henry C. Vedder; p. 45-46.

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

"So soon as the churches founded by the apostles lost sight of the truth that man must be born again, and that this new birth is always associated with personal faith in Christ, the way was prepared for all that followed.

In the earliest Christian literature, after the apostolic period, we may trace three tendencies toward degeneration, all proceeding from this common cause, developing along lines parallel at first, yet distinct, afterward converging, and at length constituting a logical, consistent whole. These are: the idea of a Holy Catholic Church, the ministry a priesthood, and sacramental grace.

Jesus prayed that his disciples might be one, and his apostles taught that the church is the temple of the Holy Ghost, and therefore both one and holy. Early in the second century however, these ideas assumed a different form from that of the New Testament. The churches were conceived of as forming together one Church, not spiritual merely, but visible, extending throughout the world, and therefore catholic (i.e., universal).

Persecution doubtless had much to do with emphasizing in the minds of Christians their unity, but an exaggerated notion of the value of formal oneness came to prevail until schism was reckoned the deadliest of sins a Christian could commit. The preservation of outward unity thus becoming the paramount consideration, it followed that whatever error a majority in the church might come to hold, the minority must accept it, rather than be guilty of this deadly sin of schism. (Emphasis mine-- and I would like to request that you reread these statements carefully. rft) This ideal of a Holy Catholic Church, outside of which was no salvation, unity with which was necessary to unity with Christ, prepared the way for all the Corruptions that were introduced."

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

In our own time we have known brethren who seemed to be more concerned about maintaining union (oneness in an external way — meeting in the same building) than in developing commonness of purpose and spirit in the hearts of true saints. To say or write such a thing is almost like questioning motherhood, and yet it was Jesus who said, "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law" (Matt. 10:34-35).

True oneness will be found among brethren who are alike determined to put God first; who love the praise of God more than the praise of men. It is the result or product of unity of spirit, but never a substitute for it. When union with men becomes more important to us than conscientious service of God, we have come to love men more than we love God. True saints will never forget, God is a majority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.XIV No.XII Pg.7
February 1978

?You Know What?

Robert F. Turner

Dear brother:

Were the Apostles baptized in water on the day of Pentecost? B.B.

Reply:

If they were, the record does not reveal it. I do not know more about what happened on the first Pentecost following the resurrection of Christ than the records reveal (Acts 2:) and I am still trying to learn that.

This is, in reality, the age-old question concerning the validity of baptism received prior to Pentecost. It seems safe to assume that the apostles had been baptized during that time. Surely they did not "reject the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of Him" (Lu. 7:29-30). It seems they were baptizing others (Jn. 4:2). They were the "them" (understood) to whom the three thousand converts were "added" (Acts 2:41). I see no reason to believe that disciples baptized prior to Pentecost would need to repeat this act afterwards. Their need was simply to "believe on him which should come after...that is on Christ Jesus" (Acts 19:4).

The failure of disciples at Ephesus to know concerning the coming of the Holy Spirit (Pentecost and afterwards) would indicate they had been taught by someone "knowing only the baptism of John" (Acts 18:25). In the New dispensation (which began on Pentecost:) their understanding was inadequate. Unlike those earlier baptisms, which were submission in the light of all necessary information; these at Ephesus had acted upon an improper and inadequate basis. This rebaptism does not argue the same for Apostles. Mr. Turner:

Why do you persist in treating the baptism of Acts 2:38 as if it was water baptism, when Peter clearly promised Holy Ghost baptism? A Friend.

Friend:

I suppose you feel am reading into the passage that which suits my religious background, or the likes. Can you possibly believe that you could do such a thing? Read Acts 2: again.

Some asked, "What shall we do?" They were told, "repent, and be baptized..." These were conditions that must be met before they would receive "the gift of the Holy Spirit." I do not believe this last expression refers to H. S. baptism, but if it did it would be a promise, to be received only after repentance and — baptism.

The baptism commanded was that which the great commission authorized (Mk. 16:15-1G). The apostles had been told to "tarry ...in Jerusalem, until endued with power" (Lu. 24:47-49), and then they were to "go, teach, baptize" (Matt. 28:19). Now men can go, teach, and baptize — with water; but men can not baptize with the Holy Spirit. The concept of Holy Spirit baptism in Acts 2:38 fits neither baptism as a command to be obeyed, nor as an act to be performed by the teachers, and to which the taught are to submit.

Pursue the matter further. Philip preached Jesus Christ, and baptized (Acts 8:5,12,35-39), as the Lord commanded. And he baptized in water. It could be that you persist in "seeing" something in Acts 2:38 that neither Luke nor the Holy Spirit put there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.XIV No.XII Pg.8
February 1978

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

Our printer, Bob Craig, has a number of gum machines, which people steal, break, and try to cheat. Bob often must take one apart to remove "slugs" that have been used instead of coins. When making one such repair he found the machine had been cheated with a religious medallion, inscribed: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods."

A lady of our acquaintance gave a hungry begging woman four quarts of home-canned peaches. That afternoon her husband came home from the office with — the peaches. He had bought them from a poor woman who had nothing left to sell but some peaches she had picked and canned.

It is difficult in this amoral, or immoral society, to avoid a cynicism that is harmful to a benevolent spirit. Even when we accept self-sacrifice in order to serve others, a certain caution is necessary (2 Thes. 3: 10). Sad to say, some brethren use world conditions as their excuse for unfaithfulness — as if adding another sinner to the pot would help matters.

One brother learned that another brother was stealing funds from the company for which he worked. So the first man "quit the church" saying the dishonest man was to blame. Who else was being dishonest in such a case? It hurts me to learn of church members who have been less than blameless in their business and social relations; and all the more when I realize the adverse effect this will have on the cause of Christ (2 Sam. 12:14; Rom. 2:21-29). But am I better than they if my God-allegiance can be nullified by another's weakness??

Have we become "Christians" only because our peers considered it the "right" thing to do:' because an earlier society endorsed "religion"? If so, we will not long endure in the present social conditions. Some even use statistics on homosexuality, adultery, child abuse, etc., to excuse their own conduct. Such statistics only prove we live in a rotten society. We sometimes hear, "If I am going to Hell for this I may as well do other things I want to do." That let the cat out of the bag. Those who believe in God, and judgment, and eternal punishment — I mean really believe — are saying, "I had better quit the first sin, straighten up, and pray the Lord to forgive me."

If this world's sin can be a legitimate excuse for sin on our part, why did we leave the world in the first place? Or did we??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.XV No.I Pg.1
March 1978

Paul Was No Pansy

Robert F. Turner

When converted, "straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God" (Acts 9: 20). He "increased in strength, and confounded the Jews" (v. 22); so they sought to kill him (v.23). How's that for a beginning?

He and Barnabas "had no small dissention and disputation" with Judaizing teachers (15:2); and when he went to Jerusalem about this matter he stood his ground against "those who seemed to be somewhat" (Gal. 2:1-10). Shortly thereafter he "withstood (Peter) to the face, because he was to be blamed" (v. 11). In a matter of judgment his contention with Barnabas about John Mark was so sharp "they departed asunder" (Acts 15:37-f), although this did not hinder his regard for them both as saints (1 Cor. 9:6; 2 Tim. 4:11). There's a man for you. His spirit was "stirred" by idolatry, and he "disputed" with his adversaries (Acts 17:16-17). Yet, he retained a sense of propriety, and at times he ceased to plea, saying, "Your blood be upon your own heads" (18:6; 28:2428). He shows us one may be intent and firm without losing balance. Paul was an independent man with a strong sense of justice. He refused to leave prison quietly, but said, "They have beaten us openly uncondemned ... let them ... fetch us out" (Acts 16:37). He labored with his own hands to support himself (20:33), yet strongly argued his right to be sup ported by others (1 Cor. 9:6-f). He did not hesitate to claim and use legal protection (Acts 22:25; 25:9-11), and spoke sharply against an abuse of law (23:3), while showing respect for the "office" of dignities (23:5). On one occasion he seems to have used a "debate" trick to divide the opposition (23:6); but later acknowledges this may have been out of line (24:20-21). He spoke the truth without compromise or fear, as is seen from his sermon before Felix (Acts 24:24-f). Paul comes through as a rugged individual, with strong convictions and deep sense of purpose. But he leaned on a source of strength greater than his own. "Be not afraid, but speak;" "My grace is sufficient for thee" (18: 9-11; 2 Cor. 12:7-9). If the apostle Paul needed these encouragements, Oh Lord, in thy way, what about me??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...