Plain Talk

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XV No.IV Pg.7

June 1978

?You Know What?

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

Does the expression "the brethren" of Acts 11:29, refer to every individual "brother" in Judea? S.O.

Reply:

"The brethren" (like "the saints," "the believers," etc.) is often used to designate a class of people. It refers to Christians as a class, and in contrast to "the unbelievers." It is like "the heathen," "the Gentiles."

In Acts 11:1 we read that the apostles and brethren... heard that "the Gentiles" had received the word. Surely, no one would contend that this meant every individual Gentile had received the word.

In Acts 11:2 they that were of "the circumcision" contended with Peter. Does anyone believe that every such person (Jews), or even every Jewish Christian, argued with him?

"The brethren" in Acts 11:29 tells us that the contribution was for the saints, as a class, and not for the population generally.. A concordance will give scores of such N.T. usage to those interested. (See Acts 12:17; 17:10; 18:27; 28:15; etc..)

Bro. Turner:

What can be done to correct the "party label" aspect of "Church of Christ" used to the exclusion of other scriptural designations? K.S.

Reply:

A sign is erected to say something to the general public. But the impression conveyed may be one we have given to the words used, rather than the literal meaning of the words used. As an example, what do you think when you see a church building with the sign: "Church of God"? Do you not think "Pentecostal," "Holiness," or whatever connotations your section of the country gives that designation?

If "church of Christ" does not convey the idea of the saints who serve God through Jesus Christ, who gave it the different meaning? "WE" did!! And don't you forget it!! By that, I mean people who have used this designation have given it the connotation now assigned it by the public. If it "says" "Promoters," "Fun-and-Frolic," "Just Another Sect," or "Stubborn Antis," it is the fault of those who use it. Changing the "name" (or leaving off "names" all together) (the public can say "those nuts that won't use any name") will not answer the need to so live and teach that the public will think of us as the people of God.

Too much has been made of designations. I suspect that earlier concern for the "name" was spawned by a subconscious desire for institutional image; but it must be admitted that our society demands some sort of means for public recognition. If we used only "the church" (or "assembly") the term would take on special meaning in the publics eye. A different designation every week (an actual proposal), would only add to the confusion.

I'm afraid we are stuck with the difficult task of teaching, living, demonstrating that we are truly children of God, members of the church one reads about in the New Testament. Now isn't that just awful?

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XV No.IV Pg.8

June 1978

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

Jonah sought vainly to flee from the presence of the Lord, apparently to avoid his assigned obligation to preach to the wicked people of Nineveh. When finally he began his work, he warned, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown" (Jonah 3:4). He was a prophet of doom — and must have been very convincing — for they "believed God; and they proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them." There is a valid place for warnings, severe and to the point.

But Jonah seemed more concerned about his status as a prophet of doom, than he did about the welfare of those he warned. When "God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way" he "repented of the evil which he said he would do unto them; and he did it not" (3:5, 10). And this displeased Jonah! (4:1-f) He seemed to have lost sight of the purpose in warnings — to save rather than to revel in human misery; to pull from the fire rather than to warm his hands with the heat.

We have bigger and better tornadoes in TEXAS; albeit some otherwise brave Texans cringe at the thought. One muscled hulk of a man (with a beard so thick his wife has to kiss him through a straw) cries like a baby when it thunders — (well, that's the way "they" tell it on him). And one good story leads to another.

"They say" he built himself a concrete and steel cellar; and practically lived in it. Every time a little cloud blew in he would run to his underground shelter, sit in the dark, fearfully contemplating the supposed destruction above, then finally emerge to find all safe and sound, refreshed by the lovely rain shower.

Until that day when he pushed back his cellar door and stepped out into a changed world. His house was nowhere to be seen; his barns and sheds were but scattered wreckage; trees were splintered and pulled from the ground; his cattle were all dead. He looked long and hard, he sighed heavily, and then he said, "Now, that's more like it!!"

Lord, if we must hear the crackle of Hell's fire in order to see and correct our waywardness and escape its heat, so be it. But deliver us from the doomsday "prophets" who use our fears to sell their wares. Help us to "cast out fear" and anchor our soul in the Haven of Rest.

[RETIREDFAN1]

.XV No.V Pg.1

July 1978

Toning It Down

Robert F. Turner

A "country meeting" had gone exceedingly well, and elders from another community asked the preacher to work with them the following year. He came at the appointed time, and found his reputation had spread, and the building was packed. The elders met him at the car, told him they had never had such a gathering of Methodists, Baptists, and no-church folk, so he must be very careful lest he offend someone with his forthright teaching.

Being young and brash, and having no more tact than to tell the truth, he reminded them of the undiluted lessons that had been given at the neighboring church in the previous year. He said that since he had not been in that section of the state before, the previous year's work must have drawn this year's crowd; and certainly was the reason he had been asked to come. He concluded, "If you expect to hold and convert these people with something other than the kind of preaching that brought them together, I'm afraid you have the wrong man. I'll get back into my car and go home."

With much confusion — "Oh no, you must have misunderstood us" etc., the preacher was persuaded to stay, and the meeting began. The preaching was strong, and seemed to get a little stronger; but the people continued to come, and several were converted.

I do not now believe, nor did I then, that "skinning the sects" is good preaching. Some folk will turn away from straight, plain truth, no matter how fairly we seek to present it. But we are dead wrong in thinking we can convert people to Christ with anything other than the Bible message. It will convict the world respecting sin, righteousness, and judgment; and many won't like that. But we are looking for the "few" who will like it, and will genuinely turn to God.

"Toning it down" will produce only "toned down" members of a "toned down" church. You may keep the money, the politicians, and silk-stocking row; but you will lose the backbone and fiber that is necessary for a church to prevail and please the Lord. And if "members" are not interested in pleasing the Lord and saving souls, why bother with any preaching at all?

[RETIREDFAN1]

ol.XV No.V Pg.2

July 1978

"By Grace Are Ye Saved"

Robert F. Turner

I have been asked, "Does God have a period of grace for a new convert?" "Will God cover his sins until he has time to learn the truth?" Many like questions or comments indicate widespread misunderstanding about grace.

The grace of God is treated as if it were a softness of heart for this or that individual, evoked upon some supposed "unusual" circumstance — as, a limb falling on a man, killing him, just as he was entering the water to be baptized; or, a fatal auto accident, before the victim had time to ask forgiveness for speeding. People reason, "If I 'feel sorry' for Joe Doaks under those circumstances, surely God would feel sorry for him." And so we find ourselves assigning God the character and nature we have, complete with human weakness, fleshly desires, and earthly limitations.

God cannot lie (Heb. 6:18), and it is impossible to please Him without faith (11:6) for exactly the same reason. God acts only within consistent limitations of His own nature and being. He cannot change; He cannot deny Himself. We can know, and assign His grace only as He revealed the working of that grace in His word. When we speak where God has not spoken, we may be guilty of presumptuous sin. The grace of God is expressed in Jesus Christ, and through Him to "the many" (Rom. 5:15). "God so loved the world" (not "special cases") "that He gave ... His Son" (Jn. 3:16). This is not "corporate love, but no concern for the individual." It is unbiased and just concern for every individual — a love so great it may be hidden to man's limited view. His mighty power was wrought in Christ (Eph. 1:18-f) and those dead in sin are made alive in Him (2:4-7). The individual is very much there (Paul said "who loved me, and gave himself up for me" 2:20) but he was a recipient of God's grace because he went to Christ in faith.

Purpose, Promise, and Election are equated (Eph. 3:6,11; Rom. 9:3,11), and their blessings are available to "whosoever will" come to and be faithful to Christ. He is the elect "one," (Isa. 42:1-7; I Pet. 1:18-21) by whom those who trust and serve Him have their hope in God.

The "election of grace" (Rom. 11:5) is clearly shown to be the "choosing" of the corporate body of "believers," either Jews or Gentiles. Individuals faithful to Christ are as branches, grafted into this "tree," and subject to removal if they become unfaithful (Rom. 11:16-23). This is the only way the scriptures reveal that one may be a recipient of God's grace.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XV No.V Pg.3

July 1978

Reviewing Autonomy

Dan S. Shipley

If the subject of congregational autonomy has been scripturally and sufficiently taught in the past two decades, it is apparent that many were not listening. Nothing is more fundamental or needful concerning the work of the church than the recognition of its autonomous nature; seeing that every congregation of God's people is to be independent and self-governing functioning only as directed by its head, Jesus Christ and in keeping with its own resources. In practical terms that means, among other things, that no local church has the authority to make its work dependent upon other churches. Any work that is too big for the local church is simply too big to be scripturally carried out. The very fact that a church cannot do certain works on its own makes it evident that God does not hold them responsible for such. Regarding individuals God says, "it is acceptable according as a man hath, not according as he hath not" (2 Cor. 8:12). Why should the principle be different with churches? It is what we have that determines the extent of what we can do, whether individually or collectively.

But, not only does the receiving (sponsoring) church lose its independence in such arrangements, so does the contributing church. The receiving church DEPENDS on the funds from contributing churches and the contributing churches DEPEND on the sponsoring church to do a work. Any arrangement that makes one church dependent on another is one in which autonomy is forfeited, and such is the case in all "sponsoring church" efforts. They exist without Bible authority. Further, failure to respect the autonomous nature of the local church has involved elders in the overseeing of activities beyond the flock which is among them (I Pet. 5:2). Extra-congregational activities require extra-congregational organization. Since elders cannot scripturally oversee ANY work or ANY people outside the framework of the local church, they can have no place in such work. The fact that God has provided no organization through which extra-congregational activities might be directed should prove they have no place in carrying out His work. It will take more than calling sponsoring church arrangements a "work of the local church" to make them so. Contributing churches claim to have fellowship in such work (they know it is more than a "local" effort). Therefore, elders become overseers of a "fellowship" of churches. How can they rightly oversee workshops and campaigns involving work and people outside the local congregation? As brother Robert Turner has noted, God provides no harness for this kind of a "team'; therefore, such "teams" have no legitimate existence.

One other point needs to be made respecting this autonomy and it is this: No church, no group of elders, and no preacher has any business trying to run the affairs of another church! Many are preaching autonomy while failing to practice it. Outside interference has disrupted the unity of more than one congregation in recent years. Our primary responsibility lies within the local church. Most of us will find enough work and problems there to fully occupy our time and talents.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XV No.V Pg.4
July 1978
Preachers
Robert F. Turner

The word "preacher" is coupled with "apostle," and Paul says he was thus appointed or ordained (1 Tim. 2:7; 2 Tim. 1:11). In this sense "preachers" seems hardly suited to the scattered saints of Acts 8:4 who "went every where preaching (evangelizing) the word." Those who have sought to perpetuate a "clergy" (Judaistic priesthood) system insist that they receive a divine "call" or appointment today; but I find no scriptural indication that apostles or preachers, in this special sense, would have successors. The apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors of the early church had a unique role — were especially equipped for it — and continue to serve their purpose as we read of their work.

It seems to me a "preacher" today is simply one who publicly proclaims the word; his "call" being no louder than his talent, will, and opportunity. I do not object to the designation "preacher," but believe this describes his work. It should not be used in an "official" sense. In the early church there were those "sent" who were not "apostles" as was Paul, and those who preached who were not so appointed. Their "authority," and ours, is in such passages as Acts 8:4 and 2 Tim. 2:2. The man who aspires to a "clergy" status among God's people is on the wrong road, and will fail the Lord's cause. But the role of a full time, supported teacher of the gospel deserves careful attention.

Preachers are people. If I thought I could convince you of that I'd risk half a column or more, but space is too limited to waste on lost causes, so on to the next point. Their job is teaching. Not administering, as in priesthood; for blessings come from God as each saint offers spiritual sacrifice. Not ruling, as in oversight; for God has given qualified elders this role. Not "telling off," as in dictator; for each of us must act in good conscience toward God, in keeping with our understanding of His word. A preacher is in no higher "position" than any other member of Christ's body, there being no hierarchy among God's people (Matt. 23: 8). He is not the only teacher in the church, for ability and opportunity impose obligations upon each saint. But it is rightly expected that one called "preacher" should have exceptional talent for study, understanding, and presentation, so that he teaches well. (Language loses its significance if all who can drive a nail are "carpenters," or all who teach in some way, are "preachers.")

Teaching involves learning. He has not taught unless he has imparted information; and in the fuller sense, unless the hearer has so learned as to be affected by the message. He can not force acceptance of God's message, but because men tend to act in their own interest, he will seek to persuade them of a spiritual need that only Christ can satisfy. Yes, "God gives the increase;" and yes, Satan blinds eyes and hardens hearts; but no preacher worth his salt will be satisfied with simply "putting it out" and going home. A gospel preacher hungers for souls to an extraordinary degree, and that is the basic reason why he has "let the dead bury their dead" and has given himself fully to preaching the kingdom (Lu. 9:59-60).

Vol.XV No.V Pg.5
July 1978
The Need For Dedicated Men Continues
Robert F. Turner

(continued from preceding page)

True godly living, and hunger for souls, have made more good preachers than all the "degrees" in the land. A desire to save souls will drive a man to prepare himself academically, far more often than a degree will send him out to call sinners to repentance. This drive, "as to the Lord," makes the difference in genuine kingdom harvesters and timid hands who "can't do anything else," or extroverts, who preach to feed their egos.

Preaching is a full-time job. The man who would preach should prepare himself to — preach. This is not to say he should have no knowledge nor interest in other fields. On the contrary, it seems a man who is conversant with and experienced in a wide range of subjects is better equipped to reach the public. But he should keep his outside interests second and servant to his predominant aim to teach God's word. Singleness of purpose is the key to success in this as in all other endeavors. Preaching must be his obsession. Eat it, drink it, talk it, dream it. Pour on Bible study, church history, word studies, doctrinal issues etc. Contact people for first-hand information. Go to a synagogue and talk with a rabbi; sit for a rap session with college youths; argue Bible with an old timer. Work at preaching, and you will have little time to sell soap or insurance.

In genuine cases where one must "make tents" in order to preach, I am filled with admiration. And there are secular businessmen who use their weekends to assist needy churches by preaching, singing, etc., who should be commended for their unselfish use of time. In my book such men are to be preferred over drones who take full-time support for golf, social calls, and poorly prepared sermons. But "mutual edification" and weekend preachers can not fill the need for full-time; dedicated students and proclaimers of the word of God.

Preachers are expendable (Now I'm writing about the man, not his work.) If he is ready to "spend and be spent" he will enter each "job" knowing that the brethren who invited him to come, can invite him to leave. He should read I Cor. 9:14-27 in the quiet of an empty room — and then stare at the ceiling. The cause of the Lord does not exist to support him, but he exists to further that cause. Our pride will be hurt when we are replaced; stingy brethren will go to Hell for failing to support faithful laborers; but we must not confuse our "rights" with our selfish desires. Begin to think that you are indispensable, and you will BE the problem more often than you solve it.

And if you are "not in this work for the money" quit acting like it. Learn to live within your income — no matter if you can not "dress as well as some members." From your income set aside your contribution, a modest saving (in early years can be insurance) and then live on the balance.

Finally, preachers are people; not kings, pet poodles, or door mats. We must take correction, practice humility, while maintaining human dignity. We can not hope to succeed as preachers if we fail as men — made in God's image — subject to His divine will.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XV No.V Pg.6

July 1978

The Sin Of Unbelief

Robert F. Turner

"I am continually amazed by the number of brethren who assert that the only thing of which one out of Christ is guilty is what they call the "sin of unbelief." By this they mean that they are sinners because they do not believe on Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and are not baptized. This is unfounded assumption.

A major passage used, that is supposed to teach the above idea, is Jn. 16:8-9. "And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin and of righteousness and of judgment: of sin, because they believe not on me..." So it is said that the only sin of which the world is guilty is that of not believing on Jesus, and that the Holy Spirit was to reprove the world of this only. Well, we will notice how the Holy Spirit carried this out....

In Acts 10:34-35 Peter said, "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons; but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." Then in vs. 42-43 he further said, "And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead. To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." Notice: righteousness, judgment and sins — plural. Turning next to Acts 17:30-31, we find Paul saying to the Athenians, "And the times of this ignorance God winked at, but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent; because he hath appointed a day in the which he will judge the world in righteousness..." Note here that there is judgment, righteousness, and repentance from idolatry. Then in Acts 24:25, "As he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled and answered, Go thy way for this time..." Note that here is righteousness, temperance, and judgment. We have found that in three instances of the preaching of the Holy Spirit, he has convicted men of sins, idolatry, and intemperance, as well as concerns righteousness and judgment. These then must point out the fulfillment of John 16:8-9.

Further proof is found in Eph. 5:113, a portion of which we present here. "For this we know that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience... And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them." Here are things of which those in darkness, those out of Christ, are guilty. It is BECAUSE OF THESE THINGS that God's wrath comes upon them... Notice also that we are to reprove them. This is the same word of Jn. 16:8-9 that tells us that the Holy Spirit will REPROVE the world because of sin. The only conclusion then is that the people of the world are guilty of far more than just not believing Christ to be the Son of God." By Maurice Barnett

————————

Digested from a Borger, TX. bulletin of several years past. We regret having to shorten such fine material.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XV No.V Pg.7

July 1978

?You Know What?

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

In Acts 21:20-f, Paul apparently took part in Jewish ceremonial matters involving sacrifice. How can this be consistent with his teaching re. the Law and New Covenant? D.L.

Reply:

McGarvey says, "I think it must be admitted that subsequent to the writing of the epistle to the Ephesians, and more especially that to the Hebrews, he could not consistently have done this... But in Paul's earlier epistles, though some things had been written which, carried to their logical consequences, involved all this, these points had not yet been clearly revealed to his mind, and much less to the minds of the other disciples." I quote this for your consideration, with due respect for McGarvey's line of reasoning; but it raises as many questions in my mind as it solves.

When Paul circumcised Timothy (16: 1-3) he had already "had no small dissension and disputation" with Judaizers (15:1-f). He knew what he was doing. If his Jerusalem visit of Gal. 2: 1 is the same as that of Acts 15: as I believe it was, he had refused to circumcise Titus (Gal. 2:3-5) prior to the circumcision of Timothy. Paul made a clear distinction between binding things of the old law, and making allowance for doing such things as matters of indifference. He could become "as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the Law, as under the Law: (1 Cor. 9:19-23) and at the same time give battle to those who would bind Judaism or the Law. Clearly, he acted in keeping with principle, and not in mortal fear of "what the brethren will think." Consider further, Judaism was a Theocracy: civil government and social regulations being found in the same "law" that contained religion. While Jerusalem and the Jewish economy stood, there was no separating daily life from the Temple. (Health laws required a man healed to go to a priest for ceremonial cleansing, Matt. 8:4; Lev. 14:1-f.) Vows, ceremonial rites, and "offerings" were an integral part of Jewish life, and like special "days" (Rom. 14:5-6) were deeply planted in the Jewish conscience. Paul knew the offerings, days, meats, etc., had lost their significance and he would not bind any of them. But he did not view these things from an Occidental distance as do we. They were daily "home town" transactions that he could take part in, NOT as affecting the universal scheme of redemption, but as a national practice. See Acts 14:25, "as touching Gentiles..."

James wanted to show "that thou walkest orderly and keepest the law." In many ways this was equivalent to saying today, "you keep the laws of the land, obey traffic signs, respect the constitution." Lenski thinks the specific reference is to the "law" of Num. 6: concerning Nazarite vows. This would show that Paul had not rebelled against "law and order" for the Jews; was not encouraging a revolution to overthrow the Jewish national codes.

In the final analysis, Paul was completely consistent with the principle of "do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor. 10:23-33). Read this passage, and carefully ponder its message.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XV No.V Pg.8

July 1978

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

To avoid unpacking and repacking I usually open my suitcase flat, and slide it under the bed, wherever I an staying. At two different places the hostess' cat used my case for a litter box, despite my efforts to keep household pets out of the room. At another place the family pet poodle puddled profusely, and chewed my pencils to shreds. It's all in the game of "staying with folk" in the course of gospel meeting work:

But the worst "pets" of all were those crawling and biting things with which I had to share one bed. Maybe some former preacher brought then in, but this one spent a miserable night identifying the enemy, and then prepared to oust then. In an early morning trip to town he obtained powders, paints and sprays designed to kill or repel the invaders. Then, when the woman of the house was away he tore that bed apart, administering a chemical blitzkrieg. The bed was then put together, but pulled from the wall and the legs set in shallow cans filled with kerosene. Although my door remained closed through the week the chemical odor filled the house. Everyone ignored it — saying not one word. And we had a very good meeting.

And lest you conclude that such experiences are "usual" let me assure you that these are some of the worst, drawn from forty-plus years of being the "visiting preacher." Nor have I always been the victim. One host was doing some remodeling, and had fourfold doors hung, but no hardware installed. Since I had done such work in my own house, I offered to finish his job. And I almost did — drilling the holes in the wrong door. I had the embarrassing task of trying to "patch up" and hide the error.

We also keep our share of preachers, and they have their problems with us. Several have stayed in our house while we were away, and on one such occasion we returned to find three dead scorpions stacked in a neat triangle on our snack bar — gentle reminder of what our guest had to endure while "staying with us."

I could tell you about the preacher who used up two cans of bathroom air freshener in one week — finally explained when the host saw smoke coming from the bathroom window and knew the man was trying to hide the fact that he smoked while in there. But you night want to know the man's name so I won't tell that story. Instead, I'll thank hundreds of wonderful people everywhere who keep the preacher.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XV No.VI Pg.1

August 1978

Will - Worship

Robert F. Turner

In Col. 2:18-23 Paul condemns a type of worship called "voluntary humility" (f.n. "of his own mere will") or "will-worship: The textual and exegetical problems of this passage are many, and we will not go into them here. But we are impressed by the obvious reference to "worship" that is not truly worship at all, but a mere satisfaction which the so-called worshiper may get from his "show of wisdom, humility, and severe treatment of his body." This is "will-worship."

There are some who "glory" in the cloistered life of monk or nun; some actually desire persecution, and contrive to bring it upon themselves; or love worship for mere worship's sake. On the surface they appear to be making great sacrifice "for the Lord," when in reality they are satisfying their flesh. Arbitrary religious acts, originating in the human will and for fleshly satisfaction, have no place in true worship and submission to God.

Nor is "will-worship" something found only in ancient Colossae. We frequently talk with people who seem to think that if they like a certain type of music in "worship" (from deep throated organ tones, to jazz bands), God must surely be, pleased with that. If dimmed lights and theatrical performances make them "feel better" God must surely consider that "worship." It is worship all right — but we are serving (and kidding) ourselves. Such worship is "of taste" not "of faith."

And I wonder if we have given proper thought to what we are saying when we talk about "enjoying" the singing? "Rejoicing in the Lord" is not the same as jiving with the song leader. Neither morbid piety nor foot-patting rhythms should be our goal. If our singing — either stately and sedate, or a Sunday morning imitation of real "country-western"— becomes a mere satisfaction of our musical tastes, we have degenerated into "will-worship" and need to revise our thinking.

I believe our selection of worship songs has degenerated, but plugging for my taste in music would completely pervert the purpose of this article. Instead, let us all forget what we like in tune and rhythm, and concentrate on truly worshiping God.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XV No.VI Pg.2

August 1978

The Forgotten Command

Robert F. Turner

It would be trite to say authority and discipline are unpopular in current society; and unnecessary to say this spirit has affected the church. Hundreds of churches have existed for years without exercising corrective discipline in a single case — and not because everyone was faithful. Bring up the subject, and brethren tremble because we see trouble at the door.

Why does church discipline have such a reputation? 1) Brethren have not learned to think objectively — to separate personal feelings from principles — to lose self in the greater cause of Christ. 2) Discipline, has been abused, used vindictively (when we wanted to "tell off" someone), or practice majority rule. Or, 3) it has been neglected for so long there is no "easy" place to start. We await some horrible deed that will shock us all — and we are building an immunity to shock. Perhaps some churches have acted to SAVE FACE respecting highly publicized events; or a few may have made a "flag" of disfellowship —proving "soundness" by something akin to martial law; but for the most part we have neglected corrective discipline.

A comparison of Job 36:10, 2 Tim. 1:7, and 2 Tim. 3:16 — in K.J. and A.S. versions, will show discipline and a controlled and instructed mind have much in common. Discipline begins as we present the call of the gospel to an alien. He is "called out of darkness" (1 Pet. 2:9), is taught to crucify the "old man" in obedience to a "form of doctrine" that he might become a "servant of righteousness" (Rom. 6:3-7, 16-18). While not corrective or punitive in the sense of disfellowship, this hedges about and brings into line in a most positive way. If we are careful to explain the cost of discipleship (Lu. 14:26-f) and the necessity forgiving "self" unto the Lord, this initial "discipline" will spare the need for much later correction.

1 Jn. 1:5-7 makes the relation of discipline to fellowship very obvious. "God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with him and walk in darkness, we lie..." The means of forgiveness, hence of fellowship with God, is provided by Christ; but my forgiveness, my fellowship is contingent upon my walking in the light. This involves a humble walk, ever acknowledging my inadequacy, my need for Him. ("If we confess ...he is faithful and just to forgive" v. 9.)

Church discipline, properly viewed, is a part of the mutual assistance we should expect among Christians in our effort to walk in fellowship with God.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XV No.VI Pg.3

August 1978

A Perverted Gospel

Dan S. Shipley

The early church was troubled by certain Jewish Christians who insisted that Gentile converts submit to circumcision and observe the law of Moses (Acts 15:5). In writing to the churches in Galatia, Paul says such men are perverting the gospel of Christ (Gal. 1:7). They make it "different", as he puts it. As a result, God's people were being troubled and were removing themselves from Him (v.6, 7). In addition, the false teachers made themselves accursed (v.8, 9).

Since the gospel is of divine origin (Gal. 1:12), and "not after man" (v. 11), it is obviously everything God intended it to be and, therefore, without need of alteration of any kind. Trouble still comes when men start to "plus and minus" the gospel. Like the Judaizing teachers, many desire a gospel that includes their own ideas, innovations, and "improvements"— and herein lies the root of most religious division today. In fact, denominationalism itself is a living monument to a perverted gospel. When, for example, men are willing to extend salvation to sinners on completely different terms than those set forth in the word of God, they pervert the gospel. Others alter the gospel pattern of worship by adding instruments of music (giving a plus to Eph. 5:19) or by deleting weekly observance of the Lord's supper (giving a minus to Acts 20:7). Such things as infant baptism and sprinkling as baptism represent further blatant perversions of Christ's gospel and are no more a part of it than circumcision. Little wonder we are troubled and divided in the religious world! — and that so many are removed from God. But worse, and closer to home, we see the Lord's church still troubled with the problems of a perverted gospel. The "plus" and "minus" may come in different places, but the effects are no less hurtful — not even when you assume the perverting is being pushed and accepted by well-intentioned brethren (no doubt the Judaizers meant well). But the question is NOT whether such brethren mean well or whether they consider their "improvements" right —certainly they do! However the real question is (and pardon me if this sounds old-fashioned): IS THERE SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY FOR THEM? Are they a part of the God-given gospel?

For example, where in all of the God-given gospel did elders ever oversee ANYTHING other than the flock among them (1 Pet. 5:2)? Where in that complete and all-sufficient gospel do you find the Lord's church making a donation to any kind of human institution? Where do you find the popular sponsoring-church arrangement? Where in all of the glorious gospel do you read of churches providing for the social activities of its members? Remember, we are the people who used to say, "We speak where the Bible speaks and are silent where the Bible is silent"! We must not allow prejudice to replace conviction; we must be honest with self! We must continue to "prove all things" (1 Thss. 5:21). Not even apostles and angels have the liberty to make something a part of the gospel that God didn't (Gal. 1:8,9). Dare to take your Bible and learn that most of what troubles the church today is no more a part of the gospel than was circumcision.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XV No.VI Pg.4
August 1978
Church Discipline
Robert F. Turner

We introduced this subject on the editorial page; indicating the relation of initial instructive discipline to fellowship with God. But discipline should not stop with the call of the gospel. "Together" activities of the saints add another dimension to fellowship — the joint participation or sharing of "fellows" in their endeavor to serve God — and this also calls for a type of discipline.

As we "edify in love" (Eph. 4:16), or "teach and admonish" in singing, or study, pray, and sacrifice together; we are assisting one another to be faithful to the Lord. We have need of one another (1 Cor. 12:14-f), and the more we recognize and supply that need, the closer will be our fellowship, the more effective our day by day "discipline by example" Our spiritual brothers must become our peers, whose approval or disapproval mean the most to us. This is the sort of communion that gives meaning to the various scriptures on corrective discipline, and without which they lose their effectiveness.

Disfellowship HAS meaning only to the extent that fellowship HAD meaning to us. Would you rather your social companions go to hell than for them to be embarrassed by the truth? Are you embarrassed that God's people are different from those of the world? Is your relation with Christ and the saints of secondary, or thirdary [sic], importance in your life? If "Yes," then you will balk at church discipline. You will neither be profited by it, nor will you profit others in its application. Discipline works only with those who to serve the Lord.

I can hear it now. "Those people do not need discipline." I fear this comes from brethren who view discipline as a means of forcing people to serve the Lord. "The weapons of our warfare are not carnal." (2 Cor. 10:) We can not force the discipline of the gospel call, nor of Christian service, upon anyone. We deal with adult men and women whose hearts must be made captive to Christ.

Consider our first example. "If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother" (Matt. 18:15-17). The object is to gain the man, not your way. The clear message is that he is in the wrong, and you, your helpers, and finally the whole church speaks in an effort to bring him back into fellowship with God. The church can neither put him in, nor take him out, of such fellowship except as he is persuaded to act. Failing in this, they recognize him for what he has made himself — "as one of those without." Neither hate, spite, nor vindictiveness is indicated here. Do you "hate" or "spite" a non-member when you fail to call upon him for public prayer or service??

In 1 Thes. 4:10-12 Paul "besought" those brethren to quietly work and tend to business, but apparently some gave no heed. So in 2 Thes. 3: he "commands" them to "withdraw from every brother that walketh disorderly" or "out of step" with apostolic teaching. "Note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother" vs. 14-15). (continued next page)

Vol.XV No.VI Pg.5
August 1978
Its Effect Upon Fellowship Of Saints
Robert F. Turner

(Continued from previous page)

"That he may be ashamed" shows the effectiveness of their action would be contingent upon an earlier fellowship. If he "didn't give a hoot" this withdrawal of approval and company would not benefit him. "Count him not as an enemy" shows no hostile feeling was to accompany the correction, and "admonish as a brother" describes the attitude to be maintained. Expositors' comment: "Disapproval, as a means of moral discipline, loses all its effect if the offender does not realize its object and reason, or if it is tainted with personal hostility." If a church can not demonstrate this attitude it is incapable of exercising scriptural discipline.

It is to our shame and discredit that our next example more nearly describes current situations in churches of our day. In 1 Cor. 5: Paul uses one verse to define a sinner in Corinth; and devotes the remainder of the chapter to upbraiding those innocent of the first sin, because they had made no effort to correct it. "Ye are puffed up" (we are too holy to discuss such things), "and have not mourned" (business as usual — funeral spirit kills our enthusiasm), "that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you" (Oh, that would be interfering with his personal life). Haven't you heard it??

Paul says, "when ye are gathered together..." This thing has, through neglect, passed the earlier stages. All members are involved — not just the elders, though they should lead. 2 Cor. 2:6 states the punishment was "inflicted by the many." In Matt. 18: it was "tell it to the church." In 2 Thes. 3: Paul commanded "brethren." The "spiritual" among the Galatian brethren had obligations (6:1-f). NO PASSAGE puts these matters into the hands of some episcopacy which represents "the church." We can not escape responsibility by saying "Our elders won't do anything about it." Elders have leadership responsibilities, but their judgment is not divine mandate.

"Deliver unto Satan" means publicly recognize and declare the sinner for what he is. The declaration does not make him a child of the devil; his actions have done that (Jn. 8:44). Paul "delivered unto Satan" Hymeneus and Alexander (1 Tim. 1:20), and had no hesitancy in saying so. Even in such radical treatment the purpose is "that they may learn not to blaspheme" or, "for the destruction of the flesh that the spirit may be saved..." In coming to Christ the "old man" of the flesh should have been put to death — but such flagrant proof that old ways yet live can not be tolerated. If the "gospel call" discipline did not "put to death" such conduct, corrective discipline must be exercised. If the offender has a "spark" of concern for fellowship with God, the withdrawal of fellowship by those who are trying to "walk with God" may cause him to see his lost and undone condition.

And finally — if it doesn't, such evil leaven must be removed from the church. This is not the first consideration, but it is certainly not an element of discipline to be ignored. THE SPIRITUAL NATURE AND GOAL OF EACH LOCAL CHURCH, ITS SPIRITUAL CHARACTER, IS HIGHLY DEPENDENT UPON THE EXERCISE OF DIVINELY ORDAINED DISCIPLINE.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XV No.VI Pg.6

August 1978

Look For The Hooks

Robert F. Turner

In PRESENT TRUTH Magazine, Special Issue on Justification, 1972, we find a concise statement of the theology espoused by its writers. Several of "our brethren" have endorsed or complimented various aspects of this denominational paper; and although we do not charge them with accepting all the paper teaches, we believe they have been "taken in" by the bait, and are being pulled closer and closer toward the Calvinistic "hooks." Even the terminology of PRESENT TRUTH appears in their writings.

We ask our readers to look closely at the following quote. Our comments are enclosed in parentheses, and (?) is placed where we wish you to question — asking yourself if scriptures really teach this, and trying to see the specific application made of each point, to their general theology.

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

"Adam was the first head (?) of the human race. Because the whole human race was incorporated in him (?) he stood before God as if he were every man (?). When he sinned the whole race of men became sinners in the sight of God (?). When he fell, all fell in him (?). We did not become sinners because of something we did or experienced (?) but by something that happened completely outside of us in the person of Adam (?), i.e., by a historical, objective event.

God did not redeem us by doing something within our experience. (The statement is "loaded" and subject to various interpretations.) While we were dead in trespasses and sins, He gave us another Father, Isa. 9:6 (an abuse of scripture), a new Head (only to those who come to Him), a second Adam. Christ now stood before the bar of eternal justice as the representative Man (?); for by His Incarnation, humanity was incorporated in Him (?) as it was in Adam (?). He stood before God as if He were every man (?). When He lived, humanity lived in Him (?); when He was punished, humanity was punished in Him (?); when He died, humanity died in Him (?); and when He rose again, humanity was restored to God's favor in Him (?)."

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

My question marks are NOT placed wholesale and indiscriminately. PRESENT TRUTH writers do not believe in "universal" salvation (i.e., that every individual will be saved eternally) but the "representative" concept of Christ is their foundation for the "imputation" of righteousness upon "elect" particulars (individuals). Denying synergism (any necessary cooperation on man's part) and making faith itself a "gift of God through the Spirit" which "creates in (the sinner's) heart both the desire and the willingness to accept the salvation which is in Jesus." And those with whom the Spirit fails?? "We can not explain it because it is "the mystery of iniquity." Hmmmmmm!

Show the error in ADAMIC IMPUTATION, and the whole system falls. The error is based largely upon misuse of metaphors (in Adam, and in Christ) or the dramatic contrasts of Rom. 5:12-f. It is a LEGAL viewpoint — to "vindicate God's sovereignty" or "satisfy the law"; ignoring free agency, God's Mercy, and Final Judgment.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XV No.VI Pg.7

August 1978

?You Know What?

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

What is the basis for the authority of elders in a church? M.Q.

Reply:

God is the basis for all authority (Rom. 13:1, Jn. 19:11); but this is not to say God selected Pilate, putting him in authority, nor that Pilate's decisions were divine mandates. The function of overseers among saints of a local church is in keeping with the divine plan, and in this sense the Holy Spirit "appoints" elders. But that does not say John Doe is appointed by God, or that John's decisions are divine mandates.

The historic "church" view is that God established an institution, placing in it an "apostolic college" or "bishopric" of men who were endowed with "authority" which they alone could pass to their successors. These men occupy an "office" and in essential essence are the church. They are thought to be vicegerents of Christ, exercising His authority. On this basis it is argued that they "speak for God" and "to disobey them is to disobey God." Before you assign this strictly to Rome you might look up Jack Pope's article in the July 23, '74, Firm Foundation, and read his "Charge to The Elders" whom he calls, "vicegerents of the Lord.." Catholics claim "infallibility" and make the church "Mother of the Bible;" but some of "our brethren" just make the "great middle section" the standard for determining true exegesis — and who can see an essential difference.

But this is an erroneous concept of authority. Deity has not abdicated, nor does man exercise authority on God's behalf. The apostles were given "power" or "authority" in the person of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:8), "for edification" (2 Cor. 10:8 Lu. 24:48-49) but it was the Spirit which spoke, not some self-perpetuating "office."

The need for oversight in a local church, and the form this rule must take, is prescribed by God. The type of men best suited to this work is defined, by qualifications listed in 1 Tim. 3: and Titus 1. Other passages identify their obligations and the respect due those who labor faithfully. But between the divine regulations and the specific men selected, there remains a realm of human judgment. The congregation decides who meets the qualifications, hence specific men "rule" by virtue of congregational appointment. The congregation puts them in, and the congregation can take them out. Bad men may be put in, and good men taken out-- the church is wrong in both cases-- but this is the church's responsibility, for which they must answer to God.

Yes, the men appointed are responsible to God to "watch over" that flock; but that flock is responsible to God to keep scriptural overseers.

No matter how "good" the elders, their decisions are not God's word. In the realm of human judgment-- the realm assigned them-- properly qualified men offer the best we have, and should be followed on that basis. But no man, or group of men, stands between an individual's conscience and that which has been revealed in the Spirit-given Scriptures.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XV No.VI Pg.8

August 1978

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

Each morning as a certain man dressed for work he noticed a feeling of tightness in his throat and a decided flush in his face, although his temperature was normal. He consulted a doctor who, finding no physical problem, suggested he see a psychiatrist. "Perhaps it is the stress of the job that is getting to you."

Lengthy and costly treatments gave him no relief, so he turned to internal medicine. His body chemistry was tuned by special diets, vitamins, and essence of sea-weed — to no avail. The tightness in his throat, and the redness of face returned each morning as he dressed for work. Finally, in desperation, he endured exploratory surgery. He felt quite well at the hospital, but as soon as he returned to his home and job the symptoms reoccurred. So, it seemed clear that he had some terminal disease, beyond the reach of science; and he began to set his house in order to die.

He decided to take a last-time vacation trip, and went to a department store for a new shirt, size 15-33. The salesman took him to the 15-33 counter, but, looking him over, suggested he should buy a 16-33. This irritated the sick man, and he said, "Look, I am in no mood for such talk. I have always worn 15-33, and I want a 15-33 shirt." To which the salesman replied, "No offense intended sir. We will sell you what you want; but I'm telling you, it will make your face turn red, and your eyes bug out."

In our infatuation with big and complicated solutions to problems, we may be overlooking the obvious simple answers. Inflation might be cured if we would work harder for less money. Thousands of dollars are spent on elaborate Gospel Campaigns to do what a few personal workers could accomplish in after-work hours. A proper understanding of the Great Commission will answer volumes of theology.

Sometimes the solution seems complicated or even impossible, because we have not gotten to the bottom of the problem. If a man does not want to believe in God he will not see the mass of evidence presented. We waste our time in argument, when it is persuasion that is needed. Unconverted members will not serve the Lord, no matter how much social "fellowship" one shares with them.

There are red-faced churches that have tried every way to succeed — except, "loosen collar and go to work."

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XV No.VII Pg.1

September 1978

Playing Games With God

Robert F. Turner

They knew the church should not go into "business", but churches moving to new locations sold their property. So, they bought a large tract of land they could never use as a location for church assembly and work; and subdivided it into building lots, to be sold at a great profit. Be careful lest you question their motives.

A church wished to build a recreation hall, for young-people's parties, pot-lucks, ping-pong, etc. They realized there could be objections to such unauthorized expenditures, so they called the new hall "additional class-room space," although they had unused class-rooms in their old building. No one is "fooled" — least of all God — but it answers the Antis!

A man divorced without scriptural grounds, and a young lady, member of the church, wish to be married. The preacher, victim of a pernicious and unscriptural concept regarding "bonds of marriage," says, "I wouldn't want to encourage you in this, but if you should get married, and then repented of your sin, God would forgive you and you would be free to live together." They got married, and then, on the cautious advice of another, the man was baptized — "to be sure." God must have had a hard time figuring that one out.

I was guest at a promotional meeting for national advertisement when various "ways" were studied to "make it right with the churches" and at the same time get their contributions.

What man of such experience has not seen or heard of like examples? Our society seems devoid of principle. Brethren who "wouldn't break the law" just find ways around it. The spirit or intent of law — genuine regard for principles of right — are forsaken.

It is not a new situation. Paul warned the Galatians, "Be not deceived, God is not mocked" (Gal. 6:7). We are fooling ourselves; not God. How utterly ridiculous, to think we could cheat God at His own game, and win. It is hypocrisy and spiritual suicide. "What doth Jehovah require of thee but to do justly, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with thy God" (Micah 6:8).

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XV No.VII Pg.2

September 1978

''Again Again, And More

Robert F. Turner

In the June PLAIN TALK (V.15, N.4) the wandering "again" of Mk. 10:10 was discussed, and evoked a surprising response. A call from Duncan, Okla. was followed by a taped discussion, with much good information. A letter from Tucson, Ariz. cited interesting data from early Spanish texts. And there were several requests for "any further information you may obtain."

We were reminded that "again" is an adverb, and unless we supply a verb (like "being") it would modify "questioned" (epeeroton) as in K.J. — "his disciples asked him again." However, the same informant pointed out that the Greek palin (again) could be interpreted "further" (see Arndt and Gingritch) and indicate that the disciples questioned Christ about the same matter discussed with the Pharisees, without indicating they had previously asked re. this subject.

In a Spanish Bible published 1569, revised 1602, hence predating the English King James version, the passage reads: "And in (the) house returned the disciples to ask Him of it (the) same"-- i.e., the same thing. (Excuse the literal syntax in translation.)

Our sincere thanks to all who took time to write. The mail we receive is usually an indication of good will and comradeship in a common quest for truth. Right now we are six or seven questions behind in meeting requests for our "You Know What?" page, but we will get to them as soon as possible.

Wouldn't it be great if more brethren would offer and accept mutual aid in objective Bible study, without impugning motives or feeling they had to defend to the death (of good will, and often of a congregation's peace) every statement they ever made. Is it not a sign of weakness when bluster and shouting (with voice or pen) must take the place of calm scriptural considerations? If this writer does such a thing, please send me a copy of this article as a gentle reminder.

We are thankful to report many good churches at work and growing in size and spirituality. Not all saints are "carried away" with journalistic controversies — nor even take note of them. God has always needed levelheaded, dedicated, hard-working men and women who are truly soul-hungry. It is encouraging to find brethren like this, even in this generation.

Let us be more diligent to learn sound principles of truth, and apply them with a firmness that knows neither compromise nor bitterness. Let us seek heaven's approval, not man's; and let us aim our life accordingly.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XV No.VII Pg.3

September 1978

The Rulable Spirit

Dan S. Shipley

Nothing is more fundamental or needful in serving the Lord than possessing a rulable spirit. Basically, Christians are people who have willingly placed themselves under the rule of their Lord, Jesus Christ. They are the citizens over which He reigns as King; body-members over which He is the Head; sheep over which He is the Good Shepherd. As the one with all authority (Matt. 28:18), Christ alone has the right to rule. This is among the very first lessons to be learned by His disciples — and one never to be forgotten. The ruled must recognize the authority of the ruler! As Bernard Ramm has put it, "A properly constituted authority assumes an authoritative importance to a person only as that person subjectively recognizes it." (The Pattern_ of Religious Authority, p.13) Not, of course, that one's accepting or rejecting is grounds for determining authority, but, as Ramm points out, the Scriptures can function as an authority only to the believer.

In Bible terms, recognition of divine authority is perhaps best expressed in the terms "love", "fear", and "faith". To love the Lord with all the heart, soul, and mind (Matt. 22: 37) guarantees submission of my will to Him in all things. That's why Jesus says, "If ye love me, ye will keep my commandments" (Jn. 14:15). As John writes, "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments..." (1 Jn. 5:3). Nothing demonstrates the rulable spirit more than faithful obedience. In fact, John says this is how we can really know if we know Him (i.e., know Him effectively and not just intellectually. 1 Jn. 2:3).

In like manner, fear also characterizes the rulable spirit. This is the fear of reverence, awe and respect toward God that carries with it "a wholesome dread of displeasing Him" (Vine). As the apostle Peter puts it, he that fears God and works righteousness is acceptable to Him (Acts 10: 34). A similar statement is found in Eccl. 12:13: "Fear God and keep His commandments: for this is the whole duty of man".

Such fear is really an attitude of life in which one sees his own humble submission to God's will as the greatest compliment to be paid Him. The God-fearing man is a God ruled man, but God cannot rule where He is not respected.

We have said that faith also has a place in the rulable spirit. And it is most likely the preeminent place, especially if love and fear be considered as effects of faith. And why not? What is more fundamental than faith in the scheme of redemption? "He that cometh to God must believe that He is..." (Heb. 11:6) — and not only that He exists, but that He has existence in the way set forth in His word. That is, that He exists with all power, all knowledge; that He is righteous, just, sovereign, absolute truth and immutable. Many conceive of a God beset with all kinds of limitations. No wonder they are reluctant to be ruled by such a God! True faith sees God as He is and trusts in Him to do what He says; to "reward them that diligently seek Him". Nothing more influences one's rulability than His concept of God; his faith. When some seem more rebellious than rulable, it is likely the age-old problem of unbelief (Heb. 3).

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XV No.VII Pg.4
September 1978
The Good Fight
Robert F. Turner

According to an old story, when a Campbellite baptizes a man he comes from the water shouting, "I challenge anyone to debate!" The prejudice in this tale is apparent, but it points to a reputation that, right or wrong, has stuck with restoration efforts. If there is rational explanation and scriptural justification for confrontation (we believe there is) then we should better understand our role, and make a determined effort to carry it out to the glory of God.

Light and darkness are eternally in conflict (Jn. 1:5), and truth is a sword, opposing error (Matt. 10:34-f). The truth re. baptism, the church, worship, etc.; is in stark contrast with error on these subjects. We can not scripturally put light under a basket (Matt. 5:13-f). God commands us to "go — teach" (Mk. 16:15-f; 2 Tim. 2:2), and all who have genuine convictions re. truth, and recognize responsibility toward their fellowman, must try to teach others also.

But we are told our "approach" is wrong; we are too aggressive. People who want their own way regardless of consequences — who want to "go to hell quietly" — will not consider the truth no matter how it is presented. The god of this world has blinded their mind (2 Cor. 4:4). We do not, however, consider our brethren blameless. Some blunder in ignorance, ineptness, and misguided zeal. Their technique could be improved, but they are already far ahead of those who make no approach, who "couldn't care less." We thank God for those who try regardless of blunders, for we know The Cause rests upon their shoulders.

The salvation of souls is the ultimate reason for teaching truth, and we must measure our "approach" by its contribution to this end. Some debaters say they are "defending the truth" but this must be understood in reference to teaching; for God's truth is the anvil, and is not damaged by hammers of error. God doesn't solicit our effort to sustain truth, lest it perish; but to convey it to others. We are not serving God simply because our sermon or article is "strong as horse-radish." We may be driving folk away from truth. Nor do we serve God because we are mild mannered. In our desire to spare their feelings we may be withholding from our hearers truth that is essential to their salvation. Hearers and circumstances vary, and our judgment will be imperfect, but our goal must remain the same. Let us measure our shouts and whispers by what they contribute to leading others to Christ. This is the real test.

And in the process of upholding truth, let us demonstrate the effect of truth in our conduct. Rules of controversy are, for a Christian, those which govern every affair in life. He does not try to win battles for God by use of Satan's instruments.

But a fair statement of desirable principles have long been recognized in "Hedge's Rules." These are from a book, "Elements of Logic" by Dr. Levi Hedge, third edition, 1821. Because the book is not readily available, we are publishing those rules (slightly condensed) on a page to themselves; so they may be reproduced, passed to others, and we hope — used to improve the clime of religious discussion.

(continued next page)

Hedge's Rules Of Honorable Controversy
Robert F. Turner

(Continued from previous page)

Rule 1st. The terms, in which the question in debate is expressed, and the precise point at issue, should be so clearly defined, that there could be no misunderstanding respecting them. If this is not done, the dispute is liable to be, in a great degree, verbal. Arguments will be misapplied, and the controversy protracted, because the parties engaged in it have different apprehensions of the question.

Rule 2d. The parties should mutually consider each other, as standing on a footing of equality in respect to the subject in debate. Each should regard the other as possessing equal talents, knowledge, and desire for truth, with himself; and that it is possible, therefore, that he may be in the wrong, and his adversary in the right. In the heat of controversy, men are apt to forget the numberless sources of error, which exist in every controverted subject, especially of theology and metaphysics. Hence arise presumptions, confidence, and arrogant language; all which obstruct the discovery of truth.

Rule 3d. All expressions, which are unmeaning, or without effect in regard to the subject in debate, should be strictly avoided. All expressions may be considered as unmeaning, which contribute nothing to the proof or the question; such as desultory remarks and declamatory expressions...

Rule 4th. Personal reflections on an adversary should in no instance be indulged.... Personal reflections are not only destitute of effect, in respect to the question in discussion, but they are productive of real evil... They indicate in him, who uses them, a mind hostile to the truth; for they prevent even solid arguments from receiving the attention to which they are justly entitled.

Rule 5th. No one has aright to accuse his adversary of indirect motive. Arguments are to be answered, whether he, who offers them, be sincere or not; especially as his want of sincerity, if real, could not be ascertained. To inquire into his motives, then, is useless. To ascribe indirect ones to him is ... hurtful.

Rule 6th. The consequences of any doctrine are not to be charged on him who maintains it, unless he expressly avows them. If an absurd consequence be fairly deductible from any doctrine, it is rightly concluded that the doctrine itself is false; but it is not rightly concluded that he who advances it, supports the absurd consequence. The charitable presumption, in such a case, would be, that he had never made the deduction; and that, if he had made it, he would have abandoned the original doctrine.

Rule 7th. As truth, and not victory, is the professed object of controversy, whatever proofs may be advanced, on either side, should be examined with fairness and candor; and any attempt to ensnare an adversary by the arts of sophistry, or to lessen the force of his reasoning, by wit, caviling, or ridicule, is a violation of the rules of honorable controversy.

BRETHREN, CAN WE LIVE WITH THE RULES?

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XV No.VII Pg.6

September 1978

You Judge The Merit

Robert F. Turner

We receive lots of mail with comments or questions that we consider unsuited for full page treatment. We answer some privately; others accumulate — awaiting a day like this, when you may judge the merit of each.

For example:

"If a "Christian" willfully sins, has he been "overtaken" in a fault? Are the spiritual obligated to restore such an one?" I believe "willful" has been misunderstood. Heb. 10: 26 concerns a rejection of Christ (Cf. v.28-29), not a single act. The truly "spiritual" will work to save all who can be touched by gospel truth. Regarding "disembodied righteous spirits" or the "state of the dead" — I did not comment because stirring arguments over this is fruitless. We have our hands full teaching folk to prepare for death and judgment, and however God wishes to care for our spirits between the two will be O.K.

"How can we appeal to one who has no regard for the Scriptures?" Brother, you may not realize it, but you are talking about the overwhelming majority of the world's population. Your life: the joy, hope, confidence, purity, and completeness of it; must testify to the desirability of Christianity, and cause unbelievers to become interested in its source. Give this one extra thought. (Matt. 5:13-f)

"Why do some brethren offer prayer at the taking up of collection?" Maybe they think this makes our giving more "an act of worship." I do not concur with such thinking. Maybe they think this a good time to thank God for the material blessings we have received. That has some merit. Maybe they think this will cause brethren to give more freely. If so, it is a form of coercion I deplore. Personally, I do not favor the practice.

"Should a Christian own a part of J. C. Penney's where they sell shorts and swim suits?" If that bothers your conscience, sell out. I do not believe stock in a reasonably legitimate business makes the holder responsible for the use that may be made of products sold. Government bonds (in a sense, all paper money) represents "stock" in a government that engages in things unbecoming to a saint.

"Should men of a church stand in the back of the auditorium, counting attendance, while others are singing and praying?" When such numbers are considered desirable and useful in promoting church work, the operation should be done at a time and in a way least disturbing to more important things. Perhaps they should ask the querist to suggest a better time and way to get the operation done.

"Discuss 'prayer and fasting' as it applies to brethren today." Saints in Antioch fasted and prayed in preparation for sending forth Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13:3); who, in turn, prayed with fasting at the appointment of elders (14:23). Paul apparently fasted often, although some of this may have been of necessity (Cf. 2 Cor. 6:5; 11:27). We do not see this as a "church ordinance" but as "time off" from daily affairs, to meditate and prepare for more dedicated spiritual service (Cf. 1 Cor. 7:5 K.J.).

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XV No.VII Pg.7

September 1978

?You Know What?

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

Do you understand Prov. 22:6 to say if a child ever becomes unfaithful it proves the parents were remiss? N.B.

Reply:

Prov. 22:6 reads, "Train up a child in the way he should go, and even when he is old he will not depart from it." I was once asked if I believed this was true. I answered, "It is a true proverb." A proper understanding of its message hinges on our understanding the nature of proverbs.

A proverb is a brief epigrammatic saying that is a popular byword; an adage or maxim, sometimes couched obscurely. It is poetic in nature, with poetic license. It may contain irony, satire, wit, etc. If this, with your dictionary, is still inadequate as an explanation, let's try a non-biblical example. Surely you have heard: "A stitch in time saves nine!" This is true — i.e., generally speaking, when we 'put off' making a repair, the damage grows worse, so that later we have a much larger repair job to do.

Saves "nine" (stitches)? Why not "eleven" or "fifteen"? Because these numbers do not rhyme with "time." The truth (early repair saves us from having to make greater repair later) is simply stated in poetic, epigrammatic fashion. The person who uses this old "saying" is not trying to tell us the ratio of saving is one to nine, or any other such detail.

Proverbs 22:6 tells us a truth, viz., generally speaking, early training establishes the character of an individual, that will stay with him through life. It does not say early training guarantees proper manhood or womanhood. We are deeply affected by early training, but it does not destroy our free agency. It does not make our salvation wholly dependent upon our parents rather than upon our own response to God's word. It does not establish the impossibility of apostasy. It does not say a poorly brought up child could not overcome this great handicap, and obey the Lord in spite of earlier training.

Proverbs must be read as proverbs! Prov. 19:4 says, "Wealth addeth many friends; but the poor is separated from his friend." ALWAYS? No! It is possible that a wealthy man have no friends; or that a poor man have many friends. But this general observation is true to the facts of life. It says people gravitate toward money, and "friendship" may cover a base motive.

Prov. 19:24 reads, "The sluggard burieth his hand in the dish, and will not so much as bring it to his mouth again." Some sluggards today have never in their life eaten from a common bowl; but the proverb says, with poetic license, "Some people are too lazy to eat."

Finally, the very best way to understand any proverb is to read many proverbs, over and over again. As one becomes familiar with proverbs their nature and character will become more and more apparent. Their purpose is clearly stated (Prov. 1:1-6), and we would do well to exercise our mind on their "riddles" (v.6, "dark sayings," see AS footnote.) They give marvelous insight into the problems of life.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XV No.VII Pg.8

September 1978

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

Now-a-days it could come in any mail! Dear brother Turner:

This man left his wife because he heard her call a strange name in her sleep; and she acted real queer when he faced her with the facts. Naturally he divorced that woman.

But this man had had an affair before his marriage — just a High School kind of thing — I guess some would call it fornication. He was so sorry about it all, and this was before he was baptized so he took care of this when he repented in the aisle. The girl had married a local boy; but now that the father of her child was free they began seeing one-another again — just to talk over old times.

But when she would talk to her child's real father, like in a bar on Saturday night, her husband acted awful about it. He made her life miserable, and she wouldn't feel like coming to church on Sunday. Oh, I forgot to tell you, this girl has been a Christian for many years. When she had this baby she walked down the aisle, and cried, and all that, and got it straight with the church.

Well, things got so bad, and her not going to church and all, that she finally left her husband and married the father of her child. Some might think this was wrong; but mother, father, and child belong together, I always say. For several weeks they came to church, and looked so spiritual there on the same pew.

Then, we had a visiting preacher who preached on Jesus and the Pharisees, and he just dwelt on Matt. 19:9, and made everybody so uncomfortable. It really upset this precious little family, and the next thing we knew the man had left town. He told one of our deacons he was going to take his first wife back, because he didn't want to do anything that would keep him out of heaven.

But his first wife had married another man, and she wouldn't come back. Now brother Turner, this man has written me the nicest letter and he wants to marry me. Since he has done all he could to make everything right, my question is, "Don't you think our marriage would be scriptural?"

Reply:

O.K., I don't! Objectively, the end of line one, this column, is very scriptural. By the way, do you think Dr. Bob and Lisa will ever remarry?

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XV No.VIII Pg.1

October 1978

Making Others Wealthy

Robert F. Turner

As a small boy, knowing nothing of context, I read 1 Cor. 10:24 and was puzzled. "Let no man seek his own, but every man another's wealth." Further reading convinced me that Paul was saying, "be concerned for the good of others." And now, after years of reading, this unselfish attitude is recognized as a principle of Christianity, and universally needed.

In chapter eight the man who knew all about liberty in Christ was told, "knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth." "Take heed lest... this liberty ...become a stumbling block to them that are weak." ("Make my brother to offend" —v.13— does not refer to hurting his feelings, but cause him to act contrary to conscience and therefore to sin against God.)

In chapter nine Paul applies "seeking the good of others" to preaching. He defends the "rights" of an apostle to material support, but says God's "right" over him is greater. "A dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me" (vs. 15-18), so that I must preach, whether supported or not. His dedication was to God and to others. "For though I be free from all men yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more" (vs. 19-23). So, he adapted himself (within bounds of his obligation to God) "that I might by all means save some." He likened this rigorous self-denial to athletic training for a race (24-27), and warned that only those who are faithful to the end will win (10: 1-14). We must not eat and drink of God's blessings, and then "rise up to play" — content with self-interest.

Paul points out that a thing right within itself (eating meat) may have a sinful connotation or significance. Bread and fruit of the vine may become means of fellowship with Christ. Partaking of the Jewish altar signified fellowship therewith; and to the pagan, the same was true with reference to meat offered to his gods. So, when significance is attached (v.28) it is better to forego your "right" to eat, than to cause another to sin.

How different the world — even the "church" — would be if we were "—not seeking mine own profit but the profit of many, that they may be saved."

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XV No.VIII Pg.2

October 1978

This-N-That

Robert F. Turner

The brown ink on last month's issue was not our plan nor desire for Plain Talk. The printer was "caught in a bind"— had to use another's offset press — and arrived at the last minute to "do the job' only to find the borrowed press had only green or brown ink. Be thankful you didn't get green. We sincerely hope this issue is in black, color and financially. And writers also get "caught in a bind." Your editor has been bothered by bleeding ulcers, and a frame of mind unsuited to his heavy schedule. For a time it seemed we might not make our deadline, but bro. Shipley added to his own heavy work load, and produced his regular page plus t h e two-page center section. I'm leaving home for eight back-to-back meetings in Arizona and California, and Dan may produce extra material in the next few issues — for which you can be as grateful as am I. Dan Shipley is a competent preacher, a gentleman, and a scholar. He is a Christian, if I know such; and if you can think of other nice things to say, that too.

Twenty-two churches have, by now, received a letter saying I must cancel meeting arrangements for 1979. It was a most difficult letter to write; contrary to forty-three years of planning and execution. But the doctor and my head (not my heart) tell me it must be done. I'll try to "take a sabbatical — and return to meeting work in 1980, the Lord willing.

Those of you who know the Burnet work personally will be interested in our plans to appoint two new bishops here. Their names will be announced later, but this note is inserted to assure you that brothers Collins, Parks, and Stephenson are still very active as overseers here. They felt additional men should be appointed to serve with them, while they were yet able to counsel and pass their vast experience on to the new elders. This far-sighted and unselfish attitude is an excellent recommendation of the men who have faithfully served this church from its beginning. (See p.6)

——————————

"Galen, a Greek physician of the second century A.D. said, "All who drink this remedy recover in a short time, except for those whom it does not help, who all die and have no relief from any other medicine. Therefore, it is obvious that it fails only in incurable cases." That suggests there is no need to look for a new and different medicine — the disease is "incurable." Fortunately, others kept up the study and search, and we found remedies for "incurable" problems. "Either-or" may deceive us.