Plain Talk

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XII No.I Pg.6
March 1975
Vedder, On Mclean
Robert F. Turner

We propose a series of quotes from Archibald McLean, 1733 -1812; for their inherent value, and because they demonstrate the kind of scriptural exegesis and thinking that fathered the Restoration movement. But first, a quote from A Short History of the Baptists by H. C. Vedder, pp. 272-3, about McLean.

—————————————

The other church owes its origin to Archibald McLean, who also began his career in the Scotch church and then became a Glasite, having been at one time a member of Mr. Carmichaels church. Not long after his former pastor, he also became a convert to Baptist views, and sought baptism on personal profession of faith...

Archibald McLean almost deserves to be called the founder of the Scotch Baptist churches. He was born in 1733, received the rudiments of a classical education, from which he afterwards advanced by his own exertions to considerable learning, and became a printer at Glasgow. He had in early life been much influenced by the preaching of Whitefield, and was finally constrained himself to become a preacher. He was even more influential by pen than by voice, and his collected writings in six volumes are still a monument to his industry and solidity of mind.

His membership for a time in a Glasite or Sandeinanian church had important consequences. It was the special endeavor of that peculiar sect to return as far as possible to apostolic simplicity, and to make the churches of today an exact reproduction of those of the New Testament. From many of the Sandemanian notions McLean never freed himself, and the Baptist churches of Scotland have perpetuated not a few of these notions, such as insisting on having a plurality of elders in every church, on the weekly celebration of the Lords Supper, and the like.

Later investigations of the New Testament period have disclosed the fact, apparently not suspected by McLean and men of his time, that no single form of organization was common to all the churches of that period, and that it is unsafe to assert a practice found in a single church to be necessarily the norm for all other churches through all time.

————————————

Note — the later investigations could not claim to be of the N. T. but of that period. A plurality of elders in every church is certainly not based on practice found in a single church (see Acts 14:23; 15:2; 20:17, 28; etc.); and the partaking of the Lords Supper every first day of the week, derives from 1 Cor. 11:24-26 as well as from Acts 20:7, and more than one church is under consideration. As seen later in Vedders history (pp. 341-f.), he was not too fond of Speak Where the Bible Speaks, and Be Silent Where the Bible is Silent principles. All the more reason to investigate the writings of Archibald McLean, a pioneer in such thinking.

Beginning next month, D.V., we will publish a series of excerpts from McLeans studies in the Great Commission. Look for them!

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XII No.I Pg.7
March 1975
?You Know What?
Robert F. Turner

Dear bro. Turner:

Some churches are having a Youth Church — that is while they have regular worship the children have a separate worship of their own. Is such a thing scriptural? Mrs. F. L.

Reply:

Young people mature enough to need and obey the gospel are as much members of the congregation as anyone, and should assemble with the rest of the saints for worship. When fellowship is made more narrow (youth) or more wide (non-saints) than those who walk with Him in light (1 Jn. 1:6-f) someone is claiming to know more than God about what is a good thing.

(2) Is there any way a Childrens Home can be run by the church and be scriptural?

The church does not run Homes. Home management and care, is a function of parents (Eph. 6:1-4; 1 Tim. 5:8, 11-14 Titus 2:4-5). A man must rule well his own house (1 Tim. 3:4) before his appointment; as a part of his domestic function and not in his capacity as bishop in a church.

When a home unit becomes dependent (unable to supply its own needs) the church may, under certain circumstances, give alms (1 Tim. 5:5, 16 Acts 4:34-f; 6:1-4). But there is nothing in the scriptures to justify setting up a general welfare institution, calling it a Home, then asking many churches to fund it for seeking and caring for general welfare needs. Such is no more a home than a city restaurant with a Home Cooking sign. Dont be deceived by terminology. General welfare is the responsibility of the individual — before he becomes a saint, and afterwards. It is a humanitarian obligation, ours by virtue of our relation to our fellow-creatures (Lu. 10:29-37 Rom. 1:28-31; i.e., even the Gentiles, without the codified law, were to be merciful). Becoming a Christian intensifies such obligations (Col. 3:17-25), but does not make them the work of the local church. There is little use to write more, as this is enough for those who wish to study the matter; and others closed their eyes two paragraphs back.

(3) What are the works of James 2: 24? Are these mens works?

It seems you are confusing this context with that of Rom. 4:2-f. James is speaking of works or fruits of faith -- the inevitable result of our absolute trust in God; while Paul is speaking of the result of mans ill-placed trust in himself. (Hope you read carefully last months article on Rom. 9.) There is no contradiction in Paul and James. The context is far from the same, hence the words must not be given an interchangeable use.

We are saved by faith in Christ — a faith which submits our will to His in humble obedience. In fact, the promises of the gospel are at the point so to speak, of this faith-produced obedience (Acts 2:38-42 Heb. 5:9; Acts 22:16). In our refusal to obey we evidence a lack of the kind of faith that saves. (See Gal. 5:6).

Rom. 4: refers to a system of works or law, where justification is possible only through sinless perfection.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XII No.I Pg.8

March 1975

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

When Vivian and I built a house in Burnet we called it Rocky Roost, II and tried to make it as natural as possible. (Thats the in thing, you know.) We used rocks to line a driveway, and to bound a mini-desert section. The carport is hooked around an ivy-covered spanish oak, and senesia and wild algarita bushes serve as the shrubs. Scorpions in the house are a nuisance (especially in shoes), and Vivian insisted I kill the rattlesnake in the flower bed; but trying to keep the lawn is the Jonah.

By design, it is a beautiful green oasis, well trimmed, in the midst of the wilds of nature. I thought the contrast would be striking. Actually, it is a weed patch surrounded by weed patches. The red ants that carried off my expensive grass seed must have brought grass burrs in exchange. We try to chop and hoe the weeds while we fertilize and water the grass, but apparently things are getting a bit confused. Now it seems our best out is to brag about our wild flowers and cut them just often enough to get through to the door. We are learning that au natural and well dressed are two conditions, oft incompatible.

Hearing rumors that we were untidy prompted a profound philosophical lesson from our weeds. Careful research reveals that weeds and loose talk are of the same genus, if not of the same species. This is the way they work.

Weeds, and gossip, seem to sense a couldnt care less attitude, and will not grow well under such conditions. They thrive on just enough attention to challenge them — not quite enough to root them out. You admire the flowers so you leave them for a time, and they go to seed. A less-than-fatal weedkiller does something for their ego, and they work overtime to out-do you. Pour oil on a few big ones, and they reappear as a lot of little ones; that spread into areas once cleared. Like sand spurs, if you clip their tops they make burrs close to the ground, ready to mature soon after the mower is past. Burrs must be cleaned from your boots regularly or they will infect other areas, including your living room carpet.

Eventually we must learn that an air-conditioned brick house is not natural, and that to survive we must control both nature and tongue. Living in keeping with the nature of God is the kind of ecology that will prepare our soul for heaven.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XII No.II Pg.1

April 1975

Things Are Bad, But--

Robert F. Turner

The J.W.s, radio prophets, and other cultists, rely heavily upon our tendency to agree with pessimistic appraisals of current events, and dire predictions for the future. Shock the next prophet of doom who comes knocking at your door. When he begins to talk about crime rates remind him that much of this is the side effect of our emphasis upon individual freedom. Ask him if he wants to go back to the serf and feudal lord system. He will say, But our morals are so low — and you can say that national morals have a way of swinging up and down — that saints are in but not of the world. Anyhow, things are nothing like as bad as in the Middle Ages. If he thinks our government is corrupt cite a few cases from the deterioration of the Roman Empire.

While he is staggering, tell him how the early Teutons would open a mans belly, tie one end of his intestine to a post, and make him circle it until he unwound himself. (All in fun of course — real good joke.) If he hasnt fainted, tell him about the tortures of the Inquisition, when governments used trial by thumb screws, rack, and fire. A man was guilty as charged unless he could drink hot oil without harm, or walk through fire. Our courts are better than that. Things are always bad enough to challenge our efforts to improve. An honest look at ourselves may show us where particular attention is needed. But do not lend your wail to doom criers who use this wedge to open your heart for their brand of medicine. Ask the man who thinks times are so bad, how he is getting along. It is amazing how bad the whole can be even while the parts are prospering. Maybe the past is better because it is past. And as your dark cloud gathers his tracts to leave, sing him this song:

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

Granddad, viewing earths worn cogs,

Said things were going to the dogs.

His granddad, in his house of logs,

Said things were going to the dogs.

His granddad, in old Irelands bogs,

Said things were going to the dogs.

His granddad, in his old skin togs,

Said things were going to the dogs.

—CHORUS—

So theres one thing I have to state,

The dogs have had a good long wait

[RETIREDFAN1]

No.II Pg.2
April 1975
"Ye Are All Brethren"
Robert F. Turner

Perhaps no single doctrinal principle has more greatly effected Reformation and Restoration, than the priesthood of believers, yet many of our brethren today scarcely know the expression. As we read much of mans struggle against ecclesiastical hierarchy, in preparation for our historical series (p.4), we wished all our readers could follow the story line by line instead of having to take our boiled down version of it. And we decided to use this page for a brief scripture study on the subject.

Isaiah prophesied the redeemed of the new covenant would be priests of Jehovah (61:1-6, 66:18-21), and Jesus relates that day to His day (Lu. 4:17-21). Physical Israel was called a kingdom of priests (Ex. 19:6), and although the people apparently forfeited this right (Ex. 20:19 Deut. 5:23-f), the language is applied anew to spiritual Israel, Gods people of the New Covenant. In Heb. 7: Christ is declared to be our High Priest after the order of Melchisedec — who was both King and Priest. Then 1 Pet. 2:5 says that Christians are a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. As if to clinch the matter, the 9th. verse of that chapter says we are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people. The priesthood is both and royal, conforming to our High Priest who is both Priest and King.

The Christians life is described in terms of priestly service (Rom. l2:1). In Rev. 1:5 and 5:10 saints are called priests and kings or a kingdom, priests (A.S.) which is the language of Ex. 19:6. A general priesthood (all saints) is well established in the N. T., and we have now but to note some consequences of this truth.

Since all saints are priests, the church has no clergy-laity distinctions. Christ said, Matt. 23:8, One is your Master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren. Concerning high positions and arbitrary rule, Christ said, It shall not be so among you (Matt. 20:26). A direct and immediate relationship exists between saints and God, through Christ (1 Tim. 2:5), and no other mediator is needed. The overseers have a function to perform, but are not officers in any hierarchal sense. (Study the Greek text of 1 Tim. 3:1). Gods church has no official administrators of baptism, the Lord s Supper, etc.; nor does the church have to validate such matters. The J.W.s concept of 144,000 special elect is a contradiction of the general priesthood principle. And on the positive side, purity and obligation to serve is demanded of each saint.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XII No.II Pg.3
April 1975
Relative Righteousness
Dan S. Shipley

When asked by a stranger whether he considered his wife attractive, a certain rancher replied, Compared to what? Many are inclined to measure their standing with God in much the same fashion. By some standard most justify themselves as being good enough to get by spiritually. Honest and discerning men will recognize this popular practice to be wrong for several reasons.

In the first place, what pleases self does not necessarily please God. It would appear unnecessary to point this out were it not for the widespread notion ion that personal preference ought to be respected on a par with divine revelation. Pauls preaching gave emphasis to how men ought to walk and to please God (1 Thss. 4:1). This principle is controverted by the subjective philosophy of moderns who put the emphasis on what pleases the individual. The fundamental question to be resolved is not whether my religion satisfies me, but whether it pleases God. With Paul, our aim must be to be well pleasing unto Him (2 Cor. 5:9).

Secondly, pleasing God involves more than just being better than someone else. Paul wrote of certain ones who commended themselves as they measured and compared themselves by themselves. He concludes them to be without understanding (2 Cor. 10:12). As the self-righteous Pharisee of Lk. 18, most can find a despised publican with which to compare and exonerate himself. What is the consolation in a relative righteousness that sees self as being better than another sinner if I am less than God wants me to be? Some seem to take delight in finding fault with Christians — as though the Christians sins could somehow excuse his own. Someone (Abraham Lincoln, I think) has said in this connection, Short men do not grow taller by cutting off the legs of tall men. Is anyone complimented in being as good as the hypocrite in the church? It is a poor system of justification that can only find credit for self by discrediting others.

A similar, but more subtle method of self-justification is the appeal to a high moral standard. It goes further than just being better than some; it prides itself in having higher moral standards than most and may even include being a loyal worker in some church group. Surely, some would think, this is good enough to take me to heaven! But its only the same misconception in different wrappings. Self is still Judge and men still the standard. We must look higher.

True righteousness means being right with God and is possible only on His terms. Through faith man subjects himself to Gods will (Matt. 7:21) as set forth in the gospel. Therein is Gods plan for making man righteous (Rom. 1:17). As man expresses his faith in repentance and baptism (Mk. 16:17; Acts 2:38), he is pardoned by Gods grace and thus becomes a servant of righteousness (Rom. 6:17,18). Remaining righteous means doing righteousness (1 Jn. 3:7) to the best of our abilities and seeking Gods forgiveness wherein we fall short. Entrusting my soul to what I think may be right is wrong. Doing what God says can never be wrong.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XII No.II Pg.4
April 1975
General Priesthood
Robert F. Turner

In our first article tracing the background of the American restoration we discussed the work of Erasmus and Wyclif in making Gods word, available, and encouraging common sense interpretation of it. Their 14th. and 15th. century work seems far removed from our day, yet it had to precede our reform or restoration efforts. It gave the studious laity a better grasp of truth than that of tradition-bound clergymen and led to a reaffirmation of the scriptural principle of the priesthood of all Christians.

The loss of universal priesthood in apostasy had to be reversed. The historian Philip Schaff says priesthood of believers is one of three fundamental principles of the Reformation, and that its true development lies in the direction of general education, in congregational self-support and self-government, and in the intelligent co-operation of the laity with the ministry in all good works.

In England, by 1374, John Wyclif was opposing the secular authority of the pope. To counteract the influence of the friars, in 1380 he taught and sent forth a body of itinerant evangelists, apparently including laymen. They were condemned by a Catholic Bishop for preaching without episcopal or papal authorization. But the common people heard them gladly, admiring their independence, devotion to conscience, solid religious commons sense, and sound exposition of the Gospel. Wyclifs Civil Lordship says everyone in the state of grace has a real lordship over the whole universe; are reciprocally lords and servants. The fires of liberty were being lit.

Wyclifs teachings spread to Holland; and John Huss of Bohemia became chief defender of these views as early as 1402. He struck at the foundations of the hierarchical system, exalted conscience above papal council as interpreter of truth, and made the Scriptures the final source of appeal. His zeal to preach the word, serving Christ before men, resulted in his being burned at the stake, 1415. A century later Luther began his reform, independent of. Wyclif and Huss, yet sowing in ground they had plowed. He used the death of Huss as an example of an ecumenical council that erred.

Martin Luthers Ninety-five Thesis protested the abuses of indulgence in the Roman church, but when these led to a public debate with John Eck (in 1519) it became apparent that he had struck at the center of the medieval—ecclesiastical system; at its ideas of priestly mediation which denied the right of every believer to immediate entrance into the very presence of God. (Shepherd, p. 101). Luther ordained a deacon (1525), and even consecrated a bishop (1542). These startling departures from Episcopal Succession were crippled, however, by his own assumption of episcopal prerogative, and ties with the state.

But by now the fire of individual freedom to approach God — the priesthood of believers — was a cardinal principle of Reformation. It is shameful that we who have gained so much-at such great cost —- rarely discuss this important truth, and will allow violations of its principle to go unchallenged. Read carefully our discussion of priesthood, p.2, this issue.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XII No.II Pg.5
April 1975
Figurative Language
Robert F. Turner

One of the most common ways of teaching the unknown is by comparison with the known. This is the basis for figures of speech such as the simile, parable, and various metaphors. But a comparison is limited by the maker and he alone has the right to establish its use or application. If I say of a track star, He runs like a deer I do not mean he bounds on all fours, browses, or drops his antlers like a deer. But in Bible interpretation (?) such absurdities are common. Saints are called children of God, so some conclude the aspects of the physical relation must be found in them. They think we must have a pre-natal state, and once a child, always.

The point of comparison intended in a figure is usually indicated by the context (this man receiveth sinners) or is stated (likewise joy shall be in heaven — Lu. 15:2,7), and is never left to the fancies of others. Bullinger, in his introduction to Figures of Speech, said No one is at liberty to exercise any arbitrary power in their use. All that art can do is to ascertain the laws to which nature has subjected them. There is no room for private opinion, neither can speculation concerning them have any authority. Again, It is used for a definite purpose and with a specific object.

There is no reason to believe that figurative language in one context must, in another context, be used in exactly the same way. Christ used the keep and sheepfold in two ways, one immediately following the other. He was the door of the sheepfold, and he was the good shepherd (Jn. 10:9f). Born of God may refer to the initial entrance into Gods family (Jn. 3:5, 1 Cor. 4:15, Phile. 10, 1 Pet. 1:3) or it may indicate the sustained relation of those who continue to be influenced by the seed (1 Pet. 1:23, 1 Jn. 2:29, 3:9, 4:7, 5:1-4). We become children of God, but we must continue to show God-like characteristics in order to be His children (see Jn. 8:37-47, Matt. 5:44-45).

Those who ask, How can one be unborn? make a like mistake with Nicodemus (Jn. 3:4) in that they fail to see the metaphorical nature of the matter, and expect the figure to have all points of the literal. Shank, in Life in the Son (p. 90f) lists three essential differences between physical and spiritual birth. (1) One effects inception of life in toto, but the other is only a transition from one mode of life to another. (2) In physical birth the subject has no prior knowledge and gives no consent, but these must be present in spiritual birth. (3) In the first the individual receives a life independent of his parents. They may die, but he lives on. Such is not the case in the spiritual birth. One becomes partaker of the life and nature of Him who begets. (Shank has a chapter on the subject, well worth reading and study.)

In debate one may answer anothers illustration by extension — and prove his opponent inept at figure making. Even here, logical consequences are not chargeable unless avowed. But God makes no improper figures, and we had better accept His comparisons for the point indicated — and leave it exactly where He left it. Period!

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XII No.II Pg.6
April 1975
Not "Scotch" About Water
Robert F. Turner

First of a series of quotes from Archibald McLean, Scotch Baptist, re. The Great Commission, publ. 1786. We will give source in next issue.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Baptize (Baptidzo) is Greek word which our translators have only anglicized, but never translated, when expressive of this ordinance. It signifies properly to dip, plunge, or immerse; and that in distinction from every other mode of washing, as well as from sprinkling or pouring, which are expressed in the original by other words. This sense of the word is admitted by all the Pedobaptists of any note; and no instance has yet been produced, either from scripture or any ancient Greek writer, where it must necessarily bear another sense.

Neither the words, pour nor sprinkle, make sense when substituted in the place of baptize; for the original expression is always baptizing in or into a thing. For instance, en or eis, in or into Jordan; in water, in the Holy Ghost; into the name, into Moses, into Christ, into his death, (Matt. 3:6,11; 28:19; 1 Cor. 10:2; Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3) As, therefore, baptism is always represented as being performed in or into a thing, it must be immersion, and not sprinkling or pouring; for persons cannot be sprinkled or poured into water though they may be dipped or immersed into it.

The English reader may be fully satisfied from other circumstances, that baptism is immersion. Jesus, having been baptized in Jordan, went up out of the water, which shows he had been down into it. After Philip and the eunuch had already come unto a certain water, we are told they went both down into the water, that he might baptize him; and when this was performed, they came up out of the water. John required a large quantity of water to baptize in, and so we find his using the river Jordan for that purpose. He also baptized in Enon near to Salem, for this very reason.... (Matt. 3:16; Acts 8:36-39; Mk. 1 :5; Jn. 3:23). Now there was no need for much water, or for going down into it, in order to pour or sprinkle a little of it on the face; but these circumstances were absolutely necessary in order to dip or immerse the whole body, which therefore, must have been the action originally performed, as all the judicious and candid Pedobaptists have acknowledged.

The allusion made to baptism as the sign of a burial and resurrection clearly point as the manner of administering it. Believers are said to be baptized into the death of Christ, to be buried with him by baptism, and therein also to be risen with him, Now, in what ever sense Christians are buried and risen with Christ, it cannot be in baptism, if there is no exhibition of a burial and resurrection in that ordinance; but if baptism is a burial in, and resurrection from water, then the sign strikingly corresponds with the thing signified, and the allusion to it is pertinent and just. Upon the whole, therefore it is clear, that the action enjoined is immersion; and that any other action is not merely a different mode of baptism, but a different thing altogether. It is not baptizing, and so not Christs institution.

[RETIREDFAN1]

April 1975
?You Know What?
Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

These questions arose as I read Are They Christians? Jan. 75, P.T.

The parable of the tares, where both righteous and erring are together in the church. 2. Only God in judgement day can sever the relationship of Father and child. 3. If Christians fall out of Christ, would they not have to be baptized to get in again? 4. As churches are groups of people, would this not condemn those innocent of presumptuous sin in a church? J.G.

Reply:

In Matt. 13:24-30, 36-42 the field is the world, not the church (v.38). Kingdom (v. 41) refers to Gods dominion over the world. Note that the servants are angels, and the reaping refers to final judgment, not to discipline administered by saints. (See Apr. 74 P.T. for further discussion.)

An acceptable relationship to God depends upon our being faithful (Rom. 11:22). Children soldiers servants branches are all figures of speech describing various aspects the same relationship to God. That which makes us a child, makes us a branch on the vine (Jn. 15:) and that which cuts off the branch cuts off the child. Extending figures beyond the use given them by the Holy Spirit is a sophistry of the devil.

Restoration does not require baptism, as shown by Acts 8:13, 18-24. In Christ is not a place literally; it is a realm or state, a condition, entered when we submit our will to His. The same thing (obedient faith) puts us into Christ both initially and subsequently. In Christ is a way or manner of life, like walking in the light (1 Jn. 1:5-f). This requires a submissive spirit, seeking, hungering and thirsting after righteousness. The keep on walking (present active) of 1 Jn. 1:7 is matched by keep on confessing of verse 9. Such statements are not intended for use in the childish game of what if I die while exceeding the speed limit? (Children, study 1 Jn. 3:8-9).

Churches are groups of saints — who agree to work as a team. Dont leave that out. Each member of the team has a responsibility in the affairs undertaken by that team. Each is accountable for what he agrees to support, encourage, and promote in the team activity (Rev. 2:20-f. 2 Jn. 11). This was in the context of Lipscombs statement, churches that change, add to, or take from the commandments of God are not churches of Christ.

We must quit this foolish concept of the church as a resting place where, with minds in neutral, we wait for our transfer to heaven. When some argue Christians in all denominations they invariably think of the details for coming to Christ (baptism) and give practically no thought to the need for walking in the light or continuing in Christ. We can concede that one may genuinely obey the gospel and, through lack of knowledge regarding work, worship, etc., associate with people who are grossly in error on these matters. But not for long. A Christian spirit seeks Bible authority for all Christ service, and finding none, will come out from among them. Others, failing to walk in light, lose fellowship with God.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XII No.II Pg.8

April 1975

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

I have just returned from a meeting on the west Texas plains, and if I dont kid the Texacans about something they will think I am unfriendly. If I fail to convince them I really am kidding, they become unfriendly. One thing about the high plains folk, they may not have trees, grass, running creeks or quiet peaceful days — but they have pride in their country.

They like to get up early — get going — and when I complained that it was dark and the moon was still high, they told me a dust storm was in progress and I was looking at the sun. They were just joking. When the storm came it got so dark we couldnt see the sun. I tried to take a shower but had to have mud chains to get out of the bath room. The sand came through closed doors, got into everything. It got into a closed suit-case, even into the refrigerator — into the eggs in the refrigerator. Prairie dogs sometime dig twenty feet up into the sand storm trying to get out of their hole. Now I suppose Ill get a letter accusing me of exaggeration. O.K., Ill cut that to ten feet.

Where else (in the U.S.) are meeting announcements sent to brethren 300 miles away—and they come. Distance is close out there (like northern dry cold is warm, even if it is cold). One fellow said he liked that country because it afforded such good fishing, 400 miles in any direction.

Dont think I am being unkind. I am just repeating stories they told on themselves. The crowning insult came to me — when I learned several families had moved there from Burnet.

But I suspect that much of the enthusiasm, drive, and will-to-win that characterizes the plains people come from their habit of overcoming hard knocks. Maybe the country made that type of people — or maybe that type is the kind that tackles such country. God welded the descendents of Abraham into a great nation through hardships and bondage — but he chose a man of great faith for their beginning. When we shy away from great challenge we may show an inner weakness, and avoid the very thing that could help us.

Chastening for righteousness sake will benefit saints who are exercised thereby (Heb. 12:). Lift up the hands which hang down is very good advice in any walk of life. We salute west Texans, and all others who allow hard knocks to boot them toward success.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XII No.III Pg.1
May 1975
The Remedy Vs The Label
Robert F. Turner

In Jesus prayer (Jn. 17:6) he said I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me. . . . Did he mean he had magnified the proper designation Jehovah or other like name? He explains himself in v. 8: For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely I that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me. (Cf. Jn. 12:49-50) Jesus manifested Gods name when he taught the truths of God — not by giving mystical significance to some label.

When Peter and John were brought before the Jewish authorities and questioned concerning the healing of the lame man (Acts 3:), they were asked: By what power, or by what name have ye done this? (4:7-f.)

Were they asked, What label did you use, what proper name did you call out? It seems clear from the question that if a proper name was under consideration at all, it was only to identify the source of the power by which the miracle was performed. Peter clearly understood this as shown by his reply. He said, If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole; be it known... that by the name of Jesus Christ... even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.

Note the emphasis I have given to show various expressions for the same thing. By what power, by what name, by what means, even by him. It was by him, the personal power or means of him, that the miracle was done. It was not by some magical use of a label or proper designation. The man was healed by Jesus Christ, the Son of God; not by what he was called.

And later, when Peter said, there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved, he is not talking about the terminology of the sign on a church building, but about the divine means by which man is saved from sin. We rightly speak of the followers of Christ as the church of Christ, but we find no magic formulae in the terms. We are just following the scriptural example of calling things what they are.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XII No.III Pg.2
May 1975
Walking Down The Aisle
Robert F. Turner

I wonder who led the invitation song in that memorable service at Jerusalem, the first Pentecost after Christs resurrection? It must have been truly inspiring to see 3,000 people walk down the aisle. I wonder who took their confession, and what he said. Imagine the time required to fill out the membership cards — and the baptismal certificates. Pity the one who had to cut stencils for the next Sundays bulletin — every name must be just right you know.

In recent years we have spawned a litter of tradition iconoclasts who delight in ridiculing and destroying such. This is not my purpose. With some reservations concerning baptismal certificates, I do not object to the above; but I would like to remind you that many church practices are dictated by tradition and custom rather than by scriptural authority. The iconoclast would tear down all that stands, on tradition alone (only to begin new traditions), while the traditional Church of Christer would hold on to the way we do it as if church practice was authoritative. I believe neither scripture nor common sense dictate these extremes.

Invitation songs and walking down the aisle are not essentials in the obedience of the gospel. It is good to acknowledge this and to check tendencies to be bound by such traditions. I first observed a shift from the old walk the aisle practice in announcements concerning brethren who had moved into a new community, and who desire to work and worship with us. Of course baptisms performed during the week, following home Bible studies, were so announced; and now and then the preacher announces that someone has confessed public sins and desires the prayers of the church — no walking down the aisle. Well, there could be justification for this. We should rejoice, as the angels rejoice, over a sinner that repents. We also rejoice that walking down the aisle is not considered a divine mandate for repentance, and baptism, etc.

But — a little bell is ringing, or maybe it is a little light flashing. In the case of sin that should be confessed before all (because of its nature), or in the spirit of confessing our faults one to another (Jas. 5:l6), walking down the aisle may be the most direct method of getting before the brethren. The timid person who would go forward to claim a material award would surely not hesitate to so claim his Saviour. And it seems to me that confessing Christ before men is intended to encourage others to confess Him. We may be short-circuiting the power of example. What think you?

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XII No.III Pg.3
May 1975
God's Point Of Pardon
Dan S. Shipley

The precise point at which God extends pardon to the sinner, though a highly controversial subject, must be faced up to and carefully considered by every  heaven seeker. The answer to this question involves every accountable being simply because all have sinned and need saving (Rom. 3:23). It is an answer that must be sought and understood personally. It will not do to just line up with the majority or even to follow in the family tradition. Here is something that involves eternal consequences; something that I must be absolutely sure about and something that cannot be left to mere chance or intuition. Since only God can pardon, only God can set forth the terms of pardon.

Therefore, the starting place is trust in God. Man must trust in God more than self and more than any mortal. This means having more confidence in what He says than in what I may feel, suppose or imagine. Truly trusting in God is to esteem all His precepts concerning all things to be right and allowing them to order our every step (Ps. 119:128,133). Without such faith none can please God, much less receive His pardon. Saving faith stems from what is written (Jn. 20:31) and cannot be lawfully expressed in ways that may seem right (Prov. 14:12). True faith is influenced by Divine testimony, not by human testimonials. To rely upon feelings and experiences as proof of pardon is to walk by sight and not by faith (2 Cor. 5:7). Nothing is to be trusted above what God says. Heaven is promised to only those who do Gods will (Matt. 7:21) and every pardoned sinner is one who has submitted to that will. Surely, the testimony of Jesus is worth hearing on this matter. In saying He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, Jesus clearly puts the pardon after the baptism. In doing so, He shows the kind of faith that God blesses is that which expresses itself in baptism. It is not a matter of faith in baptism, but it is faith in the One who commands baptism as He does here in Mk. 16:16. Peter does likewise in Acts 2:38 only adding the repentance that must precede baptism. Again, what is written shows that remission of sins occurs at baptism and not before. The reason is made clear in Acts 22:16 where we read of Soul being instructed by Gods spokesman to arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on his name. Sins are washed away in baptism! Saul clearly believed before this but he was not pardoned before this!

Further, all agree that newness of life begins at the point of pardon. In Rom. 6:4 Paul shows that we are raised from the burial of baptism to walk in newness of life, proving again that sins are remitted in baptism. The same process is called being born again in Jn. 3:3,7 and the washing of regeneration in Titus 3:5. Men are united with Christ in baptism (Rom. 6:5) and men put on Christ in baptism (Gal. 3:27) simply because MEN PUT OFF SINS IN BAPTISM! Faith that saves is faith that obeys. Paul reminds the Roman brethren that they were made free from sin after obeying gospel teaching which included baptism (Matt. 28:18-20; Rom. 6:1-4). We are made free from sin in the same way.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XII No.III Pg.4
May 1975
Sacraments And Grace
Robert F. Turner

Last month we devoted two pages to the priesthood of believers but the importance of this principle to restoration history can scarcely be appreciated unless we truly understand the relation of priest to sacrament. Consider this digest of material from a R.C. approved catechism. Q. What are sacraments? A. Sensible signs instituted for our sanctification. Q. Why? A. To communicate His graces to us. Q. What are the elements of the sacraments? A. Three in number: the matter, the form, and the minister. Q. Who are the ministers? A. Bishops and priests. (Catechism of Perseverance, by F. B. Jamison; 1850; my emphasis.)

On the basis that God confers His grace through visible signs, placed only in the church, and administered by church officials the church becomes something more than Gods people. It becomes a depository of truth and saving grace, dispensing or withholding at its discretion. We say the church is essential — meaning one must obey the Lord, resulting in our becoming a member of His body the church, and our service therein. The church does not save. Christ is the savior, and the church is the saved. But the Catholic concept gives the church power to forgive sins. On page 247, above Catechism: A. The remission of sins is the power given to the church to forgive sins. This power is found only in the church. . and cites Matt. 16:19.

The R.C. church has seven sacraments by which, they say, men can have communion with God. Protestants generally recognize two sacraments; baptism and the Lords Supper. But because most reformers never got away from the sacramental idea, they held to some form of official administrators, perpetuating the sacerdotal system. We are told that only certain ones can baptize, and the church must validate the Lords Supper. Then succession is not in the seed alone (Lu. 8:11), but we must prove an unbroken line of preachers, churches, or whatever. There could be no restoration, for the entrenched and corrupt church would judge itself, by its own standards (2 Cor. 10:12..f ). In theory the reformers rejected the sacerdotal system, raising the Word of God as the chief means of grace, and for this contribution to our thinking we should be grateful. But in practice, neither they nor we seem completely content with the individuals (priests) role as Bible student, who must answer to his own conscience before God. (It is as though we can not trust God to produce acceptable followers in His own way.)

Sacrament denotes sacred set apart. Certain teachings are put in a separate class and Gods grace is ours through these. But that leaves the rest of Gods teaching as common or ordinary. Efforts to list the doctrines that make for fellowship have this fallacy — though we do not call them sacraments. It is obviously true that certain commandments have assigned reasons or purposes (as baptism for remission of sins) but we are not at liberty to judge the law (Jas. 2:10-12), making one part more important than another. Our attitude toward the whole law of liberty indicates our attitude toward God, and the extent of our restoration.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XII No.III Pg.5
May 1975
Imputed Righteousness
Robert F. Turner

PRESENT TRUTH is a publication with Australian and California bases of operation, which proposes to teach us Bible and Reformation truths re. justification, sanctification, etc. Their material is attractive and well presented, and some preachers and brethren who should know better are being taken in by their appeal. In a recent tract: Justification, Catholicism Vs Protestantism; Mr. Brinsmead says t h e reformers rediscovered Pauls doctrine of Justification by faith... that the sinner is not justified by an infused righteousness but by an imputed righteousness — meaning a righteousness that is found wholly in Another. He says there are two aspects of redemption: Christs work for us, and the Holy Spirits work in us. Of Christs work he says Jesus lived a perfect life for us, and He died for our sins. For some strange reason, he only cites scriptures for the second part.

To be justified one must be free of guilt. Once we have sinned (and all sin) no amount of doing good can remove previous guilt; so, there is no justifying merit in our obedience, such as it is. But this does not warrant the fanciful doctrine that Christs righteous life had to be imputed to us. Every passage given in support of such an idea actually pointed to forgiveness of mans sin, made possible through the death of Christ (Rom. 3:21-28; 4:4-11; Gal. 2:20; etc.). All references to justification without works were such as Rom. 4:1-8, where the contrast is between perfect (meritorious) obedience, with forgiveness provided; and the system of faith, which looks to Christ and His blood for forgiveness. The Old Testament types and shadows point to atonement and propitiation for sin — the payment of its price. And the New Testament pictures Christ as the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world (Jn. 1:29). Neither type nor antitype call for justifying meritorious works — on our part or on Christs part. Christs perfect life made Him the acceptable offering (Heb. 7:26-28), who ever liveth to make intercession for us. For these imputed righteousness saved by his life people, Paul wasted his ink when he wrote, Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works (i.e., perfect, rt) saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven.. . (Rom. 4:6-8)

What difference does it make how God saves the faithful? The modus operandi of God would be only a theological question, of passing interest, were it not for consequences of this matter. These fellows are really leading their readers into a denial of mans capacity or ability to come to God in obedience to invitation. Their theology demands a sovereignty of God that can not tolerate genuine free agency on the part of man, and sees todays man as having a totally depraved nature that is helpless before any command of God. This theology demands some form of individual election, and some form of direct operation of Gods Spirit upon the heart of the elected individual. This is no more PRESENT TRUTH than it was when the Hebrew writer said Christ is the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him. (Heb. 5:9)

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XII No.III Pg.6
May 1975
Baptized Into The Name
Robert F. Turner

Several months back we came upon a little book: The Commission Given By Jesus Christ to His Apostles; by the Scotch Baptist, Archibald McLean. It was edited by Horatio P. Gatchall, and published in 1848 by The Christian Book Concern. But McLeans treatise on the Commission was first published in 1786, and is a good example of the independent, non-sectarian thinking that spawned the Glassite and Haldane movements in Scotland. These, in turn, had their effect upon the Campbells — and are hence a part of the Restoration history, and of early N.T. preaching in the U.S.A.

This is the second in a series of quotes from McLeans comments on the Great Commission. Read last months, if you missed it, and coming issues — for early Restoration exegesis.

****************
THE NAME — Matt .28:18 -20

Our Lord here commands his apostles to baptize the disciples (eis) into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. The phrase, in the name, sometimes signifies for the sake of, in the strength of, by the. authority of, invoking the name of, etc., and doubtless baptism ought to be administered with a view to Gods authority, depending on his assistance and blessing, and calling upon his name for that purpose. But here, I apprehend, the expression into the name, chiefly signifies into the faith of the gospel.

All Israel was said to have been baptized into Moses, in the cloud and in the sea (1 Cor. l0:2); that is, into the religion established by the ministry of Moses. So Christians are said to be baptized into Christ (Gal. 3:27); that is, into the faith or religion of Christ; and this is frequently called his name. Philip preached the things concerning the name of Jesus Christ; the apostles rejoiced that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name; Paul thought he ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus; he was a chosen vessel to bear his name before the Gentiles, (Acts 8:12; 5:41; 26:9; 9:15) etc. In these passages it evidently means the faith or the doctrine of Christ. So he himself explains it: Thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith. Thou hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name. (Rev. 2:13; 3:8) Here his name signifies the same thing with his faith or word; which may very properly be called his name, as it makes him known, or reveals his true character. Agreeably to this, he addresses his Father, saying, I have manifested thy name unto the men whom thou gavest me out of the world. And he shows how he did so; for I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me (Jn. 17:6,8).

To baptize, therefore, into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is to baptize into the faith or doctrine of the gospel, which is testified by the Divine Three, who are one; which reveals them in their distinct and relative characters, and manifests their glory as acting their respective parts in the economy of redemption; the gospel being a revelation of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ (1 Jn. 5:7 Col. 2:2).

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XII No.III Pg.7
May 1975
?You Know What?
Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

Is the person who commits one sin of the flesh lost, outside of Gods grace, until he confesses his sin? RG

Reply:

This is but one of dozens of like questions that come our way. If I am driving 5 miles over the limit and have a fatal accident? If an unusual temptation overtakes me? and so, on and on. Why do not these brethren lay aside the trivia and get to the core of the matter? Must I remain faithful to the Lord? Whether they realize it or not, the theology that spawned this current rash of such questions is the P of Calvins TULIP — Preservation of the elect. Others know it as security of the believer or impossibility of apostasy. Can not our brethren see that the emotionalism, rationalizing, and hypothetical cases that would excuse, ignore, or count of no moment one sin, would, viewed with a like subjectivity, do the same for all sins.

We can receive Gods grace in vain (2 Cor. 6:1). I fear some in and out of grace statements have given a connotation to grace that is contrary to N.T. usage. God loved us while we were yet sinners (Rom. 5:8) but we must come to Christ for His blessings. Grace is extended to erring saints, in that Christ intercedes for those who call on Him (Heb. 4 :16).

Sins of the flesh are still sins, and an improper attitude toward any sin is a rejection of God (Jas. 2:11). But one who questions each deed of his life, and seeks to find in the doing some assurance of salvation, may be suspected of a reliance upon himself that could be characterized as a walking after the flesh. It seems to me a life of faith, of trust in Jesus Christ, is far more positive and optimistic than that. Forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. (Phil. 3:13-14).. At the same time, it is difficult to conceive of one who is walking after the spirit or in the light as trying to excuse any sin.

It seems to me that 1 Jn. 1:8 makes it clear that one who claims to be a Christian, striving to walk in Gods light, will sometimes fail. Walking in light is a manner of life, a general pattern, which is not canceled by a specific or single act; for despair and frustration at our own weakness may yet remain, and ones desire and further effort may yet be in the direction of right (Rom. 7:21-24). But an effort at self-justification is a further step in the wrong direction — a giant step toward darkness. So John urges us to continually confess our sins (present active); an expression of attitude like rejoice evermore or pray without ceasing, and analogous to being faithful to the Lord. With such an attitude we can be assured that Christ will forgive our sin (1 Jn. 2:1; Heb. 7:24-25). Knowledge of this was enough to make Paul rejoice (Rom. 7:25). We should remember, this was the Paul who buffeted his body to keep it in subjection.

Finally, remember that God knows our heart, and judges righteously.

[RETIREDFAN1]

May 1975
Stuff About Things
Robert F. Turner

Spare the rod and spile the chile:

I know I read it somewhere. I wonder if that applies to this case. A mother who had reached the limits of her patience sent her small child into the yard to get a switch. After a long stay, the child returned crying and sobbed, I twied and I twied to weach a switch, but they are too high. Here is a wock you can frow at me.

As all parents know, discipline must be tailored to the child and the situation, and that can be quite a problem. I once knew a father whose arms were paralyzed and hung useless at his sides. His family had to feed and dress him. To sit in a chair he had to swing his arms aside with a motion of his shoulders. He often fell, and with no arms to protect himself, he learned to twist his body to take the fall on his shoulder or head. If you were going to pity him you had to do it quickly, for even on casual acquaintance you realized this man was something special.

He was a Christian, and raised a Christian family. He had a marvelous sense of humor and could laugh at himself with the same relish he displayed in kidding others. Church members often put his hat on his head at some crazy angle, knowing he couldnt readjust it. Sick joke? Well, not to bro. Lon Stewart. He could carry his head with a dignity that made all proud of him, and his laugh would disarm the prankster.

But I started all this to tell you his way of administering disciplinary punishment to his husky boys. I never saw them get out of line while I was in his well-run house (and Ill interrupt my story to compliment his good wife) but I am told that when all else failed, he could pat those boys on the back in a most effective way. He would order them to turn and stand so he could plant his number eleven in the seat of their britches. And they stood, and he kicked!!

Paint a mental picture of that. It is the funniest, and the most sobering story on discipline I have ever heard. Before you can fully enjoy your laugh you realize that the real discipline took place long before the kicking. It was the respect he had gendered, by teaching and example, so the boys would stand and take it when they knew they had it coming. I dont know where the boys are now, but my guess is that they still respect and revere the memory of their father

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XII No.IV Pg.1

June 1975

It All Depends - -

Robert F. Turner

The song leader was young and inexperienced. He used poor judgement in the selection of songs, and made mistakes in pitch, time and rhythm. We could be embarrassed because we put on no better program for the visitors; OR, we could be proud of our young people for trying, and of the church for encouraging the development of each member.

An elderly brother led in prayer. He used poor grammar, and his manner of speech was crude. We could criticize the elders for calling on such an unlearned man; OR, we could appreciate the sincerity and directness in the heart of this old soldier of the cross, and add our hearty amen! to his plea to God.

The preacher spoke plainly and forcibly. He delved into the scriptures concerning the church and its work, and made a sincere effort to explain what God had said. But effort on our part was necessary in order to follow his reasoning, and he lost us. We could resent his discussion of points unfamiliar to us, and be embarrassed because he distinguished so clearly the Lords church and denominationalism; OR, we could be thankful for the services of this man of God. We could listen attentively, make a few notes, and continue our learning in private.

At the invitation a woman came forward, crying bitterly, to confess her sins. She asked the prayers and help of brethren that she might do better. We could feel a bit uneasy, and say, Whats she doing down here again; OR, we could rejoice with the angels in heaven, and determine to visit and encourage this weak sister.

The Lords Supper could be a time - consuming project, with opportunities to gather coats and books in anticipation of dismissal; OR, it could be a true fellowship with the Lord. We could use these quiet moments waving at a baby; OR, looking deeply within ourselves, thanking God for cleansing us from sin, and asking His blessing.

And, we could go home complaining about how they do things down there OR, we could go forth renewed in spirit and determined to make this our best week yet for the Lord.

[RETIREDFAN1]

2

June 1975

Truth Makes Validity

Robert F. Turner

When I wrote the heading, Self-created Churches for the historical article on page four, I realized some might think I was writing about man-based religions. Of course, I refer to the God-ordained right of saints to form a local church, without the necessity or sanction and approval by some historic church. This is another of those scriptural principles, lost in apostasy, regained through much Bible and soul searching, bathed with the blood of martyrs, and now — poorly understood and appreciated. But it is a cardinal factor in establishing and maintaining true congregational independence.

So called historic churches believe Gods grace is dispensed by an institution — that God gave this institution and its successors authority to pass out the blessings. So, the church of England, Lutheran, Reformed and the like, make a great point of their relation to the mother catholic church. Episcopacy must have an unbroken line of succession, and by this link with the church baptism, the Lords Supper, etc., are given validity. And brethren are falling into this same error (unintentionally of course) when they argue that the great middle section of the church makes a thing valid or right by its approval, and without that approval we are outcasts — a sect. Our Self-created article is so condensed we fear its point may be missed, so we urge you to reread it — carefully. The true church does not depend upon historic succession, either of the corporate body or of men appointed to some supposed office. It is the result of a relationship that exists between God and His people — the product of the processes of spiritual redemption.

In keeping with a fairly recent tradition, we say succession is in the seed. I believe this is true (Lu. 8:11 1 Pet. 1:23-25), but we must try to appreciate the consequences of this principle. An accountable person, with absolutely no connection or relation to an established or organized church, could read the Bible for himself, learn the truth, obey it, and be an acceptable saint. He could influence others to do the same. Then a plurality of these saints could covenant together to worship and serve the Lord as a team (collectively); and this would constitute a scriptural church, as valid and acceptable as a congregation of the first century.

This principle ties man to God in truth, not by party affiliation. It made restoration possible. It must not be slighted and again ignored.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XII No.IV Pg.3
June 1975
Turning Up The Radio
Dan S. Shipley

A recently published comic strip depicts a conversation between two small boys in which one is telling about his dad hearing a strange grinding noise coming from the engine of his car. When asked if he stopped to fix it, the little boy replied, No, he just turned the radio up louder so he couldnt hear it! It struck me that we fix a lot of our problems in similar fashion — by just turning up the radio, so to speak.

Take, for instance, the sinner who knows what he must do to become a Christian. He realizes that some major spiritual repairs are in order, yet lacking the courage to make them he may turn the radio up by criticizing the hypocrites in the church or by poking fun at some Bible teaching. He may even attempt to drown out the demands of truth with other side issues such as the untaught natives on some far away island. We are made to wonder whether his What about them? is not more cover than concern. It may be nothing more than so much blaring to hide the more important What about me?

But even among those who know less about becoming Christians, there is often a tendency to tune-out uncomfortable spiritual subjects such as righteousness, self-control, and the judgment to come (Acts 24:25). Like Felix, they may turn up the radio by appealing to a more convenient season. Or, like Festus, they may try to avert the issue by discrediting the teacher of truth: . .Festus saith with a loud voice, Paul, thou are mad; thy much learning is turning thee mad. (Acts 26:24) He was not unlike certain Pentecostians who turned up their radios by accusing the Spirit-filled apostles of being drunk with new wine (Acts 2:13). With violent prejudice some had even sought to muffle the teaching of Jesus by calling him a. gluttonous man and a winebibber (Matt. 11:19). Like the others, they were hiding the very thing they needed to be hearing.

But why have so many wanted to suppress the sounds of truth? Perhaps because it is a discomfiting sound that tells us there is something in our lives that needs fixing — and especially if it happens to be something we dont want fixed! That was the problem with some sinners John writes about. They loved the darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light.. . (Jn. 3:19,20). Even some professed Christians dont like to hear the truth taught about certain subjects. To them it becomes as an objectionable noise to be muffled in some way — perhaps by heaping to themselves teachers after their own lusts (2 Tim. 4:3). Satan has the remedy: fix the noise, not the ailing soul.

Others know soul fixin means admitting wrong and making changes — which seemingly very few are willing to do. Heres where pride says, turn up the radio!— but heres where courage and character say, speak Lord, thy servant heareth. True followers of Christ want the truth — all of it. Even when it reproves, rebukes and condemns. Even when it grates and grinds. Pity the poor soul who would suppress it!

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XII No.IV Pg.4
June 1975
Self-Created Churches
Robert F. Turner

New Testament congregational independence rests upon twin principles of structure and polity. John Wyclif, in 1380, took one of the first steps toward home when he sent forth lay preachers. Martin Luther stressed the priesthood of believers and in 1523 advocated the right of a Christian congregation to call, to elect, and to depose its own minister... But congregations of pure Christians, capable of self-government, could not be found in Germany at that time... Luther abandoned this democratic idea after the Peasants War, and called on the arm of the government for protection against the excesses of the popular will. (Schaff, VII, 538.)

A fierce independence developed in the mountain canton of the Swiss Grisons, and by 1526 the episcopal monarchy was abolished and congregational independency introduced. . . But apparently it was the Swiss Anabaptists (Radicals according to Schaff) who first moved resolutely toward restoration of true N.T. independence. The Reformers aimed to reform the old Church by the Bible; the Radicals attempted to build a new Church from the Bible. The former maintained the historic continuity; the latter went directly to the apostolic age, and ignored the intervening centuries as an apostasy. The Reformers founded a popular state-church, including all citizens with their families; the Anabaptists (re-baptizers, rt) organized on the voluntary principle select congregations of baptized believers, separated from the world and from the State. The first and chief aim of the Radicals was not (as is usually stated) the opposition to infant baptism, still less to sprinkling or pouring, but the establishment of a pure church of-converts in opposition to the mixed church of the world. The rejection of infant baptism followed as a necessary consequence. (Schaff, VIII, 71, 75.)

There were revolutionary Anabaptists (Munzer, in Germany, 1521-f.) who saw independence as incompatible with submission to civil authorities, and sought to overthrow them. The tie between church and state was such in those days, that any independent doctrine was likely to be considered heretical; so, early advocates of congregational independence and autonomy were subject to terrible persecution. They were drowned, beheaded, burned at the stake, etc. Extreme revolutionaries and non-violent moral citizens were judged indiscriminately and persecuted by Roman Catholics and Protestant Reformers alike — God will judge. But the concept of local churches, self-created by agreement on the part of saints, self-sufficient in support, oversight and operation, was now well planted and would not be destroyed.

A blending of Dutch Anabaptists and English Independents was made possible because of their common opposition to national churches and in the demand that regeneration should precede church membership. By 1535 congregations were formed in Norwich, England. Later, the independent principle was given impetus by Scotch Baptists, Sandemanians, James Haldane and John Glass — known to the Campbells, and surely influencing their concepts of congregationalism, which they preached in this country.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XII No.IV Pg.5
June 1975
The Curse Of Preaching
Robert F. Turner

An unabridged dictionary will give you my reasons for the subject. While acknowledging to make known, proclaim, announce publicly, Websters also has, to discourse in the manner of a preacher; — now usually with implications of officiousness or tediousness. To utter in a sermon or a formal religious harangue. (If you are in doubt check that word in the dictionary.) Webster also has, as an example of one meaning for preach, to preach (one) asleep. This is the connotation or reputation preaching has earned from the suffering public.

Dont quote me preaching is foolishness to those that perish. The kind of preaching I have in mind is foolishness to the saved as well. Why does a grown man, reasonably intelligent, capable of meaningful communication in other circumstances, feel that when he mounts the podium he must rant and rave? (Look those up.) As one fellow said, That young man wanted to preach in the worst way — and he did, too. The man who has to get in a weaving way to teach Gods truth may produce a few gems that are noteworthy, but they are usually hidden in a clutter of half sentences and trash that distract the listener. A taped record, transcribed, will often embarrass the best of speakers.

The changed officious voice may be a cover up for nervousness, a substitute for something worth saying, or what we think is expected of a public speaker. These are bad enough. Let us hope it is never an indication of pompous egoism, as it sounds. One may sufficiently increase volume simply by speaking to the back seats. Repetition that is organized: at reasonable intervals, tying parts of the speech into a whole or making summations, are very useful. But they should not be used as filler while the speaker tries to think of his next point. Much harangue results from our thinking we must always be saying something — we fear the sound of silence. Try using a more complete outline or making better preparation. A good sound point doesnt need much laboring. But the strength in what you say and how the scriptures prove it; and the need (?) for stomping, leering at the public, or filling the air with trite and canned phrases will be lifted. One need not say our blessed Lord and Savior Jesus Christ every time he wants to say Christ. Nor is such verbiage a sign of piety or scriptural learning. (May as well expect some letters about that.)

All preachers get rattled at times (I hope) and make a mess of a sermon. (Its a terrible feeling to know you are doing it, and yet be incapable of correction. You would like to sink right into the floor.) Preparation, experience, and more preparation will cure most of this. Critical brethren need to try walking in our shoes before becoming too harsh. But we are responsible for the odium attached to preaching and we must, by positive action, cure it.

This is no sanction of dry, pedantic sermons. Pray earnestly for Gods help, and then give it all youve got! Let the richness of His truth and our sincere hunger for souls send forth a fire that will burn deeply into the listeners heart.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XII No.IV Pg.6
June 1975
Subjects Of Baptism
Robert F. Turner

We present the third in a series of quotes from Christs Commission to His Apostles, by Archibald McLean; first published in 1786. In this portion note especially his reasoning on how to establish authority —precepts and examples and their uses.

******************
The subjects of baptism are signified in the commission by the word, them — baptizing them. Not every individual in the nations; but only such as they should previously teach with effect, or make disciples by teaching. The word (autous) them, in the original, is masculine, and does not agree with (panta ta ethne) all nations, which is neuter; but refers to (mathetas) disciples, which is included in the verb (matheteusate) to teach or disciple. This is clear from the parallel place in Mark, which restricts baptism to him that believeth It is plain, therefore, that none are commanded to be baptized but such as are first taught or made disciples and profess to believe the gospel.

But what puts this beyond all possibility of doubt, is the uniform practice of the inspired apostles in executing this commission, who never baptized any until once they had made them disciples by teaching. (Acts 2:41; 10:44-48; 15:9; 8:12, 35-38; 16:13-15, 40; 16:32-34; 18:8.... (We must omit the discussion of each case of N.T. baptism, for want of space. rft) These are all the instances of baptism, in consequence of our Lords commission, which are expressly recorded in the scriptures; and we see it was administered to none but professed disciples .... Whether, therefore, we consider the plain words of the commission itself, or the uniform practice of the inspired apostles in executing it, it is evident to a demonstration, that baptism does not belong to professed infidels, ignorant persons, or mere infants, but only to professed believers of the gospel....

The Pedobaptists in general confess that there is neither express precept nor indisputable example in the word of God for the baptism of infants; yet they think it may be established by analogy and inference. But it should be carefully remembered that baptism is not like natural or moral duties, which are founded in, and may be inferred from the nature and relation of things. It is a positive institution, which depends entirely upon the will of the Institutor, both as to its nature and all its circumstances; and it becomes our duty merely by the revelation of that will, either in express precept, or in such clear and approved precedents as necessarily infer that such a precept was originally given. If neither of these can be produced for the baptism of infants, all argumentation on the subject is vain; for a positive institution can never be made out by mere reasoning. Further, if the commission restricts baptism to professed believers, and if it was administered only to such, as has been shown, then every argument for the baptism of infants must be false, because infants fall not under that description; and this as clearly forbids their baptism, as their inability to examine themselves, or discern the Lords body, prohibits their admission to the Lords supper.