Plain Talk

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XV No.XI Pg.5

January 1979

The Lawyer's "Case''

Robert F. Turner

"On the road" one meets all kinds of quibbles that are supposed to pass for arguments. And occasionally they come from one who fancies himself a brilliant logician — like the lawyer who remarked, "You preachers know the answers to the ordinary, but what can you do when you meet a smart man?" He then proceeded to demonstrate. "The Catholic Church established the canon of the Scriptures, and you accept that. But when this same authority says sprinkling will do for baptism, you illogically reject that."

In the first place, truth existed prior to the "church" and was proclaimed by inspired men (Jn. 16:12-f., Acts 2:) so that men who heard, believed and obeyed might become the "called-out" (ones) belonging to the Lord. The ways, paths, law and word of the Lord went forth from Jerusalem (Isa. 2:2-3), by inspiration, NOT by "authority" of some human council. It was passed to following generations by word as well as by epistle (2 Thes. 2:15), and the writings were regarded as "scriptures" before any council so declared (2 Pet. 3:15-16).

Brethren sought to preserve, and to distinguish genuine from spurious material from the beginning-- even as they do now — but God did not appoint "the church" (as an organized society) to "authorize" anything. This aspect of early "church business" was something they assumed for themselves. We do not accept today's "canon" on that basis — in fact, we reject some of the material they accepted.

Second: even if the "church" was the "authority" for the canon (meaning those books accepted as belonging in our Bible) it would not follow that they could alter the meaning of Greek words found in those books. A "smart" lawyer should know the difference in validating a document and interpreting its content. Baptism by immersion stands on the authority of the original language of the text.

And third: lexicographers, both Catholic and Protestant, agree that baptidzo does not authorize sprinkling. The Catholic Church claims the authority to accept sprinkling — it is one of many things offered on the "authority of the church" rather than on Bible authority. If the lawyer thinks the Roman church gives Bible authority for all it teaches or practices, he is far behind in his study. He had better do much more "leg" work before he goes to court with this case. And he might review his undergraduate studies of the fallacy of non-sequitur ("it does not follow").

Baptidzo means, "to immerse, plunge under, dip, wash." Naaman was told to "wash in the Jordan" (louo- bathe completely), and he "dipped himself" (baptidzo- immersed) (LXX, 2 Kng. 5:). We are "buried with him by baptism into death" (Rom. 6:4). John baptized in Enon near to Salim, "because there was much water there" (Jn. 3:23). Philip and the eunuch "went down both into the water ... and he baptized him" (Acts 8:38). The "baptism" of suffering (Matt. 20:22) refers to an overwhelming of suffering; and the same idea inheres in "baptism" of Spirit. It took "cloud and sea" to "baptize" the exodus march (1 Cor. 10:1-2). The lawyer's case (?) must be "Dismissed!"

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol. XV No.XI Pg.6
January 1979
The Fortunate Man
Robert F. Turner

In 1919 "The Wit and Wisdom of Safed the Sage" was published by Pilgrim Press, Chicago. The author, William E. Barton, was a denominational preacher. He also wrote "Parables of Safed the Sage," and "Safed and Keturah" (his wife). We propose to print a series of his articles, but must edit and digest to fit our space.

——————————

There spake unto me a man who said, My income is not enough.

And I said, Thou Fortunate Man! And he said, Why dost thou say so? And I said, Because thou hast the choice either of Earning More or of Spending Less; and when there be two ways of solving a problem, a man is Fortunate. Whereas I know a Poor Man who Owneth a Railroad and Earnestly Coveth Another; he is Poor for he cannot get it.

And he said, When I was a lad, I drove my father's cow to an Hired Pasture, for we lived in a Little Town. And other men in the same town besought me to drive their cows, and they gave me every one of them Ten Cents a Week; and I drove Five Cows. And I thought How Happy I should be if there were Ten Cows and I could earn Every Week an Whole Dollar.

And when I became older, of about the age of Fourteen, then did I hire myself in the springtime to a Farmer to Plant Potatoes; and we cut them so that on Every Piece there were Two Eyes, and we planted Forty Acres of them. And I worked for him Eleven Days, and received Five Dollars and the Half of a Dollar; and I reflected that if Potato Planting could last All Summer then might I earn Thirteen Dollars every Month.

And I said to him, What is thine Income Now?

And he said, The Government of the United States hath lately asked me the same Question, and when I told them, they struck me for a sum that made mine Hair Stand on End. I knew not till then how Poor is the man who is as Rich as I.

And I said, The Holy Scriptures call down a Blessing on the man who Considereth the Poor; I will bless also the man who, however Poor he is, Considereth himself Rich. For thou wast Rich when thou dravest cows to Pasture, and hast been rich ever since if thy Mind hath been at peace with God and man and thou hast had enough to pay thine Honest Debts.

And I spake to him this proverb of the men of Arabia; Who is richer, he that hath a Million Dollars or he that hath Seven Daughters?

And he said, Tell me the answer. And I said, The man who hath Seven Daughters is the Richer; for he hath enough, and knoweth it.

———————————

As "Safed" says in his introduction, "There are deeper joys and larger lessons in common experiences if we know how to find them." We hope you will profit by what he found.

[RETIREDFAN1]

ol.XV No.XI Pg.7

January 1979

?You Know What?

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

To what extent should "traditions" govern our present study and practice? Should they be given ANY place?

Reply:

"Tradition" (2 Thes. 3:6) refers to teachings passed down by inspired men (2 Thes. 2:15); hence, not all "traditions" are bad. I assume, however, that the querist refers to concepts and practices having no higher authority than "usage" or long time acceptance by men, without divine authority. Should things "we've always done" for 30, 50 or 150 years, govern or affect our study and practice today?

They will do so! It is practically impossible to be completely objective for we "see" things through glasses of experience. But knowing this, we should draw conclusions with caution. Does God's word really say this, or am I reading into the text traditional concepts or practices? If we believe the scriptures are the "last word" of truth, we will do all possible to read with an open mind, hungry for pure truth uncolored by human traditions. A genuine believer and true disciple of Christ may be measured by his devotion to such truth.

Does this mean past studies should be ignored? No! While overconfidence in past studies may blind us to some truth it is rank egotism to think we are the only honest truth-seekers, or that others have not been as capable or more so in finding truth. We profit greatly by cumulative studies and conclusions, and "new" (?) views must be regarded with great suspicion. But all of man's conclusions are subject to review in the light of God's word, and truth will shine more brightly under such investigation. Traditions should not govern Bible study, and should be respected only as previous efforts to find truth are respected.

Traditional practices (of human origin) may represent previous concepts of truth, and are included in the above. But they may also be no more than previous methods of doing something, being begun not as a matter of faith but of judgment or expediency. Unfortunately, long usage may clothe the practice with "authority" in the eyes of some, when in reality they do not even represent serious Bible study. The cloth spread over the Lords Supper to keep out flies may become "the Lord's sacred shroud." When a practice is questioned conscientious saints and serious students will simply check the scriptures to see if it is truly authorized. These people have no great problem with traditions. But blind followers, sectarians (in "the church"), and those having little Bible knowledge, have no sound base and may be tradition bound.

It should also be stated that practices are not wrong because they are traditional. Long usage may prove it best to do a thing in a certain way — with no claim made for "authority." A new way may disrupt an otherwise well established and orderly worship, with no compensating advantage. Anything, done long enough, will take on a certain "traditional" aspect; and uniformity among brethren in this tradition may serve to unite them. We should, however, make clear distinctions in mere custom and things of "the faith."

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XV No.XI Pg.8

January 1979

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

When I was a student in Freed- Hardeman College, the President of that institution was wont to say (in jest I trust), "He that tooteth not his own horn, the same shall not be tooted!" It brought a laugh from the many "preacher boys" — albeit a nervous laugh, for we were a "heady" bunch.

Maybe one of those boys was the chief character in a recent happening. Someone asked this (unnamed) preacher if he was the greatest preacher in the brotherhood. He said, "No, but I would have to be numbered among the top two; and I'm more humble than the other fellow."

My informant did not tell me of a retort, if there was one; but that remark deserved something like one given a certain sportscaster. He is reported to have asked another how many truly great sportscasters there were for today's football games, and the man replied, "I don't know the number, but there is one less than you think." Wow! That smarts!

And so it goes. We are repulsed by the fellow who "thinks more highly of himself than he ought to think" (Rom. 12:3). It is barely possible that his attitude is obnoxious because it is an indirect attack upon our status — whittling us down by the unwarranted elevation of himself. And how many of us have tried to measure how highly "we ought to think" (v. 3b)? "Soberly" suggests an unexaggerated, objective look at ourselves, "according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith;" but it does not require nor promote a loss of self-respect. God has dealt each one "a measure of faith," and each saint should be sufficiently aware of his "measure" to recognize his responsibilities. Our various capacities pose corresponding obligations. Let no one excuse his failure to serve the Lord under the guise of false modesty.

The egoist leads a self-centered life. His philosophy makes self-interest the valid end of all action. He must "justify himself" (Lu. 10:29) at whatever the cost. The self-sacrificing love of Christianity negates such an attitude as this. Christ did not undersell himself, but gladly gave himself for others (Jn. 8:28, 12:32). We also have a purpose and a God-given function to perform. We can not serve well with either an over — or an under-inflated concept of self. But a true look at self will make us aware of our need for Christ, saying, "Be merciful to me, a sinner!"

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XV No.XII Pg.1

February 1979

Who Is Upside Down?

Robert F. Turner

When in Australia I was constantly reminded of what I considered to be my "upside down" position. The cold wind blew from the south, spring began in September, the sun arched to the north, etc., etc. How could my Aussie friends seem so "at home" in such an upside down country? Then it occurred to me, if civilization had had its beginning in the southern hemisphere, and world exploration and map making had been from here, the U.S. would be upside down. My homeland would be "down-under." It all depends on one's point of reference.

And I remembered that when the disciples of the Lord argued concerning the "greatest" in the kingdom, Jesus said, "he that is least among you all the same shall be great" (Luke 9:48). The Lord's kingdom is "upside down" using man's conception of greatness as a point of reference. But if we are able and willing to accept the Lord as the standard it is our concept that is upside down, and His way is "right side up."

A paradox is "a tenet contrary to received opinion ... that yet may be true in fact." It is seemingly contradictory, but only because we measure it by incomplete standards. The whole truth includes things not generally recognized in our limited experience.

How could the meek inherit the earth? You need not ask a bold and presumptuous J. W. to answer. How can we gain our life by losing it? Or be a Master by serving? The paradoxical nature of these statements is such only when we view them from our materialistic point of reference. They are upside down statements only when considered from our upside down position. But when Jesus taught these truths He had the true perspective (Matt. 5:1-f; 10:39; 20:25-28). He saw clearly what we see but dimly, if at all. He pointed man to a right side up standard.

For Jesus saw life in an eternal reference. Man's life is but a brief pilgrimage, time is fleeting, even the "heavens and earth" shall pass away. Centuries of generations have demonstrated the correctness of His greater view — the futility of man's upside down philosophy. Must we wait until irrevocable judgment proves it?

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XV No.XII Pg.2

February 1979

Good Leadership

Robert F. Turner

Your editor can't write a better article on LEADERSHIP than this one, taken from Perspectives: V.4, n.12. Thank Bill Hall for this material.

————————

What are the characteristics of good leadership? Good leadership has vision to see what needs to be done. Good leadership moves forward, is positive in its approach, stirs confidence in others, convinces them that the "impossible" task can be accomplished.

Good leadership has faith in people. Good leadership believes that others want to work and that they will respond when properly challenged; it places the best possible construction on the actions of others. Good leadership "bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things," because good leadership loves.

Good leadership does not run ahead of others. It does not do everything itself. In fact, it frequently steps aside, and waits — sometimes anxiously — while others are given a chance to perform the tasks which they are capable of performing. Good leadership is not nearly so concerned with getting things done as it is with developing people into useful, mature servants of the Lord. Good leadership is constantly producing leadership in others.

Good leadership has a real concern for others, and has the ability to communicate that concern. Good leadership is patient, understanding; it is neither too quick to rebuke nor is it indulgent toward sin. Good leadership places itself in the other man's position to see things from his viewpoint.

Good leadership is humble; is willing to acknowledge mistakes; it can accept criticism, and separate the constructive from the destructive. Good leadership seeks the praise of God rather than the praise of men; it sacrifices popularity to do God's will.

Good leadership has conviction, but is not stubborn or headstrong. It listens to others and views their ideas objectively. Good leadership treats all alike; is impartial. Good leadership is frank and candid, but is kind. Good leadership is self-confident, but not proud; it does not have to be self-promoting.

The church needs men and women who are leaders, but what a difference between those who seek to lead and those who truly lead. Bill Hall

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XV No.XII Pg.3

February 1979

Neglected Corridors

Dan S. Shipley

In his popular book, The Making Of A Surgeon, Dr. William Nolen, in describing the hospital where he spent his internship, tells of a certain corridor that was generally avoided by him and his associates. Though it was a convenient short-cut to a much visited area, this particular corridor was dimly lit, cold, dank, and depressingly gloomy — an atmosphere not enhanced by the presence of an occasional corpse being temporarily stored there. All in all, it was an area easily avoided, even when the alternate route meant more and unsheltered walking.

It occurs to me that the Christian is often confronted with "corridors" something like that — the kind that are easily avoided because of their unpleasantness. If such disagreeable corridors could be identified with wall placards such as used on hospital wards, one would surely read, "Unfaithful Christians". Few churches are without their weak and indifferent members. And all to often, the neglectful become the neglected — merely because many of their brethren find it personally distasteful to talk with them about their spiritual welfare. Oh, we can talk with them about other subjects; we can talk about them; we can even assume they wouldn't listen, but these are little more than alternate routes to avoid the unpleasant corridor. Surely God's people will not allow pride and selfishness to subordinate the needs of weak brethren to their own personal tastes! Bearing one another's burdens (Gal. 6:2) is what pleases God, and, therefore, should never be made contingent on what pleases me.

Another generally avoided corridor, if labeled, would read: "Personal Evangelism". To my way of thinking the work of teaching the lost is one of the most urgent and most neglected responsibilities facing Christians. Relatively few relate themselves to this work in any significant way — for too many, it is an untravelled corridor. God's simple, yet effective plan calls for faithful men to teach others (2 Tim. 2:2). Apparently, many early Christians did just that (Acts 8:4); souls were saved and the church grew. When we quit emphasizing what we can't do and what we think others won't do; when we quit worrying about being embarrassed or rejected and when we start getting concerned about lost souls enough to teach them publicly and from house to house (Acts 20:20), THEN we will grow both individually and collectively! We MUST get the gospel to the lost! — At least we must TRY! And we must quit avoiding the open doors and opportunities about us. There is the very real possibility that the very one we avoid may be the one with the "honest and good heart". Anyway, ALL have priceless souls that we should be concerned about. We cannot follow Christ and neglect them.

Finally, if we have found ourselves to be avoiding such corridors, there is yet another we should consider — and possibly the most important. It is the nearest. It is self. It too is a much-avoided area. Yet, God bids us to examine ourselves (2 Cor. 13:5). Neglecting this encourages neglecting the others (and vice versa). However, facing up to self with a view toward improvement can bring us through many faith-testing corridors.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XV No.XII Pg.4
February 1979
Letter To Phllemon
Robert F. Turner

In the Colossian letter (4:7-8), Paul names Tychicus as his messenger and says he is sending with him (v.9) "Onesimus, a faithful and beloved brother, who is one of you." The letter is written from prison (4:3, 18), where Aristarchus was "fellow-prisoner" (v. 10). Epaphras ("one of you") was also with Paul when the Colossian letter was written (v.12) and had evidently been sent from Colosse with messages, and to assist Paul (1:7-8).

These things tie the Colossian and Philemon letters closely together for both come with salutations from Paul and Timothy, from prison. In Philemon, Onesimus is a run-away slave who had been converted by Paul while in prison, and was now being sent back to his master. Greetings are sent from the same men. Cf. Col. 4: with v. 23-f. noting that Epaphras is here called "fellow-prisoner," and Justus is not included. Although such personal ties are not found in the Ephesian letter, it too was sent via Tychicus (6:21), from prison (3:1; 4:1; 6:20), and we have good reason to believe these three letters (four, with that to Laodicea — ??) were all in Tychicus' bag as he and Onesimus traveled together.

Read Eph. 6:5-f. and Co1. 3:22-f. as you picture the run-away slave going back to his master, and what?? Evidently he had subscribed to such principles, but what about Philemon?? The slave must face his reason for running away, and its consequence. We may speculate that the above passages were written with Onesimus in mind — not for his sake alone (these exhortations are not in Philemon) but for Master-slave relations of all times.

What follows is NOT a translation; it is not the Bible text but the non-critical meaning I get from reading the text — offered to introduce the comments on the following page. Maybe it will assist you in understanding Paul's letter to Philemon.

——————————

Paul, a prisoner for Christ's sake; to Philemon, "dearly beloved and fellow laborer," and to intimate members of the church in your house. I keep hearing of your love and faith toward the Lord and all saints; and I thank God, and pray that the sharing of your faith may cause others to know our blessings in Christ. I rejoice because you have refreshed the hearts o other saints.

Now, I do not order you (as an Apostle might), but as an aged prisoner of the Lord, I beseech you on behalf of (another saint) your slave, Onesimus, whom I have brought to the Lord. He who was once unprofitable (belying his name, which means "profitable") has been profitable to me, and can be to you. In sending him to you I give up my heart (I love him as a son). I longed to keep him with me, for he could have served me in your stead in the bonds of the gospel. But I would not do this without your consent, for goodness should not be taken from you, but freely given by you.

Perhaps this was why he was parted from you for a while, that you might have him back forever; not now as a slave but more than that: a beloved brother to you even as he is to me. ("In the flesh Philemon had the brother for a slave; in the Lord he had (continued next page)

Vol.XV No.XII Pg.5
February 1979
Master Of Onesimus, But Slave Of Christ
Robert F. Turner

(continued from previous page)

the slave for a brother." Meyer)

If you count me as your partner receive him as you would me. If he has wronged you or owes you anything, put it on my account. I will repay it, — even though you owe me even your own self. Yes, brother (I may as well acknowledge it) I do beg your help in the Lord. Brighten my heart in the Lord (as you have the hearts of other saints). I have confidence in your obedience, knowing that you will do more than I say.

I trust that through your prayers I may be released from prison and come to you, so get ready for my stay. Various saints salute you. The grace of our Lord be with your spirit.

——————————

The personal nature of this letter is striking, the nearest N.T. parallel to it being 3 John: "unto Gaius the beloved." The whole epistle was likely written in Paul's own hand (v. 19). He may have written many such letters but this is the only one preserved. It is addressed not only to Philemon but "to the church in thy house," whereby the Holy Spirit teaches all saints these vital lessons.

Commendations of Philemon are not to flatter, nor are they related to wealth or worldly position. They are prayer material, praising his service of God and its good effects.

Paul beseeches "with a gentle yet distinct assertion of his own authority" (Expositors). Without denying his "calling" or "rank," he sets it aside in favor of a loving plea from an aged prisoner. The Greek of v.20 translates literally, "Yes, brother, I (ego) of thee may have help..." Expositors quotes Lightfoot as saying, "The emphatic e g o identifies the cause of Onesimus with his own." Paul unashamedly pleads, Yes; I want something from you, in the Lord.

Recognition of "rights" in this matter are dual: those which the social order of the day dictated, and that which is expected of saints. The first century society gave Philemon rights over his slave, and Paul did not paint a banner and take to the streets against those "rights." As Robertson says, "Paul has been criticized for not denouncing slavery in plain terms. But when one considers the actual conditions in the Roman empire, he is a wise man who can suggest a better plan than the one pursued here for the ultimate overthrow of slavery." Paul imposed, in gentle but unmistakable fashion, the "right" things for both Philemon and Onesimus to do, as Christians.

He could not "force" Philemon to free Onesimus --- for our weapons are not carnal (2 Cor. 10:4-f). But truth, properly applied, can "bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ." Could Paul have altered the Roman law regarding slavery there is every reason to believe he would have done so. But he did not neglect the greater power-- divine principles planted in the heart of men like Philemon --- which could and did doom the pagan concept of slavery. As Luther wrote, "We are all (Christ's) Onesimi if we will believe it." God speed the day when more men will be His slave.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XV No.XII Pg.6

February 1979

Prayer & Potato Bugs

Robert F. Turner

Here is more from Safed the Sage, by William E. Barton; 1919. Space forces me to edit and digest, but the style of the original work is preserved, including profuse use of capital letters. I am quoting from books borrowed from Larimore White, grandson of the well-known T. B. Larimore.

—————————

There came one to me and said, “Oh Safed, I am told that thou art a wise man and also a righteous man.” And I answered, “The two are not wholly incompatible; if men say such things concerning me I must be the more mindful of my folly and my unworthiness.”

And he said, “Dost thou believe in the power of prayer?”

Forasmuch as he knew very well what I believed, I answered him as I answer men when I desire that they shall make the Next Move. And I said unto him, “Whether thou hast come to be enlightened, or hast come to enlighten me, say on, for the sunlight is scarce.”

And he said, “I believe that God answereth every prayer. Dost thou so believe?” And I answered, “Yea; and sometimes He answereth ‘Yea’, and sometimes He answereth ‘Nay’.”

And he said, “There is no ‘Nay’ with the Almighty when the prayer of faith is answered.” And I said, “It is well that all men pray the prayer of faith. But the prayer of faith is still the prayer of human understanding; and although the faith be perfect, the wisdom may be scant. Wherefore, if God must needs say ‘Yea’ to every fool prayer, then would I desire to move into some Other Universe. For I do verily believe that God doth not loan his Rubber Stamp to every strong-faithed and weak-minded Christian.”

And he said, “Cannot God turn our folly into wisdom?”

And I answered, “God can do everything that denieth not his own nature and that involveth no contradiction of terms. But some things that God can do, God is too good and too wise to do, even though all the foolish Christians on earth do tease Him.”

—————————

A Great and Beautiful Tree grew for an Hundred Years beside a stream. Cattle rested in the shade thereof, and Birds of Heaven did build their Nests in the branches thereof. But there came a Potato Bug who desired to fill his Belly from a Potato Patch on the far side of that stream. And he rested by the tree, and he prayed. And in the night there arose a Great Wind, and it smote the tree so that it fell across the stream. And when morning was come, the Potato Bug climbed upon the tree, crossed the water, and entered the Potato Patch.

The Cattle mourned for the Shade which had sheltered them, and the Birds were Sorrowing over their Broken Eggs, and over their little birds that were Crushed, and over their Homes that were Desolate. But the Potato Bug knew it not, nor regarded it; but thanked his God for the answer of the Prayer of the Potato Bug.

(A combine of two Safed articles —)

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XV No.XII Pg.7

February 1979

?You Know What?

Robert F. Turner

Dear bro. Turner:

What are your thoughts on insurance? Is it an indication of covetousness: of wanting security or protection for nothing, or without meeting our own responsibilities? Is there scriptural justification for it? HG

Reply:

"For nothing" is a bit hard to understand, as I look at my own insurance costs. And if some buy out of covetousness, they are poorly in formed. The Company makes money off of the buyer — you pay for the protection you get. While some may overbuy insurance, and others may have sufficient funds to make insurance unnecessary, I believe a well-planned insurance program is good business management and a conservative business measure. However, I would make a poor business advisor. You will have to use your own head for investments; I only deal with this because of such queries and their moral implications.

Averages — of life, accidents, etc. kept by experts, and constantly updated, give insurance companies actuary tables by which probable needs are figured very accurately. They are not gambling when they take your money. And those same tables, with laws governing the allowable "take," mean that you are only paying a reasonable profit to the Company for protection they offer you. Investment for profit is a scriptural business. (Matt. 25:27) (The Company's BIG profit is from the reinvestment of funds; but they must keep available the protection they offered you. Probabilities allow them to do this.) The bigness of companies and their impact on money market, etc.; is another matter, not directly related to individual moral problems. Providing for our own household (1 Tim. 5:8) imposes a responsibility for wife and small children. One can not wait until he has one foot in the grave to do this. As already stated, the "probability" of leaving family with bills and an unpaid mortgage has been carefully estimated. Insurance enables one to pay for stored resources that (while not his own in a primary sense) are his to rely upon. The Company can't say YOU are going to die, nor can YOU say you are going to live. But actuary tables and government supervision take standard insurance out of the "gambling" category. A "balanced" use of money will not be greedy or covetous, nor will it neglect current needs for God's work.

Buying locks for the doors, giving preventive medical attention, or installing fire-fighting equipment are protective measures taken because of probabilities. Yes, they cost money for something that may not be needed. Yes, we could become overanxious. Yes, we could go over-board or to excess in buying these, or insurance. But excesses do not argue against a reasonable effort to protect our own.

People who do not make reasonable protective measures a part of their "regular expenses," may live above their means, spending on boats, TVs, etc.; and then have to ask for alms when trouble comes. THIS is covetous living — thinking only of self and today — when more responsible use of funds would have been literal "oil in their lamps" (Matt. 25:1-f).

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XV No.XII Pg.8
February 1979
Stuff About Things
Robert F. Turner

Remember the cigarette "ad" that pictured the black-eyed man or woman with the caption, "I'd rather fight than switch"? Well, there are various sequels to that line.

I am told of a preacher who was "trying out" at a large and generous church. One of the elders asked if he smoked, and the preacher said that he did not. But the elder apparently had reasons to press the matter, for he asked if the man had ever been a smoker; and he replied that he had, but that he had quit. Still suspicious — the evidence lingers — the elder then asked, "When?" And the preacher had to reply, "This morning."

There are preachers who had rather switch (their position on various issues) than fight (the good fight of faith). They know what the Bible does and does not authorize, and if they could preach it that way without being called "Anti" they would gladly do so. There are church members who know how a Christian ought to live: to speak with a pure tongue, and to avoid ungodly things and places. But when school or business peers are foul mouthed, or head for the wrong places, they follow the crowd. They are not blind; they had rather switch than fight. For the life of me, I can not see the difference in fear of "Anti" and fear of "chicken!"

Paul believed, and therefore he spoke (2 Cor. 4:13); accepting whatever cost such speaking might bring. He considered himself "delivered unto death for Jesus' sake" (v. 11); which is to say, he considered himself expendable. If he must die because he preached what he believed, then he must die. It seemed never to have entered his mind that he could "switch" rather than fight, for he was a man of conviction.

But it would be a mistake to conclude that the Christian warfare was easy sailing for Paul. His flesh warred against his spirit, as indicated in Rom. 7:15-f. He had to "buffet" his body (A.S.) and "bring it into subjection: lest ... when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway" (1 Cor. 9:27). He needed encouragement (Acts 18:9-10); but he persevered because his faith had made the Christian way his way. He could be true neither to himself nor to God if he "switched" for convenience' sake.

Those who switch to avoid serving the Lord have never learned there is no other way — of life (Jn. 6:66-68).

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol. XVI No.I Pg.1
March 1979
The New Creature
Robert F. Turner

"If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature" (2 Cor. 5:17). Obviously his physical characteristics have not changed, and one does not "partake of the divine nature" in its essence. We suggest a comparison study of verses in the frequently parallel letters of Ephesians and Colossians as a clue to this "new" and different man.

Eph. 4:17-f. defines the changed man. "Walk not as the Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind..." "but ye have not so learned Christ; if so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by Him" "that ye put off... the old man ... and be renewed in the spirit of your mind...etc".

Now, compare this with Col. 3:8-f., "Put off anger, wrath ... seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; and have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him..."

I have emphasized words pertaining to the common thought: the new man thinks differently, i.e., he has new and different standards; one change has taken place in his mind. The heart (mind) is not different through miraculous operation, but by teaching, hearing, learning (Jn. 6:45). But this "learning" is not simply the accumulation of information ...stored so it may be repeated upon examination. The "spirit of the mind" has been affected or "constrained" by our recognition of Christ's love for us (2 Cor. 5:12), so that vanity has been replaced by humility and dependence (Cf. Phil. 2:5; 3:15). Expositors say, "It is necessary, therefore, to take pneuma here as our spirit...the higher faculty in man ...that makes him most akin to God." Without debating the intricacies of mind-spirit, the man is "new" because his understanding has affected his desires, and the new heart bears fruit for God.

Both passages (Eph. and Col.) tell us that the whole of the "new man" includes his conduct. "Just so the heart is right" is an idle gesture. We can not know one's heart, but "by their fruits" men are known (Matt. 7: 20). Remission of sins, and heaven, are at the point of doing (Acts 2:38; Rev. 2:10), and short of this point there is no new creature (Matt. 7:21).

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XVI No.I Pg.2

March 1979

Libertine?

Robert F. Turner

There is talk of reinstating the military draft, and the news media says a party of "Libertines" on the U.T. campus will mount a protest. One representative of the party had some strong (perhaps threatening) things to say about a government that would restrict their "liberties."

In Roman antiquity a "libertine" was a manumitted slave — one who had bought or been given his freedom. In Ecclesiastical history, the Libertines were a political party in Geneva (-1555) who protested the rigors of Calvinism. There was also a pantheistic sect in France and Holland who denied the difference in good and evil. The dictionary says a libertine is one who is free from restraint; who acts according to impulse; who gives rein to lust; and gives synonyms such as: dissolute, licentious, profligate, loose in morals.

And, on top of all this, a mother told me her college-age son admired and perhaps envied me because I "did what I wanted to do." I'm Libertine??

Well, I hope not! Looking for some good in his comment (call an optimist a "liar" and he thinks you are complimenting his imagination) perhaps he liked my sunny disposition. Hmmm! And regardless of what he meant, there is more than one way to "do what one wants to do." There is such a thing as adjusting one's desires.

If you are cold you can move about vigorously and thank God for fresh, energizing circumstances. If hot, you have a marvelous opportunity to sweat off some of that fat. O.K., I'm being a bit facetious, but I'm very serious in urging you to develop a sense of contentment with what you have — not a "do nothing" contentment, but "use what I have" contentment.

The Libertine who makes self his life purpose contributes nothing of good to the world, and loses his soul. He asks government to "protect his rights" with never a thought of obligation to government, or to the God-given sense of "ought" that gave him certain "rights." (The no-God, evolutionary man has no "rights" except those he makes with his might.)

If we would accept our life as having divine purpose, and train our desires in keeping with that purpose, we can serve God in prison, shipwrecked at sea, or in whatever circumstances we find ourselves. "Troubled, yet not distressed..." (2 Cor. 4:8-18). "I have learned, in whatsoever state I am therewith to be content" (Phil. 4:11). Wanting to be the Lord's slave — this is the only true liberty.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XVI No.I Pg.3
March 1979
No Substitute For Mother
Dan S. Shipley

Nothing, we are told, has more influence on what we become in later life than what we learn in our earliest years. And, no one, as we know, plays a more important role in these early and formative years of development than the mother. While it is true that she has no control over the sex or physical attributes of her offspring, the mother, more than any one else, is in a position to mold their disposition and character. What an unparalleled opportunity and responsibility, this business of training up children in the way they should go! (Prov. 22:6)

Accordingly, among the very first things every young mother should learn is this "way they should go". It is God's way; it is bringing them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Eph. 6:4). One of the biggest mistakes made by many young mothers in child rearing is in seeking the counsel of the ungodly —those who have no regard for the counsel of God (Ps. 1:1). Only too late have some realized their mistake in following the advice of prominent psychologists who encouraged "self-expression" and permissiveness in children. Regretfully, even Christians sometimes forget that God's way is always best. No better handbook on child rearing can be found than the Bible — and the best mothers will be those who learn and apply its teachings to their children and to themselves.

Consequently, the mother must live in accord with the way her child should go. Example is one of her most effective teaching tools. As a proverb mentioned in Ezekiel says, "As is the mother, so is her daughter" (16:44). There are no pretentious airs at home. What we are there IS what we are and even small children know it. What God is to a mother cannot be hidden from her child — and it constitutes the strongest kind of a recommendation for a similar faith. Much good teaching can be nullified by the influence of a bad example. As some sage has noted, to teach right and live wrong is like feeding our children good food with one hand and poison with the other. The mother who doubts the lasting influence of her example need only to recall what she remembers about her mother from childhood — and so shall she be remembered!

It is mostly the mother who puts across the tremendously important and needful lessons concerning respect and responsibility. Regard for authority MUST begin at home! — and it cannot be taught too early. Proper attitudes are taught, not inherited. If, in the first four or five years of life, a child does not learn that he is responsible for his actions and that he cannot defy authority, look out for the next fifteen years or so! The mother who indulges a defiant and rebellious child invites misery and heartaches. God says that true love will not spare the rod (Prov. 13:24). As a noted Los Angeles doctor has said, "The greatest social disaster of this century is the belief that abundant love makes discipline unnecessary". How deceived many have been!

And how deceived are mothers who say they can't afford to take the time for such training. They can't afford not to!

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XVI No.I Pg.4
March 1979
Nature Of The Church
Robert F. Turner

Practically all church historians relate the development of the Papal system (Universal Bishop) with a much earlier "metropolitan system" and the diocesan concept of church government. Pragmatically, it is an enlarged concept of structure that demands an enlarged government — harness to fit the team. If no effort was made to work churches as a "team," then there would be no need for an oversight larger than that of the local church. This lesson is badly needed today.

But there is something back of the enlarged structure to which little attention has been given. WHY would early churches (beginning of second century) enlarge structure or oversight? Was it pride or hunger for power, as is often suggested? Perhaps we have allowed a certain prejudice to color our thinking. It is highly probable that early Christians had as much or more zeal for doing the work of the Lord as brethren today, and thought they could "do more" with an enlarged organization. And, while we are granting good intentions, let us ask ourselves on what basis any one could justify that which changed the organizational structure and government of the church? Could they have had a concept of the nature of church that encouraged it?

I know that today's organizers justify their actions on a misconception of the nature of the universal church. Bro. Woods, in his debate with bro. Cogdill, argued: l. The Great Commission obligated "the church" to go to the whole world; 2. Without cooperation (collective action) it is impossible for this commission to be carried out; 3. Since the apostolic "church" did preach to every creature (Col. 1:23) it follows that there was cooperative effort (again, he uses "cooperative" in the limited sense of collective action, rft). (See Cogdill-Woods Debate, pp. 195-196, 233, 236). There is no need to re-argue this debate, nor do I attempt it. But I want you to note the concept of "church" here. It treats all saints (the universal body) as some sort of functional unit; and slides into the concept of a universal body of churches. THIS "church" must go into the world. To say it is the "church" distributively, as each member works; or even as each congregation carries out its independent obligations, would destroy bro. Woods' argument. Clearly, he conceives of "the church" as some sort of universal teaching society — as a universal functional institution.

This is the "Catholic" concept of "church" — though I certainly do not charge Woods with the whole consequence. They say the church is "—the society founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ;" "...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." (Catholic Encyclopedia, V.III, p.744, 752.) The society must "administer" grace, sanction the teaching, and must therefore be perpetuated as a viable institution so that it may perform these functions.

This concept caused Augustine to say, "I should not believe the Gospel (continued next page)

Vol.XVI No.I Pg.5
March 1979
Importance Of Proper "Church" Concept
Robert F. Turner

(continued from previous page)

except the authority of the Catholic Church moved me" (Contra Manichoei). It led Savonarola, in speaking of a pope who commanded something contrary to the Gospel, to say, "Not the Roman Church, but thou errest." It kept Martin Luther, and the English Parliament, and the majority of the Reformers, from the true concept of restoration. They refused to reject the necessity for linkage with the historic "visible church." The concept insidiously permeates the thinking of brethren today who hold that "the great middle section" of the church just could not be wrong. Somehow, the "church" becomes a thing apart from the people who make it up. The people can err, but not "the church."

After centuries of Roman institutionalism, John Wyclif struck at the core of Catholicism when he redefined the nature of the church. Schaff says, "Scarcely a writing has come down to us from Wyclif's pen in which he does not treat the subject, and in his special treatise on the Church, written probably in 1378, it is defined more briefly as the body of all the elect... Of this body, Christ alone is the head" (V. 6, p.331). We would differ with Wyclif's concept of "the elect" but he did make the church a spiritual body, not dependent upon ties with an historic visible society. God's people are "visible," and function in the flesh to serve Him; but an acceptable association with a certain local church is not prima facie evidence that we please the Lord.

The Swiss Anabaptists understood this point. Schaff says they "organized on the voluntary principle select congregations of baptized believers, separated from the world and from the State." "The demand of rebaptism virtually unbaptized and unchristianized the entire Christian world, and completed the rupture with the historic Church" (V.8, pp. 71-77). Schaff, a "historic" church man, did not agree with the Anabaptists, but he recognized the vital role these differing concepts had in history.

What did Christ buy when he bought "the church"? Was it not individual men and women, lost in sin? What did he build when he built "the church"? Is not this a figurative representation of individuals as "lively stones, a spiritual house" resting upon Christ, the foundation? He cleanses the church much as a rancher dips a "flock" of sheep — neither church nor flock are cleansed apart from what is done to individual people or sheep, but in the identical process. When humble, faithful individuals are made free from sin "with the washing of water by the word" (Eph. 5:25-27) the Lord is cleansing His church.

The group of men and women who covenant together, build a place of meeting, and worship and serve God for a time, may leave their first love (Rev. 2:4-5). They may continue to occupy the physical property, and wear the same name, but the Lord's church does not consist, per se, of such things. Its nature is different! It is begun, propagated, and continues only as the Christ is enthroned in our hearts.

Deprecating "the church"? NOT AT ALL. We seek to define its nature, that Christ may be thereby glorified.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XVI No.I Pg.6

March 1979

Gear Up To God's Word

Robert F. Turner

From "Wit and Wisdom of Safed the Sage," by William Barton, 1919.

—————————

I have a friend who is an Husbandman, and I visited him upon his Farm, and tarried with him one night. Upon his Farm are Cattle and Swine and Horses, and he watereth them from a Deep Well wherein is a Pump, and the Pump runneth by a Windmill. And it came to pass after Supper that he spake unto a farmhand, and he said, There is a Good Breeze tonight; start thou the Windmill.

And the man went forth into the night, and loosened a Rod that runneth up to the Mill, and that holdeth the Tail against the Wheel so that the Wind driveth it not. But when the Rod is loosened, then the Tail swingeth around, and the Wheel cometh into the Wind, and the Wheel turneth to Beat the Band. And ere the man had returned to the house we heard the Wheel running, and my friend said, On the morrow we shall have a Tank full of Water for the Livestock.

Now the room where I slept was on the side of the house toward the Windmill, and when I wakened in the night it was Running like the Wind, and I said, Verily it will pump the well dry at that rate. But when we went out in the morning, behold, there was no water. For the Pump had been Disconnected from the Mill, and in the darkness the farmhand saw not that the Connecting Pin was out; wherefore he connected it not. And the mill had run all night and the Tank was empty.

Now when I beheld this I thought of many men whom I know, whose Windmill goeth around continually, and who are always Creaking their Boots to show that they are Among Those Present, and who talk long about Earnestness and Efficiency and the Rest, but it Cutteth no Ice, and it Draweth no Water. Their minds are Responsive to the Winds of God, and their Capacity for doing something is as Excellent as that of the Pump; but between the Wheels that God driveth and the Pump of their own endeavor, there lacketh an adjustment.

And this is the word that I spake in the ears of men: Count it not a sure sign of efficiency that the Wheel goeth round and the Pump is in order; but be thou sure the Wheels of thy Head are hitched to the Pump of thy Performance.

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

In 1934, as a student in Freed-Hardeman College, bro N. B. Hardeman told this "Parable" in chapel. (I do not recall if he gave the source.) I do remember, however, the special slant he gave the "moral" — perhaps for the benefit of some Big Talking boys. He made the vigorous turning of the wheel to be the talk, talk, talk of the preacher boy — who had failed to connect his tongue to a sound and well-grounded knowledge of the Word of God. The glib of tongue may make a pretty sound, and promise much; but unless the coupling pin is connected, he will pump no living water of life.

There are few things worse than the sound of much pumping, when you are aware the coupling pin is missing.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XVI No.I Pg.7

March 1979

?You Know What?

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

Does 1 Cor. 14:35 forbid women to ask questions in a Bible class where the whole church is assembled? WTG Reply:

Some basic considerations of women in society were dealt with in an earlier query page (Cf. V.15, n.8). It is my conclusion that the "women" of 1 Cor. 14: were to keep silent when Spirit-filled men were speaking — being "in subjection, as also saith the law." It is the subjection that is primary here — one may even discern a reflective reference to previous instructions, in 1 Cor. 11:3-f. NOT spk. BUT b.n. subj., is a Greek method of indicating comparative degree (See Jn. 6:27; 1 Pet. 3:3-4), the NOT being qualified by the more important subjection. It is no unlimited negative.

And what did the law say? It seems Paul had Gen. 3:16 in mind, where Eve was told, "he shall rule over thee." In the LXX the word is kurieuo, found also in Rom. 6:9:14; 7:1, and meaning, as here, "dominion over." The "law" Paul cites did not forbid women to speak, except when such speaking indicated she was not subject to man. The silence imposed in the special circumstances of 1 Cor. 14: should not be interpreted to mean she could not, under any circumstances, speak in the presence of the assembled saints. She sings (teaching, Col. 3:16) and Peter asked one woman to speak (Acts 5:8). (I am reminded of one church which took a woman out of "the assembly" so she could confess faith in Christ.)

Man's dominion over woman is not limited to "in church (assembly)." In fact, I fear "in assembly" has become a realm for validating and/or negating — almost as if it was a congregational consistory. What makes a gathering of saints "the assembly;" and where did you get your information?? How many members does it take to have a quorum? Are we to understand that if there is less than "the whole church come together (1 Cor. 14: 23) it would have been all right for the men to speak at the same time? Or for women to speak? God authorizes saints to do certain things together, and warns us about "forsaking our own assembling" (Heb. 10:25). But reference is to "the coming together of ourselves" — the act of gathering, NOT some official validating quorum.

The "church" exists and functions (distributively) prior to gathering (1 Cor. 14:23); and its collective work continues (through agency) after its gathering (Rom. 16:1; Phil. 2:24-30; 4:15; Col. l:7). "He shall rule over thee" is applicable both before, during, and after saints have gathered to worship, or to study the Bible in a class arrangement. It is not some official "assembly" that makes it wrong for a woman to "have dominion over a man" (1 Tim. 2:12), but an all time principle divinely established from the beginning (v. 13).

"In church" (1 Cor. 14:19,28,35) is used without the article (the) to indicate a general rather than a particular substantive. It contrasts public with private — NOT a "called assembly as opposed to some other public gathering of saints; NOT ritualistic Mass in contrast to other meetings. Let us think long and well on this.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XVI No.I Pg.8

March 1979

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

Two men sitting upon a park bench were exchanging life-long observations. One rubbed his chin and sighed, "Have you noticed," he asked, "that the vast majority of people get sick before they die?"

The second man thought about that for a while, then observed sagely, "Yeah — very few die healthy."

I might add that it is this way in the spiritual world too. Very few die spiritually, at the height of their sound (healthful) active Christian life. They first grow "weak and sickly" and then they "sleep" the sleep of spiritual death (1 Cor. 11:30). We do not "just happen" to leave the Lord. We neglect our exercise, fail to feed on the word, and carelessly mingle with the filth of the world. When we "come down" with something, we make no effort to correct it. We grow weaker; and when brethren urge us to take the proper medicine we become angry, and shout that there is nothing wrong with us. And finally we die! We are no longer sensitive to the needs of the soul; our conscience is seared and dead.

A doctor once told me about taking a man's medical history for his records. He asked the man if his parents were living, and was told that both of them were dead. "And what was the cause of their death?" he asked. The man thought for a moment, then replied, "I don't really know: but anyhow, it wasn't anything serious."

Apparently the man meant their death was not caused by cancer, diabetes, or something like that. But whatever is serious enough to take one's life is serious enough. We may congratulate ourselves upon our freedom from murder, and die of anger. We may never steal, but die of covetousness. And some people seem to die of nothing more serious than nothing. They just "rest" themselves to death.

My files contain this quotation:

On The Plains Of Hesitation Lie The Bleachened Bones Of Countless Millions Who, At Dawn Of Victory, Sat Down To Rest, And Resting, Died!

Brother, death is serious, regardless of what kills us.

Since "Very few die healthy" the thing to do is stay healthy. This may take more doing than we can muster in the physical realm, but we can live in Christ so that to die is gain.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XVI No.II Pg.1

April 1979

Just Plain Shamgar

Robert F. Turner

"And after him was Shamgar the son of Anath, who smote of the Philistines six hundred men with an ox goad: and he also saved Israel" (Jdg. 3:31).

Troy Mulhollan, one of our faithful members, used this as his text for a Wednesday night talk recently. He announced his subject, A Man Named Shamgar, and commented, "That isn't a household name around Burnet." True!

The man is mentioned only once more in the Bible — in Judges 5:6. And yet he, with Othniel (Jdg. 3:9-11), Ehud (3:15-30), and others more widely acclaimed, "also saved Israel." Does it really matter about "credits" if the deed is rightly done, and the doer serves his purpose in life?

Was Shamgar a simple working man-an ox driver? If so it wouldn't be the first or last time God used plain ordinary folk to accomplish His work. Jesus called fishermen, a tax collector, and such to announce salvation to the world. The potential in just plain folk, when serving God, is a sleeping giant. But your part can be played only when you throw off the debilitating concept that "God surely wouldn't use a nobody like me." In humble earthen vessels the glory is clearly seen to be of God (2 Cor. 4:7).

Why did Shamgar use an ox goad? It may have been the only type of weapon available (1 Sam. 13:19-f.); or it may have been God's way of showing that the victory is not in armor but in the Lord (1 Sam. 17:47). Brother Troy said there was no way of knowing, but suggested this plain ordinary oxen driver may simply have used what he had. It is not a bad though with or without specific information.

If every plain, ordinary person could be persuaded to take what he or she has — in talent, money, opportunity — and put it to work for the Lord, we would begin to recognize the power of leaven in meal, of salt spread throughout the world, of tremendous candlepower. And, a dedicated worker will sharpen the goad, trim the candle, do whatever is possible to make the best use of what is available.

You exist for a divine purpose. There are no little people with God.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XVI No.II Pg.2

April 1979

The Changing Scene

Robert F. Turner

This issue is being written during the second week of April, and has been difficult to produce for there have been two deaths in the Oaks-West church this week, and my heart aches.

Effie Ware died in a Burnet Rest Home, richly blessed with friends in town but with limited family locally. She had once been my wife's hair dresser, and Vivian's quiet work enabled me to baptize her into Christ in 1966. She was 85 years of age at death.

Lelia Collins, wife of one of our elders, Vernie N. Collins, was my hostess on my first visit to Burnet. She and Vernie have been members of the Lord's church here for many long years, and were charter members of the Oaks-West congregation. Their kin abound in church, city and county. It would be hard to find a more gentle, truly Christian couple anywhere.

But this is not written to eulogize the dead. Instead, I am recalling the scores of godly women with whom I have worked in the Lord's vineyard, and who have slipped from life. "Slipped" I say, for in the rush of affairs this week's sorrow is smothered by next week's details, and there is too little time to remember. But a host of them pass before me now and I see again the little black hat of mother Parks; the jewelry of Aunt Mattie Garrett; my own mother's head, cocked to one side as she listened to my early preaching efforts.

I can remember when many churches were predominately female. I preached to them, ate their chicken, and tried to help them get their men-folk to do better. I showed them pictures of my wife, and the children she nursed while I was out "holding meetings;" and they gave me recipes to take home.

I could carelessly think that the "mothers of Zion" are about gone — we don't see as many "old" ones as before; but I know better. My generation is "slipping" into their place. Our "mothers" are more rare, but we have moved into their seats "where the air conditioner won't blow on my shoulder." Not me, of course; but some others a lot like me.

I'll miss the good-natured banter with Effie; and I'll miss Lelia — for Vivian and I sat right behind her. It pleases me that I can think of their passing without overmuch sorrow, for I share their hope. The assurance of God begins to take on a deeper meaning among long-time church families. We must give Vernie a helping hand-they were so close. Think how awful it would be to move so certainly toward death without God or brethren!

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XVI No.II Pg.3
April 1979
Deliberate Discipleship
Dan S. Shipley

The deliberate disciple is one who faithfully follows Christ as the result of careful and considered decisions based on New Testament evidence. All that he does in becoming and being a Christian is determined by what he has learned from the word of God. His relationship with the Lord is a deliberated one from its very beginning. As Jesus says, "Every one that hath heard from the Father, and hath learned, cometh unto me" (Jn. 6:45). Men may come to religion without hearing and learning God's truth, but no man can come to the Saviour and salvation without it. This means that Christ does not come to certain men, regardless of their will (predestination) and that men do not come to Christ through their feelings or experiences.

Accordingly, when men get serious about saving their souls, it is a time for careful deliberation on the matter of WHAT IS RIGHT and whether they are willing to submit to it (or, counting the cost, Lk. 14:28). Regrettably, the issue of what- is- right has been largely overshadowed by the question of who -is -right. Settling the former would settle the latter and would go a long way toward eliminating people-oriented religion. Since no man can be right with God without abiding in the doctrine of Christ (2 Jn .9), that must be our sole standard of authority. He who claims the right to rule says that men are to observe all the things He has commanded (Mt. 28:20), and that we will be judged by His words (Jn. 12:48). He who esteems the Lord's precepts to be right (Ps. 110:128) will carefully weigh ALL on the scales of divine truth. Only thusly do believers learn that union with Christ involves repentance, confession and baptism (see Acts 2:38; Rom. 10:10; 6:1-6; Gal. 3: 27). No relationship is more important or more deserving of solemn and careful deliberation. This coming to Christ must be seen as much more than "joining the church" or "getting baptized". Neither is to be a rash act of emotionalism, the importance of which is soon forgotten. A premeditated and carefully thought out decision about coming to Christ initially will make subsequent following much easier.

For instance, deciding — and I mean really deciding! — to make Christ the Lord of one's life eliminates all the "little" decisions that plague weak and halfhearted followers. The matter of whether to be present for Bible classes and worship was settled with the deliberated decision to become a Christian. Those who have to ponder about whether or not they'll resist every little temptation that comes along obviously have never really resolved the basic issue about putting God first in all things — they have never made a deliberated commitment.

Not, of course, that such a commitment would always insure faithfulness — but it certainly would encourage it. In fact, there is no facet of our work and worship that would not be enhanced when prefaced by careful deliberation. Without it there cannot be the sense of purpose that is so vital to our perseverance. The deliberate disciple has his mind made up about serving the Lord. He aims to go to heaven — on purpose!

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XVI No.II Pg.4
April 1979
Unity And Human Reason
Robert F. Turner

My attention has been called to an article in Firm Foundation (g-12-78) entitled, "Thus Concludeth The Brotherhood." The writer wisely says, "We can bind nothing upon anyone. God can bind everything he and his inspired representatives said and did upon whomever he wishes... Unity must begin where inspiration begins and end where inspiration ends." "'Thus concludeth the whole preacherhood' is not now, nor will it ever be, in the same league with 'Thus saith the Lord.'" These are noble thoughts and worthy of all acceptation.

But the chief thrust of the article is thus expressed: "The axiom is simple: Christian doctrines which take a human mind to produce are not 'solely' the result of inspiration." Or, as put elsewhere, "There are at least three categories of religious truth. There is God's word, which is absolute truth; there are opinions about God's word, some of which will prove to be true; and there are convictions drawn from God's word, again only some of which will prove to be true. Now upon which of these can we unite? Obviously, only on the first. There is only one absolute in Christianity and that is the truth as delivered by the Spirit, unmarred by human thinking. This is limited all things recorded from Genesis to Revelation."

I asked Guthrie Dean to read and comment on the F.F. article, and got the following (which must be right, for I had thought the same thing): "l. Bible statements are pure truth. 2. These truths must pass through human minds to become operative in the Christian's life. 3. But in passing through the human mind this message becomes a 'concluded conviction'. 4. Concluded convictions cannot be made a test of fellowship. THEREFORE, no Bible truth can be made a test of fellowship." The axiom is too simple!

The F.F. writer seems sincerely to seek a solution to division, and we applaud his distinction between God's word and "brotherhood conclusions." But this only means we must continue to seek truth at its source, looking to God's word rather than to "the way we do it" or "teach it." To rule out human thinking is to cut man off from God's message altogether — unless the writer is headed for the "spiritual discernment" routine. The Bible can be read and understood (Eph. 3:4; 5:17) by human minds. The message God gave is suited to the man God made. When false conclusions are drawn, and they will be, it is evidence of faulty study: prejudiced, incomplete, or fallacious. It emphasizes the need for continued study, with attention focused upon the Bible rather than upon our previous conclusions.

The writer repeatedly reminds us that "we have, from time to time, altered some of our 'absolute' convictions." If so, we did it by thinking; and if we revised our conclusions due to reliance upon God's word that is exactly as it should be. Our "endeavoring" or "giving diligence" to keep the unity of the spirit (Eph. 4:3) is expressed by the same Greek word as "study" to present thyself approved unto God (2 Tim. 2:15). The end is contingent upon human effort; attainable through Christ to the faithful. (continued next page)

Vol.XVI No.II Pg.5
April 1979
God's Way To Unity Uses Human Resources
Robert F. Turner

(continued from previous page)

It is not our intention to be hypercritical (the F.F. article is a thought-provoker) but this and many other common concepts of unity and how to achieve it need reexamination. Maturity in unity, as in all other Christian endeavors, is not perfection in the absolute. Christ's desire and prayer that we be one "as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee;" is no different than "Be ye holy, for I am holy" (1 Pet. 1:16), or, "Be ye merciful, even as your Father is merciful" (Lu. 6:36). None of these ideals will be achieved absolutely in this life. But misconceptions regarding human perfection are greatly overshadowed by fallacious alternatives.

Substituting "brotherhood conclusions" for the perfect inspired word is one error. Richardson wrote (Memoirs of A. Campbell) "A sect is characterized by a marked stagnation of religious thought. The theological system of each party surrounds it with fixed boundaries which afford no outlet to free investigation." When we think we have everything worked out, and our conclusions are equivalent to "truth," we are truly a sect.

Another equally erroneous concept, and perhaps more deceptive, for its followers think they are promoting God-approved love and unity, is sometimes called "unity in diversity." We are reminded of human imperfection, and told that since God knows we can not be absolutely one, we must fellowship (have sharing relationship, support and encourage) that which we believe to be error. Proponents even cite Rom. 14: although that passage denounces any who "condemneth himself in that which he alloweth" (14:22-23). Romans 14: urges patience with one whose knowledge is weak (1 Cor. 8:7-f) but insists each must do what he does because he fully believes God wants him to so act (vs. 5-8,12). Being considerate of a weak brother does not mean refrain from teaching him, or finance and encourage his error.

The inspired will of God is presented to the human mind with clear indication that man is capable of understanding it (Jn. 20:31; Lu. 1:3-4; 2 Pet. 1:15; 3:1-2). But we must be aware of our imperfections and ever "search the Scriptures" "prove all things." While it is true that no man knows all truth, it is equally true that all truth is available, and no man is acceptable before God who is satisfied with his level of learning, and no longer tries to learn all that God has said. "Unity of the spirit" is achieved in the common endeavor, not in some sectarian idea of right.

Brethren can never be one until they communicate with one-another in a common search for truth. We must desire to be one (not satisfied with "our church" party). We must realize that Christian perfection is found in an attitude — the "follow after-reaching- forth-press toward the mark" mind that Paul had (Phil. 3:12-15). Some will be willing to study with you who are not true brethren; but genuine brethren are happy to learn and share their knowledge of Gods word. We are ONE at it' s best when we stand mutually humble before the throne of God, genuinely trying to serve Him. Party pride (Jn. 12:42-43) is Satan's most powerful tool against Bible unity.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XVI No.II Pg.6

April 1979

He Found It — In 1826

Robert F. Turner

This interesting bit of history is taken from "Hazard of the Die;" the account of Tolbert Fanning and Restoration, by James R. Wilburn (p.14-15).

——————

In 1825, at the age of 21, (B.F. Hall) had been ordained by Stone and during the following summer preached in several series of meetings. He discovered the "mourner's bench" still in use by many of Stone's associates. Hall was disturbed because so many meetings closed without the "mourners" receiving deliverance from their obvious distress.

The next year ... he was visiting on Line Creek which separates Tennessee from Kentucky. In the cabin of a friend he found a copy of the Campbell — McCalla Debate and read carefully Alexander Campbell's discussion of the N.T. design of baptism. Suddenly he cried, "Eureka! Eureka! I have found it, I have found it!" The book dropped to the floor as the whole "plan of salvation" became clear to him for the first time. Puzzled mourners did not need to wait in vain for God to enter their hearts miraculously. Confronting Christ, they could respond to God through their own free will and as an expression of their own intellect, being immersed for the remission of their sins. Such was the obvious picture in the first century, and God was the same in 1826!

When Hall excitedly approached (B.W.) Stone about this, Stone replied that he also had preached baptism for the remission of sins. But its effect on his listeners, he reported, was similar to throwing cold water on them, and so he discontinued the practice. .... ....

Unaware of Tolbert Fanning, B.F. Hall made his way to Alabama. On the last day of Sept., 1827, he preached at Cypress Creek, just north of Florence. He had determined to imitate the preaching of the apostles, and so for the first time he urged his hearers to be baptized for the remission of their sins. To encourage his listeners to respond, he decided to ask the group to sing an "invitation" hymn. His message came through to Fanning "in a manner which was so simple and plain that anyone could understand it." He was convinced of its truth. When the invitation hymn was sung (for the first time among these people), he came forward and confessed his faith in Christ.

———————

Wilburn gives as sources for this material: Autobiography of Samuel Rogers; Standard Pub, Cincinnati; 1880; and an article in Restoration Quarterly, V. 5, No. 1, (1961) by Thomas H. Olbricht.

B. W. Stone and others wrote "Last Will and Testament of Springfield Presbytery" in 1804; beginning then to establish independent churches and take the Bible only as their guide. But we are often hasty in assuming that this meant "all truth" was found and followed. We also err in thinking "the way we do it now" has "always" been done. (Oh, how our brethren love "always.") Far better that we face the facts of history, and learn the spirit of restoration that makes each responsible before God's word.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XVI No.II Pg.7

April 1979

?You Know What?

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

How can one reason with people who partake of the Lord's Supper twice on the Lord's Day? They say we also sing and pray morning and evening; and we can not exclude anyone, as each must examine his own right to partake (1 Cor. 11:28). We surely can not restrict these brethren, while we allow non-members to partake. R.W.

Reply:

The Lord's Supper is a memorial symbol, a living monument; and is NOT in the same category as singing and praying. (Having something in common, as, being a part of our worship on the Lord's Day, does not make them the same in all respects.) Prayer and song have not a symbolic significance as does the Lord's Supper. Their frequency is regulated differently (Jas. 5:13; 1 Thes. 5:17). Reasoning (?) "We sing and pray more than once.." shows a marked failure to understand the nature of the Lord's Supper — and may also show a failure to understand the proper use of prayer and song in public worship. These are not ritualistic "items" to be performed.

The second argument (?) also shows a misunderstanding of 1 Cor. 11:28. The Lord's Supper is clearly for the saints, and has significance to them only. Paul was correcting misconduct among saints when he wrote, "Let a man examine himself," and was not saying that self-examination can eliminate the difference in Christian and non-Christian. Lipscomb's comment on this is excellent: "Let him ascertain by earnest consideration whether he is in a proper state of mind for commemorating and proclaiming the Lord's death; whether he feels a suitable gratitude for the sacrifice it commemorates, and is firmly resolved to observe the injunction of its founder."

We do not build a fence about the Lord's Table — it is not a "sacrament" subject to official administration or withholding. One does not forbid total strangers to look upon a family monument in the cemetery — though the stone has little significance to such. "Let a man examine himself" is sometimes carelessly used if a non-member inadvertently or ignorantly partakes of the elements. Charitably, we may mean we do not claim to be able to judge the heart, and in the case of a stranger, can not know his life. We are simply saying, "God knows if he is a Christian." But this is far from saying the Lord's Supper was given to aliens; or that we should be content with continued misuse, and make no effort to teach those who seem not to know the nature of a memorial act.

The "twice on the Lord's Day" folk may be of the modern breed who thrive on "some new thing" — especially if it has emotional impact, or they feel it indicates they are smarter or more "spiritual" than others. If so, don't be surprised when they show up in ascension robes, speaking in tongues. The letter of inquiry gave insufficient evidence for such judgment, and I am more inclined to believe this is some quirk that has developed in ignorance of the nature and significance of the Lord's memorial. If they had lived before Christ they may have had breakfast, lunch, and dinner Passover lambs. They certainly can offer no N.T. authority for their practice.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XVI No.II Pg.8

April 1979

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

We have heard of a business meeting where some disgruntled members presented the elders with their reasons for wanting to change preachers. One offered, "My daughter says he preaches too long." The elders were not too impressed with that, but suggested they might ask the man to plan his lessons for a better use of time.

A second complained, "But my wife says he preaches too loud." The elders thought they might turn down the public address system and solve that weighty problem.

And the third said, "The bad thing is, the liberals just don't like him." Well now, that is going to be a bit harder to handle. Makes me think of a bumper sticker: "Get a taste of Religion — BITE A PREACHER." The man who devotes his full time to preaching the gospel deserves better than that.

There are bound to be good and bad preachers — and some who should be doing something else. But aside from the "professionals," and the con-men who think it is an easy way to make a living, preachers are a pretty decent lot. With the education, drive, and self-confidence necessary to make a reasonably successful preacher, a man can make more money and have a less demanding life doing something else. That is why those in it for the money usually drop out in eight to ten years and get into some other field.

It takes a good man Charlie Brown, to go right on doing research, preparing the sort of lessons you and your elders feel are most needed, and presenting them to an audience of note passing teen-agers, sleeping parents, ceiling-gazing gum-chewers and a liberal sprinkling of crying babies and their struggling mothers. More than once I have had the strong temptation to close the book and shout, "O.K., you win, you can have it!!"

And then I see the sober, thoughtful look on this teen-ager; the nod of approval on that parent; and a young mother comes to me after service with an apology for her child, and a request for my outline so she can study it when the child sleeps. If there are problems that fret and discourage us, there are also people who need the Lord, and are appreciative of your efforts to bring the two of them together. When you speak of good and bad preachers — remember the good and bad people they work with, and the fact that, despite rumors to the contrary, preachers are people.

Mothers and Dads, encourage your boys to accept the challenge of the greatest "service" job on earth.