Plain Talk

[RETIREDFAN1]

2

April 1976

In, And Of, The World

Robert F. Turner

Last month, in an article headed, Non-Prophet Organization, we quoted Russell, Rutherford, and current Jehovahs Witnesses (?) statements re. the end of time, showing they had repeatedly missed the mark. We have now learned that the typist, working for our printer, took the liberty of altering our copy. The printer noticed that the page was not filled, compared the make-up copy with original, and made necessary restoration, for which we are grateful. But we want you to examine the alterations and draw your own conclusions.

In the original: The writer hedged on saying this meant worlds end would come then, but he concluded, So we can be confident that the end is near

The typist wrote: The writer concluded, So we can be confident that the end is near...

In the original:1975 is past, and so J. W.s are busy trying to cover that failure and try again. CAN ANY REALLY DOUBT THEY HAVE A NON-PROPHET ORGANIZATION?

The typist wrote: 1975 is past, and so J. W.s are still trying. CAN ANY REALLY DOUBT THEY HAVE A NON-PROPHET ORGANIZATION?

Can you guess the typists religion?? ***********************

Some months back I read a paper, Neo-Conservatism in Australia. The writer cited the June 26, 1952 issue of the Gospel Guardian to prove that that paper favored Herald of Truth at that time. It is true that the June 26, 52 issue carried an article by G. K. Wallace, favoring the H. of T. BUT, it was immediately followed by an article by Robert Farish, replying to Wallaces article, and specifically referring to it by name. Is this honest and responsible journalism? To be charitable, we might assume the writer was totally unaccustomed to papers that publish both sides of an issue.

Last month we carried a front page article about Prejudicial History found in another current journal. We see no immediate connection in all of this hanky panky, but are appalled that such examples from our brethren should come to our attention at about the same time we had our experience re. the Jehovahs Witnesses material.

There is a general degeneration in world morals, which will affect some brethren. But surely we have a right to expect less carnal, sectarian spirit than these examples manifest.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIII No.II Pg.4
April 1976
What Must I Do?
Robert F. Turner

Is this a legitimate question, in keeping with the divine scheme of redemption, having a divine answer? The infidel says, Do nothing, there is no salvation. The universalist says, Nothing, all will be saved anyhow. True Calvinists reply, Nothing, only the elect will be saved, unconditionally. And currently, well-meaning advocates of Grace have so far accepted Calvinistic or faith-only concepts as to equate all doing with human righteousness — in effect saying, Do nothing. All efforts to divorce saving faith from doing make for a confused jumble of terms, and lead to an unscriptural theology.

Calvinism which has permeated most denominations and popular commentaries, begins with a concept of God which can not tolerate true free will on the part of man. That man could act so as to alter his destiny, could implement or affect his salvation, is unthinkable. This philosophy is back of classic statements re. grace, imputation of Christs righteousness, and labeling all obedience as trying to lift yourself by your boot-straps. I believe some of our brethren, in a commendable desire to give glory to God for our salvation, have adopted Calvinistic terminology and thought.

Christ is the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey Him (Heb. 5:9). He will take vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Thes. 1:8). We may write books explaining that this doing is an expression of faith-- and Ill buy that-- but the fact remains that we must do something. Our doing will be imperfect, and therefore can not justify (make free from guilt) on a legalistic basis. It will not merit (by virtue of incompleteness) a free from guilt appraisal. But one can not deny the need for obedience without ignoring many plain scriptures.

There is a big difference in works as the expression of faith in our Savior, and works as the means of redemption. When Paul contrasted works and grace (Rom. 4:2-5) the context makes works refer to a system of law, demanding perfect obedience or freedom from sin (3:19-f. Gal. 3:10-f). If one should live a guilt-free life, his doing would be the means of his justification (declared guilt-free). But none of us live such lives (Rom. 3:23). Having sinned, no doing can be the means of satisfying the Justice of God against whom we have sinned. Justice demands the penalty for sin, and the means of our redemption is Jesus Christ, who died in our stead (Isa. 53: Rom. 5:6-9). There is little excuse for a careful student to confuse the meritorious works of Rom. 4 with acts of obedience which manifest our trust in the blood of the Christ.

As we have said, back of the denial of human implementation is the rejection of free will. If we seriously consider the implications of man as a free agent we can see consistency in a scheme of redemption which provides the means of justification on a universal scale, but makes the application of Christs blood depend upon the individuals response to the gospel invitation. The gospel which God gave, is carefully suited to the man which God made. (continued on next page)

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIII No.II Pg.5
April 1976
To Be Justified... Saved?
Robert F. Turner

(continued from previous page)

One  thing man must do in order to be saved is to truly believe — place trust —in Jesus Christ. This is something man does — it springs from the human heart in response to evidence (Rom. 10:l3-l7). It affects his destiny. Jesus said, If ye believe not that I am He, ye shall die in your sins (Jn. 8:24). Here is choice, with differing destinies. Some seek to avoid the human aspects of faith by saying it is a natural response to grace, but this begs the question. Is it human behavior, human response? It is unless — unless — we are ready to accept the Calvinistic concept that faith is a gift of God. I will be pained but not surprised to hear this (or derivatives of it) among brethren who are now toying with Calvinistic concepts of redemption.

Now, is this faith acceptable in the absence of overt demonstration? I know God can see the heart — I know He is a Just God — but at what point does God say He will forgive sins? Is there scriptural reason to believe we are forgiven of past sins before we do His bidding, or when we obey Him? John 12:42-f. records, Many believed on Him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God. But we are told, this was not a trusting faith. How do we know it wasnt? Because it did not manifest itself — and that is the very point Jesus makes. he that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. We have no assurance of justification or of acceptable judgment except as we heed and conform to the message of Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit gave us specific answers to the query, What Must I Do to be Saved? and we are foolish who allow theological speculations about faith to lead us away from these simple answers.

The Jailor was told to Believe — and then Paul and Silas preached to him. Believe was an incomplete answer in the absence of the word of the Lord for there is no reason to think the jailor had even heard of Jesus Christ. When he had been taught he came to the Lord, being baptized. (Acts 16:30-33) On Pentecost, after hearing that Jesus was the Christ of their hope, the Jews asked, what shall we do? and were told, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost? (Acts 2: 37-41). And Saul, who had heard much of Jesus but rejected His claims, was allowed to see the Lord in glory. He believed, and was penitent (Acts 9:3-11); so Ananias said, Why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord (Acts 22:16)

Man must recognize his lost condition and be taught that Jesus Christ died and lives again for his salvation. Denying himself (Matt. 16:24) he must repent of his past, and be buried with Christ in baptism (Rom. 6:3-8) whereupon he is freed from past sins, and is expected to live for Christ.

Mans doing is not the price of redemption but it is the condition upon which God receives and blesses.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Is Thy Heart Right?

Robert F. Turner

The heart makes a difference In Num. 15:22-3l some sins are called unwitting and some presumptuous or done with a high hand. This doesnt mean any sin is excused; but our text shows that God will forgive the unwitting sin, while he calls the other blasphemy and says that soul shall be cut off I suspect the account of the man stoned to death for gathering sticks on the Sabbath (vs. 32-36) is a case history of high-handed sin. The difference seems to be in the attitude or heart of the sinner.

Solomon recognized the need for a perfect heart in order that obedience be acceptable (1 Kings. 8:57-61) although he later turned away his heart from God (11:1-11). On the other hand, Davids heart was perfect with God although he sinned (15:3-5). This does not condone sin (2 Sam. 12:) but shows the divine consideration given to mans desire to do rightly. (Cf. 1 Kings. 15:11-14).

In the New Testament we are told one must deny himself in order to follow Christ (Matt. 16:24). Jesus made a distinction in deliberate neglect of the Lords will, and of unwitting sin (Lu. 12:47-48). Paul says, He is a Jew which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God (Rom. 2:29). Without the heart worship is in vain (Matt. 15:7-9).

Desire alone is not enough. Pauls desire to keep law proved his consent that it was good (Rom. 7:16), but because of the weakness of his flesh, and consequent sin, under legal justice alone he was undone. He needed the forgiveness made possible by the blood of Christ. But his will, heart, mind, spirit played a vital role in receiving the blessing in Christ. The spirit of the early part of Rom. 8: is Pauls spirit, not the Holy Spirit.

Read carefully 7:21-f. and note the different terms applied to the same thing. Vs. 21, I would do good; 22, I delight in the law. . . . after the inward man; 23, warring against the law of my mind; 25, with the mind I serve the law of God; 8:1, no condemnation to them who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit (see 8:4). For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the spirit, (mind) the things of the spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace (Rom. 8:5-6).

The justification (or, no condemnation) in Jesus Christ is available only to those who sincerely desire (and walk) in keeping with the directions of the Spirit of God. Forgiveness for their failures is offered on the condition that they give their heart (and endeavor) to Him.

But If we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses law died without mercy (Heb. 10:26-f). Presumptuous high handed sin is no more excused now than in the past. Is your heart right before God?

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIII No.II Pg.7
April 1976
You Know What?
Robert F. Turner

Dear bro. Turner:

Please discuss the relationship of churches. What should be our attitude toward one disfellowshipped by another congregation? Could we have had fellowship with Laodicea? T.C.

Reply:

Fellowship with God exists only as we walk in the light — for God is light (1 Jn. 1:5-6). He is also Pure, Love, Spirit, Holy, and Perfect; and we must share such characteristics to maintain fellowship with God (1 Jn. 3:3; 4:8; Jn. 4:24; 1 Pet. 1:l6; Matt. 5:48). This is the meaning and basis of spiritual fellowship — of saints with God, of saints with fellow-saints in the universal church, and of local churches with one another. No corporate bond is here contemplated.

Saints covenant together to form a local church — they are fellows in a team: accepting common oversight, pooling resources, and acting as one. (Heb. 13:17; 1 Cor. 16:1-3; Phil. 1:1; 4:15). They are bound, by mutual consent and the nature of local church structure, with the obligations of membership; although this must never take precedence over their obligation to God. But we find no authorization for teams of churches. There are no fellow churches in the corporate sense — each local church is completely independent. Their only bond with other churches is that of common interest in serving the Lord.

The Oaks-West church is interested in the work of the church in Boronia, in the same way a saint in Maine is interested in the welfare of a saint in Texas: there is a common interest in spiritual matters. Concerning Laodicea, the Lord said, As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. . .(Rev. 3:19). It seems to me a saint in Texas could do as much for a saint in Utah; or a church in Canada for a church in Spain. No infringement of autonomy takes place in the use of moral suasion to encourage saint or church to be faithful to the Lord, although propriety and courtesy should be considered. Truth can not be forced upon anyone. We could not condone, support or encourage the Laodicean church or an erring saint in their error; and of course, no corporate bond exists to be broken or mended.

When a local church severs relations with one of her members, this means that in their judgment the offender has broken fellowship with God and they are endeavoring to make the offender aware of his condition, and bring him back to God. It is a logical assumption that they would know more about the situation than those of a different church. This is a local matter, within the realm of local autonomy (self-rule), and other churches should keep hands off.

If the disfellowshipped one should seek to join a second team (church) he should be told to correct his status with the first church. If he says he is in the right (with God), this should be proven to the satisfaction of the second church before he is accepted into their fellowship. We dare not deny him a hearing, or accept him without examination. There would be no local autonomy if the poorest judgment of the weakest church could be bound upon all churches everywhere.

[RETIREDFAN1]

.XIII No.II Pg.8

April 1976

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

I was standing at the church door, dutifully shaking hands and passing pleasantries with the departing congregation, when this young man paused and thanked me for the sermon. His mature, gentlemanly manners prompted me to ask, How old are you Son? To which he replied, Six years old, and Im a-feeling it too. Yes, he was!!

Remembering my own childhood days at church (arguing with my teacher about a scripture I knew was in there but could not find) I am sympathetic with youngsters who take an active interest, even at my expense. Following a sermon on the conscience, illustrated by a clumsily drawn steam governor, a young fellow pointed at the chalk board and said with great seriousness, Brother Turner, I cant believe the conscience looks like that! To tell the truth, I couldnt believe it either.

But not all youngsters are happy about going to church-- for various reasons. One little boy became wedded to a T.V. Cowboy show following the preacher dinner, and when time came to leave he caused his mother some embarrassment. Finally a pat on the back, down low, got him started, but he was sobbing and muttering to himself as we rode toward the building. I was seated next to him, and had no difficulty in getting the message. He was saying, Well, it had better be good, thats all I say. It had better be good!! What chance has a preacher against competition like that?

There are few compliments more prized by the preacher in the know than the genuine, unprompted compliment of a child. It may not measure depth, but it will tell you the difference in depth and muddy water. If the message is clear enough for the youngsters to get it, and interesting enough to make them want it, you have a reasonable chance of reaching a few adults as well. But when you cut the children out you are cutting off a large portion of your hearers. Adults may not squirm as much, but politeness hides many wandering minds.

The open-faced honesty of children is so refreshing and delightful, even when one must question some of their concepts. When one little boy was told it was time for church he whined, Do we have to go again? Then, before his mother could correct him, he brightened up saying, Oh, I forgot! I told God Id go every night if He would heal my cat!

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIII No.III Pg.1

May 1976

To Capture Hearts...

Robert F. Turner

Having spent many years trying to bring men to Christ, and pondering repeated failures, I have drawn a few conclusions from experience. We may have trusted the story of the cross too little, and our teaching ability too much. We have relied heavily upon the assumption that if we could teach men what to do, they would do it. There is something to do all right, but there will be little doing (and none that is valid) until the subject is made aware of a need, believes in a remedy, and desires the result of doings Information may be adequate, but motivation may be lacking.

Motive is that within the individual, rather than without, which incites him to action. Peters sermon on Pentecost made the hearers aware of circumstances which produced self-judgment — we have killed the long-awaited Messiah. What shall we do? Under these conditions the answer can be brief and to the point. There was no need for charts, diagrams, and argumentative sermons on baptism.

This is no indictment of defense and proclamation of doctrinal details. Where such differences exist, and are the determent to full obedience, they must be thrashed out. But in many cases if we would expend greater efforts to convince men of their true status before a righteously indignant God, we would not have to press so fruitlessly the details of His will. A man who realizes he is drowning does not argue about the color of the life buoy thrown to him.

We strive for mens hearts: casting down mans evil reasonings, his pride, and bringing into captivity his thoughts (2 Cor. 10:4-5) to the obedience of Christ. If we are more interested in winning an argument than in saving a soul, we will certainly fail in the latter, and probably in the former. We are trying to win a man, not whip him.

To change the attitude of others, so that they will be open and receptive to the gospel of Christ, we may first have to revise our attitude. We must somehow become one with the Lord Jesus, who loved and sacrificed Himself for mankind; not because we were lovely, but while we were sinners.

[RETIREDFAN1]

XIII No.III Pg.2

May 1976

Some Thoughts On Papers

Robert F. Turner

In 1823 Alexander Campbell began publication of the Christian Baptist. He did more than disseminate information — he enlarged his influence, and built a rally point that became, to some, the official organ for the restoration movement. But in 1826 B.W. Stone began Christian Messenger, evidencing a different spirit though having the same basic attitude toward the Scriptures. Soon many regional papers served to spread journalistic influence — each representing the distinctive characteristics and understanding of the editors, and grouping readers accordingly.

In 1856 Ben Franklin began the American Christian Review, saying, There is not the least danger of our circulating too many publications, any more than of our sending out too many preachers... if they are the right kind. Perhaps he was hinting that some thought journalistic influence should be limited to one or a few centers among brethren. Papers do have this effect. The Gospel Advocate (1855) soon represented a strong anti-organization, anti- instrumental music sentiment in the deep south; while the Christian Standard (1866) promoted the organization and organ in the north. The Firm Foundation (1884) developed its own sphere of influence in Texas. There was a time when I could visit with a congregation for a few hours and tell if it was an Advocate, Foundation, or Review group. The Gospel Guardian effectively represented conservative thought during the institutional arguments of this century. We can not reject papers because they wield influence. On this basis we would reject churches, preachers — even the light of a Christian (Matt. 5:13-16).

But sectarian and selfish interest in the promotion of influence is deplorable — from Campbell to the present time. It likely stems from three sources: 1) a pride-fed sectarian spirit, 2) genuine desire to promote truth which seeks to excuse carnal methods, and/or 3) the need for more and more money. These motives, and combinations of them, have marred many a journalistic effort and caused some to overlook the sacrificing efforts of hard-working publishers and writers who have faithfully promoted the cause of Christ on the printed page. There are good, and bad, writers, publishers, preachers, people.

We like the non-commercial, free-to-the-reader, publication of scriptural material by various congregations — a part of their teaching program to the public. We believe such papers have done much to put the brakes on official organ concepts.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIII No.III Pg.3
May 1976
Peace Is Possible!
Dan S. Shipley

Few things hinder the progress of local churches more than internal strife — and seemingly few have been spared the taste of its bitter fruits. Somewhere, even now, dissension grows and division threatens where unity and peace once prevailed. Likely, the very existence of some small and struggling group is being jeopardized by some internal and non-doctrinal conflict. Chances are that both sides believe themselves to be right and feel they have been mistreated by some on the other side. Harsh and hurtful words have probably been spoken by several. Resentment and bitterness are worsened with encouragement from prejudiced allies backing both sides. Longsuffering and love are only thought of as deficiencies in others. Some may even attribute their heathen-like conduct to expressions of convictions or love. Most doubt that reconciliation is possible; others may not even want it — at least, not without a little groveling and log-licking by the other side. About the only thing they hold in agreement is the revealing and incriminating statement often heard: THEYLL answer for it in judgment!

Meanwhile, worship is difficult. Most energies are being expended on biting and devouring. Satan smiles. His prospects for reclaiming servants is good. The discouraged quitter will be his. The unforgiving and impenitent are in his camp. Such chaos precludes effective work. The fields white unto harvest must wait — while laborers fight among themselves. Many wonder: Is there no solution? — Is it possible to have the kind of unity Christ prayed for in Jn. 17:21?

Certainly peace is possible! What Christ prayed for is attainable by his followers, IF EARNESTLY DESIRED AND HUMBLY SOUGHT. Only the desire and humility must be contemplated and sought in the most personal terms. Do I really want this discord ended to Gods satisfaction? Could I possibly be wrong? Could I have said or done some wrong or left the wrong impression? (They are not the only ones who will be judged!)

Peace will be possible when I am humble enough to count others better than myself (Phil. 2:3). Equality and oneness in Christ involves a relationship in which all are looked up to and no one is looked down upon. Yea, all of you gird yourselves with humility, to serve one another... (1 Pet. 5:5). Surely those who can love enemies can esteem brethren — and when we do itll be hard to fuss. Such humility also involves not looking each of you to his own things, but each of you to the things of others (Phil. 3:4). Most strife is either motivated or perpetuated by selfishness and pride (contrary to Pauls admonition, doing nothing through faction or through vain glory). When my concern can be turned to the things of others (their interests, needs, feelings and problems) — even when I believe them to be wrong — then I am more likely to help than hinder, both them and me.

Essentially, this is Christ-mindedness. Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.. . (Phil. 2:5). When we want what He wants and when we seek it with His humility, then we can have the unity he prayed for. Believe it!

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIII No.III Pg.4
May 1976
The Lords Church
Robert F. Turner

When followers of Christ are likened unto a physical body, Christ is the head and the saints are the members of that body, the church (Eph. 1:22-23). All who are in Christ are, by this figure, considered members of His body. We ignore priorities if we say one becomes a saint by becoming a member of His body. The body figure describes certain characteristics of Christs followers — it does not tell us how to become followers, nor does it provide the means of becoming such.

The church is not the means of our redemption from sin, it is the result. The church does not save, it is the saved. The Christian life is lived in faithfulness to the LORD (Acts 11:20-23), not to the church. When we say one can not be saved without being in the church we mean that all who are saved become, by the same process, members of His universal church body.

What was Gods eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus? Paul says it was that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel (Eph. 3:3-6; 8-11). Salvation from sin, in Christ, for whosoever will; that was Gods eternal purpose. The wisdom (and love, and mercy) of God is made known (demonstrated) by the product: Jews and Gentiles serving God together in the church.

What was to be established in the last days according to Isa. 2:, Dan. 2:, Mic. 4:, Joel 2:? The mountain of Jehovah was to be established — the rule or government of God in Christ. Kingdom (basileia) always refers to rule; then by extension to citizens, etc. Out of Zion shall go forth the law (instruction), and the word of Jehovah from Jerusalem. Those who came to the mountain, who followed the instructions of the King, were the fruit or result of the means of salvation, Jesus Christ. Thus, the church was established in Jerusalem.

The church is called the temple of God (1 Cor. 3:16-17), the bride of Christ (2 Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:23-32), and other like terms which stress various characteristics of Gods people. It is the people who are under consideration, not some institutional concept of church apart from saints. Perhaps there is a sense in which God instituted church as He did marriage: by sanctioning and giving rules and regulations for all who enter this relationship; but neither marriage nor church exist apart from or before people so related.

We therefore reject the Catholic institutional concept of church as a society which is the means of redemption. They think of the New Testament as the product of the church; we think of the church as the product of the New Testament. Catholic Encyclopedia (V.111, p.752) says only by entering the Church can we participate in the redemption wrought for us by Christ. We say, only by participating in the redemption wrought for us by Christ can we enter the church. They say Incorporation with the Church can alone unite us to the family of the second Adam. We say we are born of water and spirit into the family, which is the church (Jn. 3:5; 1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 2:19; Heb. 12:22-23). (continued next page)

Vol.XIII No.III Pg.5
May 1976
Means Or Result Of Salvation?
Robert F. Turner

(continued from previous page)

The Catholic concept of church — sometimes called historical or institutional concept — puts a society between Christ and His people. Study this statement from Catholic Encyclopedia, V. III, p. 752: It is to the Church that Christ has committed those means of grace through which the gifts He earned for men are communicated to them. The Church alone dispenses the sacraments. It alone makes known the light of revealed truth. Outside the Church these gifts cannot be obtained. This gives the Church sole right to teach truth, to baptize, and hence to establish new congregations. It explains why historic churches claim succession from the Roman or other mother churches. It denies the restoration concept, whereby an individual may learn truth from the written Word, obey, upon no authority save that inherent in the Word, and thus become a child of God.

The Bible alone was accepted in pioneer restoration days; but as the church grew this product took on new status. We alone can scripturally baptize, we must send (authorize) preachers, we must validate the Lords Supper. Unintentionally, and without realizing logical implications of our statements, many have accepted the Catholic, institutional concept. We have been slow to face this problem, thinking we might minimize the importance of the church for which Christ died. But Christ did not die for a society or institution; He died for Sam, Ann, !ke, Ned, Tom, and Sue--and that spells SAINTS. Ironically, our reluctance to fight the basic institutional concept is due to our own institutional concept. Should todays conservative churches all go liberal to the extent of complete apostasy, would an individual have the right to study the Bible for himself? Learning what he must do to be saved, could he obey without resorting to the apostate church? Teaching others, could he baptize them? Could they form themselves into a local church, partake of the Lords Supper, etc.? Does the authority for or validation of any divinely decreed service hinge upon approval of any man or group of men? I believe an individual could learn truth, obey, and serve God acceptably; for I believe succession is in the seed, not in the sower (Lu. 8:11-15).

This does not reject the N.T. concept of church — for the obedient individual is a member of Christs church; and his kind, the world over, make up the universal church on earth. This does not reject the local church as an organized entity, for faithful followers of Christ must and will associate themselves with other saints as opportunity permits, to worship together and promote the cause of their Lord collectively as well as individually. To this end the scriptures authorize local church oversight, treasury, and function. But the authority for divine things comes from divinity, not from man. We reject the idea that God has given into mans hands (elders or church) either legislative, executive, or judicial authority. Christ is absolute monarch, ruling directly through His Spirit-filled Word. We are individually and directly responsible to our King, to serve Him in all good conscience. We pray for Gods help in doing this.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIII No.III Pg.6
May 1976
Vacation Bible Schools
Robert F. Turner

I remember Vacation Bible Schools among churches of Christ in the late
1930s, early 40s. Apparently they were prompted by a desire for better Bible teaching programs, and perhaps by the then popular denominational youth campaigns. Through the years we have seen them vary from earlier Bible Readings to little more than youth social events, but their effect upon todays church is worth studying.

The Bible Readings of E.M. Zerr and others were survey courses lasting weeks, and covering the whole Bible, or special studies in certain books. Some considered them Sommers answer to the Bible College. They were, however, useful concentrated studies that could well be repeated today, with competent teachers.

Jessie Sewell and other educators led the way in teacher training sessions, and began to promote use of visual aids, object lessons, etc., in Bible teaching. The good of this was somewhat dimmed by whole man secular educational principles; and VBS offered a less-restricted stage for a social atmosphere. Object lessons are Biblical (Ezek. 4:1-f.), but their abuse led to Arts and Crafts classes, and in many cases Bible teaching purposes were overshadowed by homemaking social gospel goals.

The numbers game entered the picture — and churches competed for records rather than souls. Refreshments, recreation, and a general party atmosphere became common in VB Schools. I believe VBS, misguided and abused, hastened the development of baby sitting nurseries for working mothers, and contributed greatly to social gospel developments in churches today.

But the picture is, not all bad. A spin-off of better trained teachers and improved teaching methods is evident. Much has been learned about grading material in keeping with the capacities of students. We began to make a more total use of building facilities. Too, a reaction or backlash to the far-out social developments — while leading some churches into a shell — has focused attention upon more serious aspects of Bible teaching, and a conscientious avoidance of abuses. It is the hard way, but we learn by our mistakes.

Todays VBS (or Summer School) could be carefully planned training courses in O.T. and N.T. surveys, doctrinal studies (Calvinism, etc.), first-principle classes for new converts or personal workers, Training for Public Service (song-leading, teaching, etc.), with Bible history, geography, character studies, and the like, for the younger set. There is a grave need for classes in How to Study and the use of study tools.

Serious, scriptural goals for VBS will not be reached simply by buying expensive kits from publishers. The best material in the world — written by the Holy Spirit — needs teaching, and that requires studious conscientious teachers who know the material, know the students, and have given prayerful thought to means of imparting information and affecting the lives of those students. VBS is what we make it — a service for the Lord, or a sinful waste of time and money.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIII No.III Pg.7
May 1976
You Know What?
Robert F. Turner

Mr. Turner:

Why do you believe in God? A.A.

Reply:

Why do you believe in eternal matter, force without cause, and order without intelligence? An eternal God is more believable than these necessary alternatives. (And why do you refuse to seriously consider this??)

An orderly, complex- beyond- imagination universe does exist. It either came from nothing and is going nowhere, or there is an eternal reference point whose existence prior to things material suggests eternal spirit. Accepting an Eternal Spirit (God) I have an explanation for force, purpose (intelligence), and the creation of matter. Rejecting God, I have only blind despair and confusion.

A non-believer refuses to consider beginning or First Cause because he has absolutely nothing believable to offer. He would make us children of a purpose-less, amoral universe. The most noble, self-less principles of love and service (and despite mans sinful corruption, these are still around) would be nothing more than a chemical accident. I believe they are proof of mans relation to a moral God. Historical evidence proves that mans worth, in terms of character and nobility, is in direct proportion to his acceptance and adherence to God and moral principles. Man is God-made, and functions best when he allows God to direct his steps.

There is even a reverse-argument in this. Man is at his worst when he corrupts religion. (See Rom. 1:18-32)

Our most advanced scientific studies have concerned themselves most with processes (evolution) and have offered but meager and conflicting explanations in this field. Against the reasonable assumption of an Eternal Designer the unbeliever can only offer the probability of CHANCE, given sufficient TIME. Various mathematicians have taken a whirl at what the chances are and have come up with some answers. The simplest protein molecules have 2,000 atoms, in precise arrangement. Given 500 trillion (500,000,000,000,000) shakings per second, the possibility of a proper arrangement by pure chance, is one in 10,243,000,000 years. When you get that molecule in shape, take a coffee break, and then start on another. The atheist has long work hours.

And remember, this concerns itself only with processes, not with source or purpose. I believe INTELLIGENCE is a necessary factor in the design of the universe, and of life; and I believe IN THE BEGINNING, GOD is the most satisfactory solution to the problem. Many purely scientific philosophers have come to the same conclusion — if thats any comfort.

But I am more than a Deist. Having accepted the idea of God as an intelligent First Cause I am forced to assign some purpose to His actions, and to believe that such a God would reveal Himself and His purposes to those creatures who must function on His stage of life. Until someone can show me a more consistent, workable unveiling of the unknown, and pattern for living, I will accept the Bible and try to order my life accordingly.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIII No.III Pg.8

May 1976

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

Going Home! Is there a more heart- warming thought? Poets, song-writers, and story-tellers have played the full scale of our emotions with this theme, but it can not be exhausted.

It conjures up visions of warmth and safety, with mother and dad. Long forgotten moments of joy, intimate corners in the attic where we kept our childhood treasures, a swing beneath our favorite tree — these flash through our memory like tiny bits of honey — so sweet — so soon gone. Our head tells us the past can never be recaptured, but our heart refuses to believe it. Some day we will go home, and things will be exactly as we have long remembered them. And even as we reprove our heart with reality, we have tasted the sweet sorrow of the universal longing for home.

The many mansions of John 14:2 are incorrectly thought of as palaces or ones gold (mansion) that is silver lined — as the song Mansions Over the Hilltop puts it. Scriptures do describe the heavenly Jerusalem as a city of gold, whose walls and foundation are precious stones — but never with the crass materialism often shown in our use of such terms. Heavens treasure is far richer than that which could be spent for possessions or fleshly gratifications. Its beauty and value are represented to humans by human terminology (how else?) yet it is the abiding place that Jesus emphasizes. We will dwell there, and that spells HOME.

The Greek none is only used in two places: Jn. 14:2, and 23. Bagster says it means a stay in any place.. . The word is from meno, remain, abide, tarry, continued presence. it does not describe the elaborateness of a house, as does mansion in our current usage, but says here you may no more uncertainty, no more subject to day-to-day circumstances, no more wondering, waiting, wishing. You may here abide, here remain.

The second use of the word (Jn. 14:23) is also significant. If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. In pagan philosophy the ultimate is to lose identity in nothingness with the universe; but the child of God finds true identity in his relationship with his Creator. He spends his earth-time in faithful service, and confidently awaits the final home to be with the Father.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIII No.IV Pg.1

June 1976

Fear God!

Robert F. Turner

Practically all brethren know that fear God means revere or respect Him, but I wonder if we have given proper attention to reverence. In the Greek, phobos meant panic as in flight from battle; or, the opposite of courage; or, awe, reverence, — the feeling of one in presence of an infinitely superior being. The question is, do we truly recognize Gods presence, and feel this reverence?

Reverence for God is obviously the child of faith — believing we are in the presence of the ultimate superior being. Man may feel an intimacy, a closeness (as child for father) with such a being; but there could never be familiarity in such a relation. A Hi, Dad! attitude, most charitably considered, shows a lack of appreciation for the true nature of God. Paul charges sinners as having no fear of God before their eyes (Rom. 3:18).

Fear of God keeps man reaching for higher goals, for ideals; keeps him living in the shadow of eternity. We sojourn through this life as we seek a country (1 Pet.1:17). When Christ is Lord in our hearts we testify of our hope with meekness and fear (1 Pet. 3:15). Gods presence imparts to the true believer an awareness of accountability and judgment. Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God (2 Cor. 7:1). In Gods presence saints work out your own salvation with fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12).

We are not pleading for externals: for quietness in the church building or cathedral voice tones. True reverence is within, and although it is reflected in behavior, we can not put out what we have not put in. Too much stress on the demonstration for demonstrations sake can only make us greater hypocrites. God desires goodness, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt-offerings (Hos. 6:6).

Fear (in its bad sense) is cast out by love (1 Jn. 4:18); but awe, respect, and reverent fear will ever mark those in His presence (Rev. 1:10).

[RETIREDFAN1]

2

June 1976

More On Papers

Robert F. Turner

Last month, under Some Thoughts on Papers, we published a brief history of a few religious journals, and tendencies of such to become organs and influence centers for various distinctive doctrines. Of course any influential church, preacher or writer has the same effect and should be censured only if the influence is exercised for selfish or sectarian purposes. We should also realize that such centers get undue power from the weak or sectarian minded brethren who lean on them for their authority.

But there has been a change in the brethrens tolerance for brotherhood centers of influence. Perhaps the popular rejection of the Establishment is responsible for this. We are affected by social changes. Too, our emphasis upon congregational independence versus any sponsoring or controlling center has left its mark. Conservatives who have so long taught the error of following this paper, that school, or BIG preachers, are beginning to believe their own message. We have long claimed that individuals could learn truth for themselves, and independent churches could survive without an earthly headquarters. Now we are developing a generation that is willing to try it.

The all- sound- brethren- read- this paper day is passing. Some think major journals have killed themselves by infighting, but I think there is more to it than this. The day of dominating papers is passing. But the need for mature, thought — provoking journalism has not passed. Freedom to think for oneself is not the same as wisdom to think well. Sometimes the excuse to quit reading the papers is an excuse to quit consulting the opinion of others, and to lose balance in our judgment. Those centers of influence we rejected were also the media for rich thoughts that otherwise might have but limited exposure. We must not allow the abuses of influence centers to blind us to proper usage. Individual free thinking can also produce wild extremes and heady pride.

We expressed our liking for noncommercial, free- to- the- reader publications by various congregations, as part of their teaching program. But repeats of repeats of cartoons and Stuff About Things can not take the place of serious religious journalism any more than V.B.S. can take the place of college-type Bible study.

Independence needs a soap-box; the exchange of ideas. We must be able to reject headquarters without puffing up in self-esteem. Only as we hear others can we submit one to another.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIII No.IV Pg.3
June 1976
What Needs Preaching
Dan S. Shipley

If worship service attendance be a fair indicator, there are many who feel that nothing needs preaching. Some who do attend lament about nothing being preached— and preached, and preached. Others seem to like it like that. But regardless of personal preferences, public preaching has an important and God-given place deserving of our respect. The content of such preaching is equally important. For Paul that meant preaching the whole counsel of God and not shunning to declare anything that was profitable (Acts 2O:2O--27). Not all medicine that does good tastes good and not all preaching that profits is pleasant. Reproof and rebuke are essential in preaching the word (2 Tim. 4:2), but that which is aimed at other people in other places is not likely to have much effect locally. As a preacher friend says, put the salve where the sore is!. To put it another way, pertinent preaching must include dealing with prevailing problems among~. And that is not always an easy task — as most preachers will amen.

No preacher would have found it easy or pleasant to preach what Stephen preached in his last sermon — but it was needful. When Paul saw that Peter and others walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, he dealt with them promptly and to the face (Gal. 2:11ff). Whether the problem was false teaching or immorality, Paul told brethren what they needed to hear and when they needed to hear it, even when it made them sorry (2 Cor. 7:8). Were Paul and Stephen wrong? If not, then why would similar efforts by faithful evangelists be less appreciated now? Regrettably, however, it seems that a few preachers are reluctant to speak out on what they think might be volatile issues among their brethren. Worse, some of the brethren love to have it so (as Jer. 5:30). Such, like those in Stephens audience, have uncircumcised hearts and ears especially with reference to certain subjects. We read of Paul facing such a group in Acts 22. They were willing to listen — until he mentioned a subject they didnt like. Most among us have long lamented the refusals of others to hear the whole counsel of God on such subjects as baptism. Yet, some claiming to be Christians manifest a similar disposition, only toward other divine counsel. Until we are prepared to receive it (all of it), we are not really prepared to recommend it. Bad enough that some would time-out certain preaching or that some would go elsewhere to avoid hearing it, but what have we come to when gospel preachers are discouraged or outright forbidden to speak about the sins in their midst? Can this be far from what Paul wrote about those who would not endure the sound doctrine? (2 Tim. 4:3) Brethren, when the time comes that we would try to muzzle the faithful gospel preacher in order to appease the sinner, were in trouble.

What needs preaching? For starters tell me what men dont want to hear. Thats the second thing they need to hear. The first thing they need to hear and learn is what it means to love the Truth and its Author. Suppressing truth is like pulling the plug on our spiritual-life support system — we just can't live without it!

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIII No.IV Pg.4
June 1976
Fellowship With God
Robert F. Turner

Fellowship (koinonia) means sharing and Moulton and Milligan say it was used by the Greeks for the closest of all human relationships. When God is the partner it consists of our sharing His characteristics— as Thayer puts it, partakers in common of the same mind... The ideal will only be realized when we dwell with God in eternity, but it sets standards by which our present relations are measured — with God, and with man.

God ways, Be ye holy, for I am holy (1 Pet. 1:15-16). Every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure (1 Jn. 3:3). God is love, and therefore we must also love (1 Jn. 4:7-11,19). We must walk in the light to have fellowship with him who is Light (1 Jn. 1:5-7). God is Spirit, and our worship must be a communion in spirit (Jn. 4:23-24). Finally, Be ye therefore perfect, even as your heavenly Father is perfect (Matt. 5:48).

The means of such a relationship is Jesus Christ. He died for us, that a just God might forgive our sins (Rom. 3:23-26); and in His role of Prophet, Jesus delivered the message by which we are informed of Gods will and are finally judged (Heb. 1:1f Jn. 12:48-50). His declarations, commands and invitations are to all the world; but acceptance and appropriation of redemption is on an individual basis, and fellowship with God is contingent upon our living, obedient faith. John wrote, That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us, i.e., with the Father, and with His Son... (1 Jn. 1:3).

In a practical sense, mans fellowship with God is possible only as man is taught, hears, learns and comes to Him (Jn. 6:45). Faith is the result of an objective approach to revelation (Rom. 10:17), and must not be equated with mystical feelings or emotional inner warmth. And this is the place for the relative knowledge argument. The Grace-Fellowship fellows, who are uncertain about fellowship among men because doctrinal knowledge differs with our background, etc., must acknowledge the same relativity here, where fellowship with God is at stake pursuing their present course, some will eventually accept the evangelical conclusion that God directly and immediately operates upon a sinners heart. Proof of fellowship with God will be heart-felt in the best mourners bench tradition.

Of course mans knowledge is less than perfect, but the sincere truth-seeker has reason to be confident. (1) God, who made man, delivered truth in a way suited to mans capacity (Eph. 3:2-6; 5:17); and (2) God knows our thoughts (Heb. 4:12), our inner spirit from whence we serve Him (Rom. 1:9; 2:29). Since fellowship between God and man is on an unequal basis by its very nature, mans part is at best his sincere endeavor to be God-like. In fact, godliness is more a God-ward attitude that motivates our doings. If I fail to have fellowship with God it is my fault, not His.

Jesus said, If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine ... If a man love me he will keep my words... (Jn. 7:17; 14:23). Do we really believe these words?? (continued next page)

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIII No.IV Pg.5
June 1976
Its Effect On Mans Relations
Robert F. Turner

(Continued from preceding page)

When Does One Become A Christian?
When one conforms to the requirements that Christ has given (Jn. 14:21-24).

Who Determines This Conformity?
God judges His servants, in keeping with declared standards (Jn. 12:47-f). Individuals answer to God (Rom. 14:21).

WHEN MAY I RECOGNIZE ANOTHER AS A CHRISTIAN? When, by my understanding of Gods word, I see one has done the bidding of Christ (Matt. 7:15-23).

IS NOT MY MOST HONEST APPRAISAL RELATED TO MY UNDERSTANDING OF TRUTH? Certainly! Truth is not relative. God knows exactly when one is His, but I know in keeping with my grasp of revealed truth (Acts 18:24-26).

COULD I BE HONESTLY MISTAKEN, MY UNDERSTANDING OF TRUTH AT FAULT? Yes!

I do not consider my level of understanding to be equivalent to the divine standard (2 Cor. 10:12-f).

THEN HOW CAN I JUSTIFY BEING POSITIVE ABOUT ANYTHING? God requires honest conviction of me. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind (Rom. 14:5, 22-23). As it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken: we also believe, and therefore speak (2 Cor. 4:13). To the extent I believe Gods word is truth (Jn. 17:17) and am honest in my study and conclusions; exactly to that extent I must conclude that contrary teachings are erroneous (2 Tim. 4:1-f). IS NOT THIS SECTARIANISM? No, it is not! Sectarianism chooses certain doctrines and builds a party with them as boundary — refusing to consider anything else as truth. I refuse to consider my level of understanding as final, contending only that I must teach and act in keeping with an honest, objective consideration of Gods standard in order to be true to myself and to God. The flip-side of sectarianism, and equally bad, is the irreverent and faithless conception that each man is accountable only to himself, so that there is NO standard of absolute truth.

*****************************
Fellowship (sharing) as fellow-saints must be upon the above basis. We must stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel. If there be therefore any fellowship of the spirit-- it must be found in this striving, objectively, to be pleasing in Gods sight (Phil. 1:27-f). The universal test for determining mans spirit is, therefore, his reaction to examination to his practice and teaching in the light of the revelation of Gods Spirit. (1 Jn. 4:6; where we and us are John and other inspired witnesses — 1:1-4 — not the party.)

Financing, promoting or encouraging error obviously contradicts proper concepts of fellowship with God (2 Jn. 9—11; 2 Cor. 6:14-f). One may say he so acts in keeping with his objective Bible study and honest convictions. God knows the truth about that and will judge accordingly. This does not, however, release me from my obligations to act upon my conviction If we are both honest, we will study together; and neither will conclude that union which embraces error can take the place of unity in the Lord.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIII No.IV Pg.6
June 1976
Vote With Your Life
Robert F. Turner

Plutarch was a Greek writer (46 to 125 A.D.) whose biographies of Greek and Roman greats were meant to spur men to develop more noble character. In his life of Numa Pompilius he comments at length on an unusual period of 43 years of peace in Rome, and offers an analysis of the reasons for such a period.

************************
The love of virtue and justice flowed from Numas wisdom as from a fountain, and the serenity of his spirit diffused itself, like a calm, on all sides; so that the hyperboles of poets were flat and tame to express what then existed; as that

Over the iron shield

The spiders hang their threads..

For during the whole reign of Numa, there was neither war, nor sedition, nor innovations in the state, nor any envy or ill-will to his person, nor plot or conspiracy from views of ambition. Either fear of the gods that were thought to watch over him, or reverence for his virtue, or divine felicity of fortune that in his days preserved human innocence, made his reign, by whatever means, a living example and verification of that saying which Plato, long afterwards, ventured to pronounce, that the sole and only hope of respite or remedy for human evils was in some happy conjunction of events which should unite in a single person the power of a king and the wisdom of a philosopher, so as to elevate virtue to control and mastery over vice. The wise man is blessed in himself, and blessed also are the auditors who can hear and receive those words which flow from his mouth; and perhaps, too, there is no need of compulsion or menaces to affect the multitude, for the mere sight itself of a shining and conspicuous example of virtue in the life of their prince will bring them spontaneously to virtue, and to a conformity with that blameless and blessed life of goodwill and mutual concord, supported by temperance and justice, which is the highest benefit that human means can confer; and he is the truest ruler who can best introduce it into the hearts and practice of his subjects. It is the praise of Numa that no one seems ever to have discerned this so clearly as he.

Alexis de Tocqueville, a Frenchman who studied America thoroughly in the 1830s, wrote a book about his experiences. He heard, in early America, pulpits aflame for righteousness and he said, America is great because America is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great. (From Classic Lines.)

Dr. Arnold Toynbee, historian of the rise and fall of civilizations, named the morality gap as one of the most crucial issues of our time.

It is not our purpose to seek, directly, the salvation of this nation. Christianity is a leavening influence which works from the individual out, and our work is to save ourselves, and as many others as will come to Christ, with reference to eternity. But wise men know, Righteousness exalteth a nation — not politics.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIII No.IV Pg.7
June 1976
You Know What?
Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

What is meant by unwillingly yoked in 2 Cor, 6:14? Does this refer to the marriage relation? H.T.

Reply

Unequally yoked is translated from heterodzugeo — the latter part of that word meaning yoke and the former part (hetero) meaning different with some hint of difference that is for the worse. (Trench, Sym. of N.T. has a fine discussion of this.)

The yoked is figurative, and does not refer to intercourse or the marriage relation. (In Lev. 19:19 the word is used (LXX) re. mixed breeding of cattle, but is translated diverse kind; and another word altogether is used for gender with.)

A yoke is the bar placed across the necks of draft animals, binding them, so that they may be worked together. They are yoked for the accomplishment of the job — pulling stumps, plowing, or whatever. To yoke an oxen to some smaller, weaker, or cantankerous animal would hinder the accomplishment of the task. But if both animals would work toward the same goal, the yoke would assist them in working as a team, and contribute to the desired end.

Now the end or goal under consideration in 2 Cor. 6: is the fellowship and service of God. Christians are reminded that it is possible to fail — to receive Gods grace in vain. The goal requires patience, sacrifice, pureness, etc. (vs. 1-13). Paul says, Do not accept, as a yoke-fellow, one who has a different goal who will not pull with you to the same end — who will hinder your efforts to serve and have true fellowship with God.

As already noted, the yoke does not refer to marriage of itself; it refers to any teaming up with. Any sharing relationship which keeps one from serving God faithfully must be abandoned. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, (v. 17). The marriage itself is not the yoke under consideration, for a believer is told to remain with an unbeliever (1 Cor. 7:10, 13), accepting separation only when the unbeliever departs. However, marriage can be an unequal yoking. If a choice must be made between a marriage relation and God, true disciples will love God more — (Lu. 14:26-33).

Not all association with people of the world is forbidden (1 Cor. 5:9-l0). But if you are yoked to a business partner who is dishonest, and your yoking is such that you must be a party to his dishonesty —come out. If you are a member of some civic or social order that functions contrary to the will of God, and your yoking is such that you must jointly participate in the error — come on out. If you are a member of some church whose work or worship is not in accord with true service of God, and your contributions and influence are yoked to that digression —come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord (2 Cor. 6:17).

Unequally yoked is also defined by its opposite —My yoke-fellow with Paul (Phil. 4:3), and in the final analysis, with God (1 Cor. 3:9).

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIII No.IV Pg.8

June 1976

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

Have you ever talked to a lizard? I dont mean about evolution, or art, or even politics. Lizards dont know about those things, any more than we. I mean about important things, like the weather, or flies, or Why do you brag so much when youre just an ol rusty lizard? Things like that.

If you will approach with caution, and speak in a normal tone of voice, and not crowd them too closely, they will listen better than humans — whom we approach with a rush of zealous fire, and yell at, and step on. Lizards have a lot of feeling. We must be considerate of their rights if we expect to get a hearing.

Sometimes, like early in the morning, you will find them cold, or taking a nap. You can talk your head off then, and get no more response than that of a pew-warmer. If you try to stomp them awake they take off in a huff, and probably never know what the excitement was all about. Very little reasoning takes place in a situation like that. Sometimes one will run just because another did. Man, they are almost human!

Best way to have a real rap session is to get on their level. You dont have to catch gnats or take a hypocritical condescending attitude. But you should try to understand the lizard viewpoint. One of my best conversations began quite casually. I just happened to be drifting in the warm spring sun: admiring wild flowers, wondering where that passing cloud was going; and there was 0l Rusty, perched on a dead limb, apparently watching the same cloud. It was a relaxed situation, we had common interests, and we both learned a lot.

Rusty explained about the bragging That pumping up and down was just his way of cooling off in hot weather, or getting his blood to flow better in cold weather, or maybe looking for a fly. I explained about my grandchild chasing him — she was just young, and wanted to play. No hard feelings, Rusty said, by cocking his head and blinking his eyes. You see how frank discussion helps mutual understanding?

We had a great Bible study: head-nodding, eye blinking, Tom tinkering. The gospel for Rusty was simple. He trusted his Maker, and did what God directed. In that frame he loved me, and I loved him. But there warm compromise. Lizards would be baptized if the Lord wanted it that way.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIII No.V Pg.1

July 1976

Giving Thanks To God

Robert F. Turner

In Rom. 1: Paul describes sin in its most basic sense as a rejection of God. Mans just responsibility is shown in that he could know God as eternal power and deity from evidences in the world about him. But mans vanity, his ego, prevents his acceptance of God; and this is demonstrated by two things: 1) his refusal to glorify God — to praise, or look up to God; and 2) mans ingratitude. They glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful. (v. 21)

Being thankful, so much like genuine worship or praise, demands a humble and contrite heart. It indicates our feeling of need for God; of dependence upon Him. It makes us ever aware that in Him we live, and move, and have our being (Acts 17:28).

Sermons on thanksgiving tend to stress the expression of gratitude that is due, following the reception of blessings. This is, of course, in order, as Jesus taught when he had healed the ten lepers (Lu. 17:12-19). Were not the ten cleansed? but where are the nine? We are daily blessed, and should daily express our thanks. But gratitude goes much further than a courteous Thank You! or even the most sincere and complete expression of thanksgiving. It is an attitude, basic to the life of a Christian. Paul wrote to the Colossians, As therefore ye received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, rooted and builded up in Him, and established in your faith, even as ye were taught, abounding in thanksgiving (2:6-7). Various manuscripts relate this thanksgiving to their faith (K.J., abounding therein with th. .) while Lenski says, it is closely united with the confirmation that is constantly received.

1 Thes .5:18 reads, In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you. A deep-seated, constant feeling of gratitude toward God, seems to sum up the awareness, dependence, and confidence which characterizes a true follower of God in Christ; and without which we cannot please Him. It is indicative of faith, and hope, and love. It produces the sacrifice of praise (Heb. 13:15); both in word and in a life devoted to Him (Col. 3:17).

[RETIREDFAN1]

• Of Truth
•  
• In Search Of Truth Forums
•  
• Words Fitly Spoken
•  
• Bible Banner
•  
• Plain Talk
•  
• Gospel Guardian

Vol.XIII No.V Pg.2

July 1976

Units Of The Church

Robert F. Turner

The Aug. 2, 60 Firm Foundation published the first of three articles of mine: Units of the Church Universal. The editor made light of them saying: So far as we know all brethren have always understood that the individual Christian is the unit of the church universal. . . .We were unaware that any thought or taught that congregations were units of the body of Christ, in the sense that individuals are. (Of course I had not said, in the sense that individuals are.) My article had quoted Alexander Campbell as taking the position I opposed, but apparently the editor didnt read it.

Now, in the June 76 issue of Contending for the Faith (Ira Rice, Ed.) a bro. Harry Akers, Jr. writes a very fine article, indicating sincere and fruitful thought on such matters, and draws the conclusion that Campbell and others like him were wrong---even as I had pointed out in 1960. He also quotes Franklin Camps book on the Holy Spirit (p. 215) as taking this erroneous position. I was surprised at the fallacious proof Camp gave for his conclusion. He can beat that.

But to top it off, when Ira commented on the Akers article he wrote: It seems to me that you are straining a point to question whether the local churches of Christ combine together to make up the universal church.... The church manifests itself, in the scriptures, both as individuals as well as congregations making it up. Ira seems blissfully unaware that the subject and context is organizational structure and the bearing of units of the church on this matter. He needs to read carefully Campbells reasoning on this subject and how his church made up of churches led to seeking methods for the universal church to go into all the world and function.

In order for a local church (made up of individuals) to function, it must have oversight, pool resources, then act collectively. I take it Ira knows this is scriptural, for we have commands and examples fur such. If he believes the universal church can so function, and that local churches are the units of the universal church, let him show where a plurality of local churches ever pooled resources, accepted oversight, and functioned collectively. (If concurrent independent action in sending alms to a dependent church (11 Cor. 8: etc.) will answer, lets see him prove congregational independence and autonomy.)

If Lemmons, Rice, and others are unaware of the bearing of this subject on church government they should reread the Akers material, and THINK!

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIII No.V Pg.3
July 1976
The Hope Of The Gospel
Dan S. Shipley

After reminding the Colossians of their reconciliation to the Father through Christ, Paul admonishes them to continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope    of the gospel. . (Col. 1:23). The hope of sinful man must ever be peculiarly identified with the gospel of Christ. The very point and purpose of the gospel involves this hope. To the Ephesians Paul writes that ye were called in one hope of your calling (4:4). He prays that they might be enlightened in knowing what is the hope of this calling (1:18). Similar enlightenment should be sought by all who have aspirations concerning such a hope--especially in view of popular unscriptural notions concerning this subject.

The hope of the gospel is not an earthly millennial reign of Christ. It is not world peace or social reform. In fact, such hope is not oriented to this world at all. Paul says we would be most pitiable if our hope in the Lord was confined to this life (1 Cor. 15:19). The hope of the gospel is the hope of immortality! As Paul points out to king Agrippa, it is the hope of Israel and involves the raising of the dead (Acts 26:6-8). It is the hope held by Paul and others of the Way that there shall be a resurrection both of the just and unjust (Acts 24:15). In Rom. 8 it is called the redemption of the body. The hope of the gospel is the hope of eternal life (Titus 1:2) and is further identified as the hope which is laid up for you in the heavens (Col. 1:5). Despite the fact that certain door-knocking disciples tell us they dont want to be in a place called heaven despite Garner Teds spoofing the idea of anyone being saved in heaven. God says that is where our hope is laid up. Peter connects our living hope with the inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you (1 Pet. 1:4). The Bible knows no other hope and Bible believers aspire to no other.

The hope of the gospel is just that — it is of the gospel because no other source reveals such hope. Paul says that life and immortality have been brought Ii, light through the gospel (2 Tim. 1:10). Thats where the Colossians heard it (Col. 1:5), in the word of the truth of the gospel. It is a gospel-connected hope because nothing else has the power and promise of God behind it. Only He who raised Christ can give life to our mortal bodies (Rom. 8:11; 1 Cor. 6:14) and He has promised just that: . .in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before times eternal.. (Titus 1:2). Such hope is of the gospel because it is only there that we learn how to attain it. From no other place can we learn how we ought to live so as to please God (1 Thss. 4:1), not even from an adulterated or perverted almost gospel. Only the pure gospel can lead men to its objective, the salvation of souls (Jas. 1:21) according to Gods eternal purpose.

As an anchor for the soul, the hope of the gospel keeps us where God wants us. Paul says that we are not to be moved away from the hope of the gospel. You might say it keeps us as we keep it.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIII No.V Pg.4
July 1976
The Word Of God
Robert F. Turner

In the 1968 Arlington Meeting (book available) Roy Cogdill did a magnificent job of introducing BIBLE AUTHORITY. I would outline some of those thoughts as follows. 1) The Necessity for Authority in Religion. 2) Authority must be Objective, coming from without man. 3) GOD, being sovereign by right of creation and possession, is the Object in Religion. 4) The nature of God, as Creator, and man, as creature (Potter and clay), negate the possibility of mans taking (via philosophy or transcendental meditation) the will of God. God must Reveal Himself — must communicate His sovereign will to His creatures. 5) The Son of God Manifested the Father; is the fullness of deity bodily; and, 6) The Holy Spirit is the Divine Agent by which the manifestation, and the attendant message of Gods will, is made known to man.

God sent His Son; the Son spoke and demonstrated the will of the Father--these are historic acts; occurrences in time and space. To the end that a record might be made and the divine message repeated to subsequent generations, special messengers were chosen and endowed with a miraculous measure of the Holy Spirit — to speak as the Spirit gave them utterance. (Lu. 24:48-49; Jn. 14:25-26; 15:26-27; 16:12-14; Acts 2:1-4; 1 Cor. 2:1-13)

The writings of these inspired men is but an extension of their task to make known to their generation, and to following generations, the will of God. (Eph. 3:1-7; Col. 4:16; 2 Pet. 1:13-15; 3:1-2, 15-16; Jn. 20:30-31; Lu. 1:1-4) These writings are, therefore, authoritative. GOD is the authority, the source of the message; but the written word is the record of Gods acts and message, delivered by inspiration of Gods Holy Spirit through Gods messengers, and therefore it is authoritative. As brother Cogdill put it, The realm of faith lies within that of divine revelation. Paul said: Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God (Rom. 10:17).

When ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but, as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe (1 Thes. 2:13). The word of God was what they heard of us — the vehicles of speech enunciated by Paul. It was not some spiritual value derived by subjective feeling, but a message, objectively determined by hearing, and effective to the extent the hearer responded to its demands.

This is not Bibliolatry. The words are important because they express Gods message, confirmed by divine power (1 Thes. 1:5), which the Spirit teacheth (1 Cor. 2:4-5,13). The TRUTH makes free, but that truth is couched in words that may be spoken (Jn. 8:30-32). In 1 Thes. 4:1-8 Paul says, Ye have received of us how ye ought to walk. Paul testified of Gods will for them, and declares, He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us His Holy Spirit.

One cannot hold to New Testament Christianity, and reject the word of God concept found in its source book. These words are spirit and life, and shall judge us in the last day. (continued next page)