RETIREDFAN1 Posted January 23, 2023 Author Share Posted January 23, 2023 Vol.XVI No.III Pg.1 May 1979 Truth Is A Mountain Robert F. Turner There is challenge in TRUTH. Towering, majestic and awesome, it beckons the climber. Great and wonderful, clothed in mysteries, it threatens and promises. Benevolently reaching to the world, it summons all; yet sternly holds aloft its crown, to defy the casual. Below, in railed and graded trails move masses. Camera-clicking tourists, worn by travel, scarce grasp their guide's trained words, and far less understand the magic scene. And as the way grows steeper, more and more are faint, and wander aimlessly — adrift in parks and glades of theory, with their creeds. Content to pay lip service to the fountain-head above, they sip its waters, grimace, and add sweets or bitters to their taste. "It's wonderful," they say. "We must organize a party and bring others to this way." So they sip, and talk; they praise with shallow phrase, then pause to rest, and resting, sleep. Still TRUTH — glorious, wondrous, whole truth, wreathes its head with hoary clouds, and calls with voice of thunder: Onward! Upward! Excelsior!!! Error shouts derision, and stops the ear. With arrogance he hides his wounds and walks another way. Tradition, richly garbed and stiff with age, dares not attempt the rugged path. And weaklings, fearing to look heavenward, support a course that others plan, and wish themselves in better clime. But faith responds, and in the earnest seeker whets desire. He dares look up. Toiling, sweating, step-by-step, he climbs. Struggling across downed timbers on the slope, he pushes upward. Pressing through the bush, slipping with the shale, he moves onward. Onward, upward, higher and higher, his lungs afire, he climbs with foot, and hand, with heart, and soul. For TRUTH he lives and, if needs be, dies. He asks no quarter, hears no scorn. His hope is fastened on this goal, whose misty drapery sometimes part and to his raptured eyes reveal its sun swept crest. He needs no other prize than this, for here men humbly walk with God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted January 24, 2023 Author Share Posted January 24, 2023 Vol.XVI No.III Pg.2 May 1979 Thy Word Is Truth Robert F. Turner You'll be disappointed in my not beginning this article with reference to Pilate's question, "What is truth?" (Jn.18: 38), but I'm not going to mention it. Instead I'll let that remind you that there are devious ways to shade, warp, and avoid truth. As one country philosopher put it, "I'd tell the truth five or six different ways before I'd tell a lie." There may be times when silence is more in order than speaking the truth (Jn.19: 9), if the silence itself is not deceptive. But when truth must be spoken, it should be forthright, plainly stated, the product of an honest heart. There are few things more needful in our present society than genuine honesty. We have lied to ourselves, that we know the truth, until we have crippled our hope of learning truth. Or, we have convinced ourselves (another lie) that there is no certain truth, so that even faith becomes a leap in the dark, an essential to avoid despair. Or maybe truth (?) is treated subjectively, every man to himself. We know that truth in the material universe is not so vacillating: 2 + 2 = 4 to all men; but God is different. Is He, as respects truth? His manifestations are history, occurrences in time and space. Jesus lived, "approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know" (Acts 2:22). He died on a cross: attested by the same sort of records that tell us all past events. And the tomb was empty on the third day following, despite the Roman Empire's efforts to seal it. His enemies could not produce the body on Pentecost, when to have done so would have cut the heart out of the message they despised. His followers did not deny His resurrection, though their steadfastness offered no earthly gain, and resulted in horrible deaths. They testified instead that HE LIVES. And their message was accompanied by many "signs, wonders, divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost" which, unlike "feel better" claims of our day, convinced experts of deception (Acts 8:9-24; 19:11-20). We can not know God, but we believe as the result of an objective approach to evidence. We accept as TRUE the message of His ambassadors because they demonstrated the source of their news to be Divine. Yes, many professed followers have not determined these matters for themselves; their faith is not well founded. But it need not be so. TRUTH is available for the seeker! "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth" (Jn. 17:17. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted January 25, 2023 Author Share Posted January 25, 2023 Vol.XVI No.III Pg.3 May 1979 Fruits Of Affliction Dan S. Shipley On Dec. 11, 1919, the citizens of Enterprise, Alabama, dedicated a most unusual kind of monument on the main street of their city. It was a monument to a pest! — to the boll weevil. In 1915 the Mexican boll weevil had disastrously invaded the southeast portion of Alabama, destroying a big portion of the cotton crop. As cotton was the economic mainstay of that area, the effects were immediate and devastating. But what appeared to be an almost ungetoverable calamity turned out to be a great blessing — because it forced the farmers to turn to diversified farming which included raising peanuts. By 1917 Coffee county harvested more peanuts than any other county in the nation. What had looked like a great loss only paved the way for unexpected prosperity. No wonder these fortunate people saw fit to show their appreciation for the lowly boll weevil! As this story so aptly illustrates, adversity often carries with it the seeds of unexpected blessings. We see it in the life of Joseph whose misfortune of being sold into slavery by his brothers proved a great blessing for Israel. Spiritual Israel too, was born from the darkest hour in human history. From the cross comes the crown; from the curse, the blessing (Gal. 3:13). Persecutions scattered the early Christians and thus contributed to the greatest growth ever experienced by the Lord's church. Even Paul's imprisonment promoted the progress of the gospel (Phil. 1:12-14). "Sweet are the uses of adversity, which, like a toad, though ugly and venomous, wears yet a precious jewel in its head" (Shakespeare). However, the "sweetness" and blessings of adversity are not apparent to all. Some, in fact, not only fail to see any good from their troubles, they react with bitterness and resentment. As with the boat, it is the "set of the sail" that determines our course, even in contrary and unfavorable winds. The Psalmist says, "It is good for me that I have been afflicted..." (119:71). Adversity can be good for us — it can be an effective teacher, but only when we are receptive students — like the apostle Paul, for instance. For lesser men, Paul's thorn in the flesh may have served as an excuse for doing less. But he accepted affliction as a benefit — "that I should not be exalted overmuch". He could even say, "I take pleasure in weaknesses, in injuries, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong." (2 Cor. 12:7,10). Like Paul, we can learn important lessons in the school of affliction — especially the lesson of humility. Adversity has a way of revealing our littleness and insufficiency. It enhances our appreciation for concerned friends, both earthly and heavenly. In Christ we learn to evaluate our afflictions as being light, temporary, and beneficial (2 Cor. 4:17). "Boll weevils" of affliction will continue to come — even to the best of God's people. With an attitude of defeat and despair, we only compound their bad effects. But with the eye of faith we can see and appropriate something good from most all of our misfortunes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted January 26, 2023 Author Share Posted January 26, 2023 Vol.XVI No.III Pg.4 May 1979 Truth Is A Sword — Robert F. Turner Brother Turner: I have been attending a relatively new church, and love these fine people. I have great respect for newly appointed elders. But now I learn we support from our treasury a brotherhood orphanage; and our elders plan to put a kitchen in our new building, for use in social functions. I don't want to be a troublemaker, but I can not conscientiously take part in the support of denominational type institutions, or of activities that are not the work of the church. My husband is not a member so I have no voice in the business meeting. Should I go to the elders, explain my position, and send my contribution elsewhere? I have discussed this with a few members, and some see my point, while others just become quiet. There is a so-called "Anti" church about an hour's drive from here; should I go there? I do not want to cause dissension, but neither do I want to go along with something unscriptural. Thanks for any advice you can give to help me in these matters. ————————— Dear---------: Your letter (abbreviated above) indicates a basically sound concept of God's will and a desire to serve Him. What is best, under difficult circumstances, involves fallible human judgment. But God reads the heart. Make certain whatever you do is done in an honest effort to serve God, not self. As you evidently know, each local church should be independent, i.e., NOT dependent upon other churches for any part of its oversight, funds, etc. When a church plans a work that is beyond its own ability to perform — even plans to be the overseeing medium through which other churches will support and function — it clearly violates the N.T. principle of organization. The basic issue here is not what is done (as preaching, or caring for needy) but a departure from God's plan for congregational independence. A church which has become dependent through no fault of its own may be given "alms" (Acts 24:17), its "want" supplied (2 Cor. 8:14) by other churches; as you no doubt understand. The obligations and functions of a local church are not determined by what we think is "good work," but by what God authorizes saints to do collectively, or as a team (2 Tim.3: 17). In the N.T., the church out of its treasury supported its own needy members (1Tim.5: 16, Acts 4:34-f), assisted churches that had become dependent (above, Rom. 15:25-f), supported the preaching of the gospel, at home (1 Cor.9: 11-14) and abroad (Phil.4: 15 -16). There is nothing in the N.T. to suggest that the work of the church included social parties, recreation, secular education, etc. When funds from the treasury are used for such all contributors are forced either to participate or cease to supply funds to that treasury. We may differ on various things and continue to worship together. Many differences will be removed by our mutual study and "striving" to be one in Christ (Phil.1: 27-f). But when the public worship is corrupted (as by use of piano) or our common fund is put to unscriptural use — when our (continued next page) Vol.XVI No.III Pg.5 May 1979 Advice Hard To Give, And To Receive Robert F. Turner (continued from previous page) continued "joint participation" means support of that which we believe to be contrary to God's will, we have allowed "fellowship" with men to become more precious to us than fellowship with God (Jn.12: 42-43, Rom.14: 22-23; compare 3 Jn.9-10, 1 Cor.5: 1-f). You indicate the elders are "good" men. I'm happy to read this. But the trends are such these days that "good" men are often drawn into things they have never reasoned out. They see other churches doing these things— perhaps the church that helped them get started or supported their preacher for a time did these things — so they: a) assume a practice without seeking Bible authority, or even knowing the "issue;" b) are fearful of incurring the wrath of others; c) have been prejudiced by name-calling tactics —as "Anti" etc. Those elders, like you and me, must come to grips with their conscience and what is right with God. You should go to them as soon as possible, and talk with them — showing genuine respect and being absolutely honest with them. Show them this letter if you wish— but only if you conscientiously endorse its content. There is nothing more disgusting to elders (and rightly so) than to have their flock pulled about, fed doctrinal positions they do not really understand, and used generally, by some outside teacher. You can't face God or elders with my conscience. Some recommend that one in your position continue to worship there, but send your contribution elsewhere, Perhaps there are times when little else can be done, but it is not the best solution. You need to worship and work with brethren whose "team" activity you can fully endorse. This does not mean, as explained above, that every member will agree on every thing; but that you are in agreement on: 1) your determination to do only that for which you believe you have divine authority; and, 2) you concur in the principle of all things done collectively — as a "team" or out of the pooled funds of the group. You will be at cross-purpose with yourself if you are part of a teamwork you can not fully support. Also, experience shows you will likely be treated as a "second class" member, making it harder to remain faithful to the Lord. Finally (I hate to mention this) but it is possible that the so-called "Anti" group near there is "against" multi-containers, classes, or something else. You see, "Anti" is a prejudicial prefix used for many generations, not always wisely or truthfully. In early times those who refused to use the piano in worship were called "Anti" by the users of course. So, look carefully before you leap! Sorry I can not bring a brighter and more positive picture. We will hope and pray that those elders are wise and godly men, more concerned about serving the Lord than in winning the praise of men: more concerned with Scriptural authority than in going along with popular ways. Do not "politic" for "votes," or use any carnal methods of persuasion. Know your Bible, pray for wisdom, keep your "cool," and do what you believe God authorizes. By this you can serve Jesus Christ, and deliver your soul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted January 27, 2023 Author Share Posted January 27, 2023 Vol.XVI No.III Pg.6 May 1979 Half Of A Virtue Robert F. Turner More from "Wit and Wisdom of Safed the Sage," by William E. Barton; Pilgrim Press, Chicago, 1919. ————————— There came unto me a man who said, Thou art a man of Blood. For when the War was on, thou verily didst pray for the Armies and the Navies. Thy sons did go to War and thou didst wear a Service Pin with Three or Four Stars. The Blood of men is upon thy hands. And with many like words did he speak unto me. And I said unto him, I like not a man who is Lukewarm, but one who is Hot or Cold. And he said, There is nothing Lukewarm about me. And I answered, Thou hast well said, Nevertheless, we live in a world wherein Extremes Meet, and the Mean Result of Two Extremes of Hot and Cold is Luke warm. And a Freeze is one with a Scald. And he said, I know not what thou art talking about. And I said, Thou art a Pacifist, but thou art a Vindictive Fighter, and thy Pacifism doth Camouflage thy Militarism. In this world of Extremes I have known lecturers on Personal Purity to be run into court by the Cop for doing the things they lecture against; and I have seen Temperance Lecturers take the Keeley Cure, and I behold Pacifists smelling the Battle afar and hitting every head in sight. Thus do men take into their own systems the very evils which they oppose. Thou dost Skim the Pot and Lick the Ladle. And I said unto him, I am a man of Peace, who will have peace though he fight for it. Thou art a man of Strife, and will have war though thou become a Pacifist to obtain it. Moreover I said, It grieveth me to the heart that in this world children of the same God do fight and devour one another, and I have no ill words for any lover of peace. But let the lover of peace pursue peace, and let him not with his tongue stir up strife which other men must settle with the sword. —————————— It was winter, and at Time of Snow; and some men Cleaned their Walks, and some did not. And one man who always cleaned his walk seemed to boast and vaunt himself against his neighbor. But water from the snow had run down upon his walk, and Frozen, so that it was like Glass. And I did very nearly break my Neck in that place. And this man spake ill concerning his neighbor. And he said, They have no Public Spirit, neither do they clean their walks; but Behold, my walk is clean. And I said, Yea, it is clean, and it is the most Dangerous Walk in town. And he said, Dost thou reprove me for doing my duty, and dost thou make a virtue of those who Lie in Bed while I shovel my walks? And I said, He who cleaneth his walk so that it is slippery, should sprinkle it with sand. I praise them not, neither do I think them virtuous. But there is no Vice like the half of a Virtue, nor any sin like a Duty half done. Selah! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted January 28, 2023 Author Share Posted January 28, 2023 Vol.XVI No.III Pg.7 May 1979 ?You Know What? Robert F. Turner Bro. Turner: Our preacher is causing a great disturbance by preaching what sounds like Baptist doctrine of faith only. Will you discuss faith, works, and righteousness in some issue? S.M. Reply: We have discussed these things in many past issues but perhaps SM is a new reader of Plain Talk; or maybe we (like her preacher) are not communicating very well. It is very possible that the blame for "disturbance" can be equally divided between preacher and hearers. That seems to be true in the current general disturbance over these matters. Lets all calm down! Paul says we are justified by faith (Rom. 5:1), but he is not referring to that "I've believed in Jesus since I was a little boy" faith that comes to the mind of many readers. He is not referring to that faith of the "faith, repentance, confession, baptism" sermon you have been hearing. In this and like contexts he means a submissive, obedient trust that looks to Christ for forgiveness; contrasted with a freedom from guilt on the basis of having no sin, having done perfectly all that is commanded (3:1-9-24; Gal. 3:8-14). "Justified, means being pronounced "free from guilt," and the only way we sinners can be so judged is on the basis of trust in the grace and mercy of God. That love is expressed in Jesus Christ, who died for us, that we may be forgiven of sins. Righteousness may refer to an attribute of God (Rom. 2:5), or of one completely sin-free. Obviously, this attribute can only be applied to man on the basis of forgiveness: to one who is made "free from guilt" by a merciful God. "There is none righteous, no, not one" on the basis of their own perfect life (Rom. 3:10-f). This is where "imputation" enters the picture (Rom.4:3-f); God forgives, He treats us as though we had not sinned, when we trust in Christ for our salvation. Obedient faith is put to our account for righteousness. Historically, theologians who denied the free agency of man, taught inherited total depravity, and that God must miraculously operate on one to "give faith" to "call the elect" — these theologians gave a fanciful twist to "imputation." They have Jesus living on our behalf, and his perfect life "imputed" to us. Any condition of doing is repulsive to them, for a depraved man, who has no free will, cannot implement his salvation. Regretfully, some of our brethren are eating at the table of such doctrines and letting it color their preaching. Man's doing need not be confused with the proudful concept of justification through perfect doing. There is a sense in which men "work righteousness" (do what is right with God) (Acts 10:35, Rom. 6:16, Titus 2:12, Rev. 19:8). In our zeal to convince folk they must obey the Lord, and that remission of sins is at the act of obedience in baptism, and not before, we may have neglected proper emphasis upon God's grace; but we can't correct that error by teaching false doctrines in the other direction. Proud men disturb the peace with their stubborn, half-truth humility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted January 29, 2023 Author Share Posted January 29, 2023 Vol.XVI No.III Pg.8 May 1979 Stuff About Things Robert F. Turner DAY-DREAMIN' AT THU DESK Dear Lord, it's my conscience that hurtin' And keepin' me 'way from my work; There's somethin' keeps pullin' and tuggin' It's not that I'm wantin' to shirk. Out there in the distance, those mountains, Where time was my own — yesterday — I sat on the rim of a canyon While nature was havin' her say. What a sermon! If you could 'a heard it — Beg pardon, I reckon you did: Like a teacher a-checkin' his pupil And smilin' at all that was said. It was fine Lord, the way the trees praised you As you played through the leaves with your wind; And the waterfall, far down below me Kept thunderin' a mighty, "Amen!" With shadows, as sextons in purple A-leadin' the day toward the past, I climbed down to culture and progress Like a church-member, back-slidin' fast. And here in the city's wild clutter With convention my low-vaulted dome; In the hush of a moment I hear you A-callin' your prodigal home. Aug. 13, 1947 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted January 30, 2023 Author Share Posted January 30, 2023 Vol.XVI No.IV Pg.1 June 1979 The Two-Fold Ideal Robert F. Turner In his book, Quest For A Christian America, the historian Ed Harrell, Jr. says the original reformers of the "restoration movement" had a two-fold ideal. "Their desire was for 'Christian union' through the 'restoration of the ancient order of things. While the two goals seemed perfectly compatible, indeed, inseparable, in the minds of the early reformers; in later years the dividing parties began to feel a closer kinship to one or the other of the two — the liberals, 'Christian union' and the conservatives, 'the restoration of the ancient order of things'." (p.10.) Believing as we do that union is the result of unity in Christ, without which "togetherness" is purely a social or humanistic arrangement, we agree with this analysis. We have known some who stressed unity (?) at the expense of Bible authority and/or of conviction — and in a kinship category, unity (?) on the dubious claim that to "be like us" is to be right. Last month's center spread; "Truth is a Sword" should have made clear our conviction that "the ancient order" must have precedence. Further, we are not convinced that "the original reformers" sought union above all else. Campbell wrote, "I have no idea of seeing, nor one wish to see, the sects unite in one grand army... Let them unite who love the Lord, and then we shall soon see the hireling priesthood and their worldly establishments prostrate in the dust." (Christian Baptist, V.2; n.9.) Today, those who act and speak as though division due to conscientious conviction is a denial of "restoration principles," need to ask themselves why the reformers did not stay with their former religious affiliations. But there is more for the thoughtful saint. Have we stressed "being right" into a self-contradiction? Are we "right" who have no concern for brethren in error? Are we "right" who will not honestly seek to understand another brother's viewpoint, and make joint effort to measure the true issue by the scriptures? Is truth fearful of investigation? If the dual goals of restoration are truly "inseparable," dare we neglect legitimate efforts for union? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted January 31, 2023 Author Share Posted January 31, 2023 Vol.XVI No.IV Pg.2 June 1979 Promise And Command Robert F. Turner God promised something to Abraham, and God commanded something of Abraham. And the two, promise and command, are woven into a drastic test of his faith that must have wracked every fiber of his being. When Abraham was 75 years old he was promised, "I will make of thee a great nation," and, "thy seed shall be as numberless as the sands." But nearly 25 years pass, and the son of promise had not come. Then God told Abraham that Sarah, long barren, would have a son. I like the King James translation: "he staggered not," for I think that would "stagger" me. The son was born, destined to be the seed through whom the promised race would develop. Then God commanded, "... get thee into the land of Moriah, and offer him there for a burnt-offering" (Gen. 22:). The record is restrained and simple, but as one reads Genesis 22 it is difficult to keep back a sense of rebellion in our own heart. What tearing of conscience Abraham must have experienced! Promise and command were seemingly in irreconcilable conflict. Now it is time for "our neo-theologians to declare, "grace and works are naturally opposed," or, "salvation by promise negates our doing anything." The error of these men is not that they preach salvation by grace, but that they fail to relate grace to the whole of God's teaching. Neil Lightfoot's commentary on Hebrews has this observation: "How could the promise and the command stand side by side? The brilliance of Abraham's faith is that, in all of this, he left it up to God. It was God's problem. God had promised. God had commanded. He would obey. (p.213.) Foolish mortals devise theologies that really put God in a bind ("our" boys are now into "The Impeccable Christ") and then we spend pages trying to get God straightened out. When will we learn to content ourselves with acceptance and faithful obedience to what God says? God can even raise proud theologians from the "dead" if they will but trust and obey Him. ------------------------- We introduce to you brother Kevan O'Banion (see pg. 4 for his article), a talented and dedicated young man who will be working with the Oaks West congregation for experience and training as a gospel preacher. We will provide support, have built a study for him, and bro. Shipley and I will assign research work for occasional "think-tank" examinations. Our elders will counsel and guide him, and us, in this enlarged work of the Oaks-West church. WELCOME KEVAN!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted February 1, 2023 Author Share Posted February 1, 2023 Vol.XVI No.IV Pg.3 June 1979 The Fortress Of Faith Dan S. Shipley As an encouragement to Christians living under the constant threat of persecution, the apostle Peter writes of a "living hope" made possible by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. With such hope the faithful persevere in anticipation of an eternal inheritance reserved in heaven (l Pet. l: 3,4). The source of their hope and the key to their endurance was faith. It has always been so with God's people and ever shall be. "And this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith" (1 Jn. 5:4). It is in keeping with this idea that Peter writes of being "guarded through faith" by the power of God (v.5). This word "guarded" is a military term used in the sense "of providing protection against the enemy, as a garrison does" (Vine). So, our faith is our fortress for providing protection against all enemies of righteousness. This protective aspect of faith is also suggested in Eph. 6: 16 under the figure of a shield —"Wherewith we shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the evil one". Elsewhere, it is pictured as a breastplate (l Thss. 5:8). Such references show plainly that faith is our protector. Faith is our strength and help in the quest to overcome and to gain the great victory. But behind all of this, as suggested in the employment of these military terms, is the recurring allusion to a great conflict. If not, why the need for being guarded? Why the talk of such things as shields, breastplates and victory? Too, conflict implies an enemy. In an earlier noted passage, Paul identifies him as the "evil one". In 1 Pet. 5:8 he is referred to as "your adversary the devil". This is why Christians are encouraged to "put on the whole armor of God"— that we "may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil" (Eph. 6:11). Here it is: the enemy; the conflict; the protection. The battle is real. So are its casualties. And so is the need for protection. Hence, the need for a strong faith. Old Testament history tells of great fortified and walled cities such as Babylon, built out of concern for physical safety. We need such concern for our spiritual safety! — for the protection of precious souls. There is a sense in which every Christian is building his fortress of faith. How well we are able to withstand the testings of trials and temptations depends on the measure of our faith-the strength of our fortress. And be sure of this, the assaults will come! In our context, Peter writes of their "manifold trials" and later tells them to "think it not strange concerning the fiery trial among you, which cometh upon you to prove you, as though a strange thing happened unto you" (1 Pet. 4:12). Knowing the trials will come, we must fortify our faith. To this end we assimilate more and more of the word of God, our only source of strength and growth (1 Pet. 2:2). This means not only knowing it, it means respecting it and applying it to every circumstance of life. As Jesus, we can face and repel the tempter with: "It is written". Of him, Peter says, "withstand steadfast in your faith" (l Pet. 5:9). How strong is your fortress? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted February 2, 2023 Author Share Posted February 2, 2023 Vol.XVI No.IV Pg.4 June 1979 Gaining Much, Losing All Robert F. Turner A "rich young ruler" came to Jesus and asked, "Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" Not only did Christ's reply cause the young ruler to "go away sorrowful," but his statements caused some uneasiness in his disciples as well. "And they that heard it said, Who then can be saved?" (Luke 18:18-26) Solomon said, "For as he thinketh within himself, so is he" (Prov. 23:7). In other words, a person's attitudes will greatly influence his actions — his way of life. Christ tried to instill this truth in the minds of his disciples. In the incident with the young ruler, the riches alone did not prevent the young man from heeding the words of Christ. It was his attitude toward those riches that placed a barrier between him and God. Our attitude toward material possessions will determine whether or not they stand between us and God. I was taught that a gun can either help you or harm you — depending upon how you use it. And so it is with material gain: it can be an aid to our service to God or a hindrance to our fulfilling our responsibilities to Him. Our earthly goods can just as easily be a distraction of Satan as they can be a blessing from God. The determining factor will be our attitude toward these earthly possessions. The materialistic society in which we live promotes the idea of gaining as many possessions as possible. Success in life is measured by how much man can accumulate. Many brethren now have the attitude that working to pay for that new home, car or boat is more important than teaching the lost and meeting with the saints! Their contribution consists of what little (if any) remains after the bills have been paid. Christ said to "seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things (material necessities) shall be added unto you" (Matt. 6:33). God knows our needs and will meet them if we put Him first. And as someone once told me — what we think we need and what God knows we need may be two different things Jesus warns us of the subtle sin of materialism. The man who coveted his own possessions in Luke 12:16-21 allowed materialism to rule his life. God finally said, "Thou this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided?" Paul reminds us in 1 Tim. 6:17 to put our trust in God and not in uncertain riches. An honest appraisal of both our time and financial contributions will tell us where we place our trust. So many people in our day are failing to prepare for eternity. As with the rich young ruler, they too cannot let go of their material goods. Hours are spent in pursuit of carnal pleasures with little or no thought given to godliness. We must adopt the attitude of Paul who learned "both to be filled and to be hungry, both to abound and to be in want" (Phil. 4:12). Do we have an attitude of placing God first in our lives? Or, would we also "go away sorrowful" if Christ asked us to sell all that we have and follow him? Kevan O'Banion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted February 3, 2023 Author Share Posted February 3, 2023 Vol.XVI No.IV Pg.5 June 1979 To: Mr. Rich Y. Ruler Robert F. Turner Mr. Rich Y. Ruler Executive Row Chief City Dear Richey: Although we seldom see you, we have kept informed of you through a mutual friend, Reverend Demas. Yes, mutual, for now my brothers and I are with you in this religious thing, and we are anxious for you to know how it all came about. When our dear brother Dives passed away we did not know a single clergyman to call for the funeral, but we remembered your telling us about this Reverend Demas who left that fanatic, Paul. We sent a messenger with two talents of silver and two changes of raiment, and he came to us. I wish you could have heard his resonant tones as he assured the family that God must have favored Dives in this life, to have allowed him to be so rich; and that surely these favors were multiplied in the Life Beyond. He read many promises of comfort, and applied them to dear Dives. Of course we paid him well, but it was worth every drachma. We were so pleased with his smooth words, and his red coat, that we invited him to Five Brothers Mansion for dinner, and here the conversation turned to you, dear Richey. He told us, privately and discreetly, of the outlandish demands made upon you by that so-called prophet, Jesus; and of the deep sorrow it had brought you. We want you to know of our sympathy, and how we feel a close rapport with one in your circumstances. My brothers and I are heirs of Dives' silver and gold, and our wealth is equaled only by yours. And, we were in complete agreement, dear Richey, that the comfort we know should also be yours. Rev. "Dee," as we now call him, wants us to assure you that in the unlikely event of your death, he will speak many more nice words on your behalf. So, there is absolutely no reason for you to "go away sorrowful" any longer. Isn't that wonderful? !! Rev. Dee told us of your brilliant career in politics, and how your good moral life had won many votes. Then, we snuffed the candles, held hands, and had a "meditation session;" and my brothers and I decided to go all the way. We now have "BE GOOD" bumper stickers on all of our chariots, and sometimes we say, "Hallelujah!"— out loud — right in the market place! We are IN religion, but good! I have already given my "testimony" at two Young Business Men's luncheons. We have had a few uneasy moments since dear Dives departed. Adelphos had a horrible dream about Dives trying to cross a great gulf; and I often dream Dives is trying desperately to tell me something, and I awaken so very thirsty. But this will pass. Now, I have saved the best to the last. Rev. Dee is planning a Fellowship Dinner just for you. Five Brothers Mansion has been decorated (that dirty beggar has been removed from our beautiful lawn) and we are expecting you for the gala occasion. Be sure to wear your red coat and tie. Your brothers in the Spirit, The Five B's of Luke 16:28. (Matt. 19:16-26; Lu. 18:18; 2 Tim. 4:10) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted February 4, 2023 Author Share Posted February 4, 2023 Vol.XVI No.IV Pg.6 June 1979 The Pursuits Of Solomon Robert F. Turner Isaac Errett, editor of CHRISTIAN STANDARD, wrote a lengthy series of articles called "Evenings With The Bible;" published in book form from 1884 to 1889. We quote from Vol. l, p. 342-f. We feel inspiration deserves a greater place in the analysis of Solomon's writings, but urge you to "hear him out" in this different look at the "wise" man's life and work. ———————— "Solomon was enthusiastic in the pursuit of everything but piety. Here he was half-hearted. His wisdom was, after all, worldly wisdom. His proverbs relate mostly to the practical affairs of life, and are the lessons of experience and observation as applied to the regulation of personal, domestic, social and political affairs. In many instances they teach lessons of trust in God and obedience to His law; but rather with an eye to the earthly blessings to be thus secured... In his best days, Solomon's piety wears a utilitarian hue, never unmixed with considerations of State policy... It is remarkable that our Lord found nothing worthy, in the way of illustration, in the life of Solomon, and was content with bare allusions to his wisdom and his glory. In Eccl. 12:26 he says: "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man." It will be observed that the word duty is in italics, being supplied by the translators... The book is not so much a treatise on duty, as on happiness — a record of the determined and unrestrained experiments of the writer with every element and every combination of elements of earthly good. Its language is that of a sated and disgusted devotee at the shrine of pleasure... It should read: "...for this is the whole happiness of man.... Alas! That it should require the waste of a great life to reach this conclusion! * * * * "I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly; I perceived that this also is vexation of spirit. For in much wisdom is much grief; and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow" (l:17-18). That is, earthly knowledge and wisdom as ends, not as means to the great end which God sets before us. "I said in mine heart, Go to now, I will prove thee with mirth, therefore enjoy pleasure: and behold, this also is vanity" (2:l-2).... It seems to have taken Solomon long to learn that the cup of life is a mixture of good and evil, which imparts no perfect happiness, but may serve to prepare us for true happiness hereafter. * * * * Solomon's life was a tremendous failure. If his sun rose in splendor, it set behind dark and threatening clouds. Worn out with self-indulgence — far more exhausting than all the cares and turmoils and bloody conflicts belonging to his father's reign, — he went down to the grave when he ought to have been in a glorious prime — not yet sixty years old, muttering as he went, "Vanity of vanities, vanity of vanities; all is vanity!" (Condensed, as indicated.) ———————— Well, you don't often hear that angle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted February 5, 2023 Author Share Posted February 5, 2023 Vol.XVI No.IV Pg.7 June 1979 ?You Know What? Robert F. Turner Bro. Turner: Will you please discuss "sinful flesh" (Rom. 8:3) in Plain Talk? DT Reply: Flesh, per se, is not sinful. The Adamic "flesh and blood" "natural body" "of the earth" of 1 Cor. 15:21-f was characteristic of Adam before the first sin (Gen. 2:7). Adam was to reproduce (Gen. 1:28), eat physical food (1:29) had natural appetites and desires (2:9; 3:6), before he sinned. To partake of Adams nature, as set forth in 1 Cor. 15: simply meant to be mortal. The early gnostic error that flesh is sinful in essence led them to argue that Christ did not come in the flesh, an error John refuted in 1 Jn. 4:2-3; 1:1-2. Jesus partook of flesh and blood "that through death" he might accomplish His purposes (Heb. 2:14-15). Being in the flesh He had the capacity to be tempted (Matt. 4:), hence to sin; but "flesh" of itself, does not necessitate sin (Heb. 4:15f). Westcott's notes on John's use of the word "flesh," clearly show an extension of meaning. "By 'flesh' we are united to earth; and by 'spirit' to heaven. 'The will of the flesh' (Jn. 1:13) is the determination which belongs to the earthly powers of man as such. 'The desire of the flesh' (1 Jn. 2:16) is the desire, which, as it springs out of man's present earthly constitution, is confined within the earthly sphere and rises no higher. 'Judgment after the flesh' (Jn. 8: 15) is external, superficial, limited by what catches the senses (cf. 2 Cor. 5:16). Thus the idea of evil attaches to the flesh not in virtue of what it is essentially, but from the undue preponderance which is given to it... It does not include the idea of sinfulness, but it describes human personality on the side which tends to sin, and on which we actually have sinned." (See notes on 1 Jn. 3:19.) "All (mortals, 'flesh') have sinned" (Rom. 3:23) fulfilling (unlawful) desires of the flesh (Eph. 2:3), so that "sinful flesh" aptly describes mortal man. The Son of God came in the likeness (form) of man — in that nature which in us is identified with sin. "This identification does not belong to the essence of our nature, but to its corruption... the uniform teaching of the N.T. is that Christ is one with us — short of sin." (Expositor's) "Flesh" is spoken of as "sinful" because of the universal "giving in of the flesh" to sin, which is characteristic of mankind. It is the same adaptation of terms that allows "worldly" to mean sinful — not that God's creation is sinful of itself, or in essence; but that "the course of (the people of) this world" (Eph. 2:2) is sinful. In exactly the same way, the Adamic "nature" which in 1 Cor. 15: refers to mortality, is made in Rom. 5: to refer to the rebellious and sinful spirit of Adam. When we sin we are acting like Adam acted --- following suit with Adam. If we will carefully determine the context in various passages, and accept the terminology in keeping with the context, we can understand. Using Rom. 8:3 to deny the humanity of Jesus emphasizes difference rather than likeness to his brethren, and introduces elements alien to Paul's way of reasoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted February 6, 2023 Author Share Posted February 6, 2023 Vol.XVI No.IV Pg.8 June 1979 Stuff About Things Robert F. Turner The Oaks-West church building has opera-chair seating, upholstered with green fabric. And we have among our children, a four-years-old precocious boy who lives in the country and truly loves tractors. So, he asked the preacher, "Dan, how come we have all these John Deere tractor seats here?" That won't mean a thing to many of our readers, but it will warm the hearts of farm and ranch folk who know tractor "makes" by their color. It is a selective story, which finds response only in those tuned to receive it. And it reminds me that much of life is on a one-way track that leads to nowhere; not because life is meaningless, but because we are ill equipped to receive and use it. It had been twenty-one years since Vivian and I attended a High School graduation exercise. But we drove over one hundred miles, to sit for three hours in a crowded building, to watch seven hundred and ninety-five students we did not know, march up and get their diplomas. Why did we do it? Because there was one we did know and love — our granddaughter. The attraction was not in the program generally, although it was well done, but because we were on the same wavelength with one tiny bit of that mob. A botanist sees a wood lot as an array of specimens; the farmer may see it as a wind break, or as something to be cleared; the hunter sees a game haven; the artist, the subject for a landscape; the woodsman sees it in terms of board-feet. Then, each may — we hope, does — see it with the eye of the others. An individual appreciates and understands the forest in direct proportion to the fullness of his view. The botanist need not be a hunter, but he should try to grasp a hunter's true viewpoint. A recognition of these things must be manifested in our teaching. When we want people to "see" certain truth we must remember the importance of getting on their wavelength. Jesus, the Master Teacher, put heavens message in terms his hearers understood. His illustrations were so common to man they live even in this highly complex society. I fear much of our effort is lost because it is couched in "Church of Christ" nomenclature (the way we say it) without regard for the way it must sound to non-members. If we don't adjust our presentation to the hearer, we may deserve a rancher's criticism: "He flung his fodder too high for us common cows." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted February 7, 2023 Author Share Posted February 7, 2023 Vol.XVI No.V Pg.1 July 1979 Hit Me, I Beg You Robert F. Turner I suppose everyone has noticed the paradoxical conduct of people who bitterly denounce bitter denunciations; who debate that it is wrong to debate. It is a folly common to man. And it is also a human fully to glory in being denounced. "Look how they pick on me!" "See how I suffer at the hands of sectarian editors!" "Oh, the price I must pay for being such an astute scholar, and writing things too deep for my shallow persecutors!" "Like all truly great reformers, I am misunderstood in this age." "We will bear our burden patiently—" unless that means "quietly." During the first few centuries of Christianity saints were cruelly beaten, cast to beasts, burned at the stake, because they refused to renounce Christ. Early literature contains much praise for those martyrs, and brethren were exhorted to repeat their story, holding them in high esteem. But human pride and folly existed then as now. It became necessary to warn that some gave themselves to be slain for unholy causes. The "Constitution of the Holy Apostles" contains this admonition: "Neither let us be rash and hasty to thrust ourselves into danger... Nor let us, when we do fall into dangers, be fearful or ashamed of our profession." Coveting the praise and glory of martyrdom, and believing this was an easy way to heaven, people were mistakenly dying when they should have been living for Christ (Rom. 12: 1). The "martyr complex" is still with us in the twentieth century. Various minority groups have not had to imagine unfair treatment; but they have sometimes worn a "chip" that invited trouble. And genuine teachers of truth will find plenty of opposition in the world (Lu. 6:26) without advertising for it. Let us learn the advantage of more positive, optimistic attitudes. Love "thinketh no evil... rejoiceth in the truth... believeth all things... hopeth all things." Manifested confidence in others gives them self-confidence. By assuming the reader wants the truth we are far ahead of a teacher who assumes "those dummies will howl when they see this." Yep! They will!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted February 8, 2023 Author Share Posted February 8, 2023 Vol.XVI No.V Pg.2 July 1979 The Faith "Of Christ" Robert F. Turner The righteousness of God "by faith of Jesus Christ" (Rom. 3:22 KJ) tells man how to be "rightwise" with God; i.e., by trusting in Christ. But some, pushing their "saved by His life" notions, interpret this as faith manifested by Christ, and attach as an explanation, "his obedient life." Historically, that concept comes from those who reject any form of "human implementation" in man's coming to God. (See pp. 4-5, this issue.) "Of Christ" (KJ) in Rom. 3:22; Gal. 2:16; 3:22) is genitive case, and possession is an over-simplification of its meaning. Under Objective Genitive, the monumental "Grammar of the Greek N.T." by A.T. Robertson tells us: "Here again we must appeal to the root-idea of the genitive as the case of genus or kind. The resultant idea is due to the context and one must not suppose that the Greek genitive means all the different English prepositions used to translate the resultant idea. Thus in Mk. 11:22... we rightly translate 'have faith in God, though the genitive does not mean 'in, but only the God kind of faith. Cf. Rom. 3:22." Thus, in the (literal) "faith of Christ" is the idea of kind or genus, "Christ-faith"; but it is faith we must have, NOT faith Christ had. The same idea is found in "God-righteousness." NOT righteousness as an attribute of God, but the genus or kind of righteousness we must have. Robertson's Word Pictures on Rom. 3: 22 says, "Intermediate agency (dia) is faith and objective genitive, 'in Jesus Christ, not subjective 'of Jesus Christ, in spite of Haussleiter's contention for that idea." Marshall, in his translation of Nestls text, indicates the objective nature of the genitive in Rom. 3: and gives afoot note on Gal. 2:16 saying: "Objective genitive, as is shown by the intervening sentence-- see also 3:22,26). Cf. 'fear of God'." Vincent's Word Studies says "A common form for faith in Christ." Meyer's says, "The genitive contains the object of faith in accordance with prevailing usage" — and cites nine examples. Wuest's Word Studies, Expositor's, Alford's, Rotherham's, and other Greek word studies agree. McKnight (with apparent reference to genus of kind in the genitive case) says it is "the faith which Christ enjoined." If you read this far we are happy we gave this condensed study. Perhaps only those who are pushing "imputed life of Christ" would even strain at making this "his obedient life," but our readers need to know they have a formidable task to make that interpretation stick. It's amazing what teachers of error will use for a text. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted February 9, 2023 Author Share Posted February 9, 2023 Vol.XVI No.V Pg.3 July 1979 "Fear God, And ... " Dan S. Shipley In his Word Pictures In The New Testament, A.T. Robertson comments, The basis of ethical conduct rests on the nature of God and our attitude toward him, otherwise the law of the jungle." (Re. Rom. 1:18) As the first chapter of Romans clearly shows, man's view of God influences his manner of life. The terms "Godliness" and "worldliness" denote attitudes that are closely correlated. Ignore or deny the existence of God and emphasis will logically be given to the "here and now". We should not be surprised, then, to see a faithless society more and more oriented to materialism and pleasure-seeking. When God is left out of our thinking and living, whether deliberately or through neglect, the results are the same. The prosperous farmer of Lk. 12 may have had good intentions about serving God later, but his main concern thus far had been in laying up treasure for himself---just as any atheist or infidel. And that's why God calls him a fool. Regrettably, many are re-living the mistake of this foolish farmer by allowing the cares, riches and pleasures of this life to crowd out God and His word. Such ungodliness (wrong attitude toward God) is like that mentioned in Rom. 3:18: "There is no fear of God before their eyes". As another version puts it, "They care nothing about God nor what He thinks of them". When used in reference to God, this term "fear" denotes reverence, regard, and respect. As Vine puts it, "it is a wholesome dread of displeasing Him". That it involves a disposition of heart can be seen in Deut. 5:29: "0 that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me and keep all my commandments..." The influence of such fear flavors every facet of spiritual life. For instance, Prov. 1:7 shows how it relates to the attainment of knowledge: "The fear of God is the beginning of knowledge". That is, a recognition of the true nature of God and His purposes is the foundation of real knowledge and wisdom (Prov. 9: 10). Incidentally, here is why the man is blessed "that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly" (Ps. 1:1). The conclusions of atheistic (either practical or professed) scientists, psychologists, anthropologists, etc. must forever be suspect because they leave out God and His word. Further, fear of God encourages repentance and discourages sin. "By the fear of the Lord men depart from evil" (Prov. 16:6). When men fear God more they sin less. That such fear serves as a deterrent to sin can be seen in Ex. 20:20: "...Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before you, that ye sin not..." It is not hard to see that sin flourishes where there is no fear of God. Recall that Abraham feared Abimelech because he thought, "the fear of God is not in this place" (Gem. 20:11). Perhaps we too should fear men who do not fear God. Man's view of God determines his view of sin: "The fear of the Lord is to hate evil" (Prov. 8:13). Surely we can appreciate the wise man's conclusion: "Fear God and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man" — Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted February 10, 2023 Author Share Posted February 10, 2023 Vol.XVI No.V Pg.4 July 1979 Man's Part In Salvatlon — Robert F. Turner When old-time preachers spoke of "God's part, and Man's part" in man's salvation, they certainly were not saying man could earn or merit redemption on the basis of perfect works. I have heard the sermon scores of times and hundreds of our readers can verify my observations. "The God's part" portion of those lessons stressed the grace of God, the blood of Christ and the mercy of God extended in forgiveness — to "whosoever will..." Man's part may have sounded like legalism to "evangelicals"; and for that matter, the preacher may have unintentionally invited such criticism by his zeal and terminology, but one must ignore the first half of the sermon to draw such a conclusion. The preachers of those sermons had listeners who were drilled in "faith only" concepts — who equated justification by faith (Rom. 5:1) with "the moment you feel God move in your heart." The "trust" essential to salvation had to be explained in detail. Knowing that their hearers thought of faith as an "experience," those sermons had to point out that the faith which saves is an obedient faith, and "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." In the frequent wrangles over "in order to" versus "because of" remission of sins, and other like particulars, it is possible that neither "side" gave much thought to the underlying principle at stake. But "faith only" and "experience of grace" had ancestry. The shallow ripples sprang from deep-seated theories: that man was so depraved as to be incapable of responding to God; that God had elected certain individuals to be saved and would "call them" in due time by a miraculous outpouring of grace (or spirit, or faith); and that one so "saved" could not be lost. And back of that, in the very foundation of that theology, was the idea that the sovereignty of God was incompatible with a truly" "free-will" man. This theology seems to glorify God in the ultimate sense. ALL is in His hands, man can have no part! Extreme proponents of the theory Adam sinned as a result of a decree of God — and for this difficulty they can only plead, "His ways cannot be comprehended." Despite all of their praise of God's sovereign power, they really denied that God could and did make man a free agent, and will vindicate His ultimacy in His judgment of man. On the basis that man can have no part (is NOT free to act in response to God's will, whether from the creation, or from Adam's sin) all commands of God, all invitations of man, all conditions of salvation, must be explained away. They must mean something other than their obvious import. These folk say there is no condition which man can meet in order to his salvation. If he must do anything at all, it is "justification by works of law" — and some of "our" preachers are as 'hung up' on this flaw as any Baptist debater I have ever heard. As they dig deeper and deeper into this type of theology they adopt the terminology: "finished work," "imputation of Christ's life," etc. And bit-by-bit, evangelical concepts of "faith" invade their thinking, and find expression in their writings. (continued next page) Vol.XVI No.V Pg.5 July 1979 Has Man A Responsibility All His Own? Robert F. Turner (continued from previous page) In discussing "Man's Part" in his salvation it should be clearly stated that his doing, even his "faith," is not the MEANS or SOURCE of redemption. Having sinned man stands condemned, and his only hope is unmerited mercy or grace. God has provided the means of redemption, but we believe Joe Doe must, of his own free will, respond to God's invitation in order to be saved. Faith, which obeys, is the CONDITION upon which God promises to save Joe. Grant this, and we still must consider a basic issue. Is this faith a human response, something Joe Does; or is it something God does for Joe! Calling it natural" response just beats about the bush. The evangelical says God gives the faith, or enables (by direct operation) Joe to believe. He thus maintains his theory that God is the ONLY part in man's redemption. (Note: "Solely by Grace, Solely by Christ, Solely by Faith" in Present Truth-Verdict literature.) If Joe's faith is not his own response, something he is capable of doing or not doing, then he must be individually, unconditionally elected. If some heavenly power must enable him to believe, he is individually elected, or, justice demands that all men be equally enabled. But if God presents the good news of salvation in Christ to all men, and all are able to understand and believe, the MEANS of redemption is from God, but the CONDITION upon which Joe or Sue is saved is their own response to the invitation. This is not earned or merited righteousness --- it is unworthy sinners saved by the grace of God, through a faith which, despite man's "depravity," God considered him capable of rendering. Somehow our neo-theological brethren will accept a freewill response of "faith" without crying "works!" "law!" or "legalist!" To maintain this position they will have to strengthen Moser's "natural" dodge or perhaps take up Martin Luther's distinction in justification and sanctification. That will not be easy, for the justifying in faith of Abraham (Rom. 4) was one which was manifested all through his life (Heb. 11:8, Gen. 15:6, Rom. 4:20-22, Jas. 2:21-f). Too, if "sanctification" is essential to one's being saved in heaven we are again faced with "human implementation" or "enabling power" that overrides the free agency of man. What a tangled web we mortals weave —. Early debate propositions often used the words "at the point of faith without further acts of obedience" versus "at the point of baptism." The issue was: did God promise remission of sins before a man's faith led him to be baptized, or when his faith led him to be baptized? Such a proposition recognizes the broad "trust" meaning in "faith" as used in Rom. 3: 5: etc., but raises the valid question, "At what point" in that faith does God promise salvation. If faith is truly a free will, human response that is essential, there should be no objection to including "obedience of faith" without being blasted with charges of "law" "works" etc. And that is exactly what the early sermons: "God's Part, Man's Part" sought to get across. The illustrations may have been crude, but may God help us get back to such preaching before neo-theology does us in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted February 11, 2023 Author Share Posted February 11, 2023 Vol.XVI No.V Pg.6 July 1979 I Am Learning Robert F. Turner I was sitting in the restaurant this morning, trying to think of an introduction to this article, when I overheard a religious discussion between two young men. With his Bible open, one of the young men zealously quoted scriptures in support of his arguments. His "opponent" finally got a word in edge-wise and questioned one of the points that was made. His question was ignored and our young debater pursued another line of argument. Again he was questioned, and again the question was ignored. The other young man finally asked why his questions were not being answered. The reply — "I have been studying for 11 years and have mastered the Bible." Solomon said, "The way of a fool is right in his own eyes; but he that is wise hearkeneth unto counsel" (Pro. 12:15). He also wrote that one of the purposes of the Proverbs was "that the wise man May hear and increase in learning; and that the man of understanding may attain unto sound counsels" (Prov. 1:5). Solomon reminds us that our ears can never grow too wise or too experienced for further advice and counsel. We should not become deluded into thinking that we have mastered all of God's truths. An elderly teacher once instructed me to say, "I am learning" rather than "I have learned". Our limited knowledge should always be subject to further investigation. We must never become so close-minded as to think that we have all the facts and could not possibly be wrong on a particular subject. Solomon warns that "there is a way which seemeth right unto a man; but the end thereof are the ways of death" (Prov. 14:12). Remember Paul's exhortation, "wherefore let him who thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall" (1 Cor. 10:12). A constant and careful study of God's word will serve to either strengthen or change our present concepts. Don't have the attitude of "I have learned." However, this is not the only attitude which will hinder one from coming to a fuller knowledge of the truth. Another hindrance to truth is pride. In James 1:21 we are instructed to "receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls." The word meekness is often associated with humility (Vine). It is the proud man who will not listen to the advice of others. It is the proud man who will not hear the admonitions of concerned brethren. It is the proud man that has the attitude toward God's truths of "I won't learn." Along with the "I have learned" attitude and pride, a third hindrance to truth is the view of many that "this is the way I am and there is nothing I can do about it." That is either an excuse for laziness, a cry of self-pity, or a delusion of Satan — it is not the truth! Read the inspired words of Paul in 1 Cor. 6:9-11 and note carefully his wording "and such were some of you." Do you have the attitude of "I can't learn?" The young man in the restaurant had the attitude of "I have learned." Many are too proud and say, "I won't learn." Still others have adopted the false concept that "I can't learn." Why not develop the God-pleasing attitude of "I am learning?" Kevan O'Banion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted February 12, 2023 Author Share Posted February 12, 2023 Vol.XVI No.V Pg.7 July 1979 ?You Know What? Robert F. Turner Two letters, from different places, plus two personal contacts, ask such questions as: May an unbaptized boy lead singing when a group of saints meet to worship? May he lead the public prayers in this assembly? When we sing a religious song is it not "in vain" if it is not sung as worship? Are pre-school children worshiping God when they sing church songs in their Bible class? What is the "age of accountability, and how does that affect these problems?" Should one sing religious songs he believes to be unscriptural? Reply: There are differences in leading singing, and leading in prayer. In prayer the leader must express petitions on behalf of the church, and this requires wisdom and a knowledge of God's word. In leading songs from a book already selected by the church the thoughts are already expressed, and leading consists of pitching the tune and directing the music process. In both cases, the worship is in the hearts of those who sing and pray and we each must do this for ourselves. Neither song, prayer, nor other portions of worship are "administered" by a priesthood type "leader," though this is a common conception. Worship "at the altar", directed by a priest (elders, leaders, or what-have-you) is Judaism, brought through the Roman church, and passed to others. There are very few scriptures re. the leading of song or prayer in public (1 Cor. 14:16; Jn. 11:42); but collective action requires some sort of leadership, and on general principles it seems mature saints should occupy this position in public worship. "Church—" and "worship—" songs may have a ritualistic connotation to some — as if the song was some "holy" thing, dedicated to God by a son of Aaron. This should not be. I can see no harm in using songs from our hymn book for practice sessions, training of our youths, or of song-leaders. To me it does not seem "vain" usage nor worship; I can not see that this dilemma exists in reality. Granted, one could sin by jesting about God, or by making ribald jokes about sacred matters: in song as well as in speech. Where questions of conscience are involved, and in public services where we should strive for agreement in our activities so all may freely take part, these questions may have different solutions at different places. I do not believe "accountability" is determined by chronological age. A person may memorize scriptures, and in this sense "know" things at a very early age, long before these things are understood. We should not pressure someone to be baptized because he / she has reached a certain birthday, but should teach them from youth to respect and respond to God's call. I believe the church may assemble for training sessions, for the young and/or new converts; but periods set as public worship services should not be used for such training. I doubt that any who know me would consider me a formal traditionalist, but we can observe certain proprieties without being ritualistic. Neither in content, form nor execution should we violate our conscience toward God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted February 13, 2023 Author Share Posted February 13, 2023 Vol.XVI No.V Pg.8 July 1979 Stuff About Things Robert F. Turner Letters from our readers are warm, thought-provoking, encouraging. They come (in past two weeks) from South Africa, the Philippines, Australia, Canada, and many sectors of the U.S.A. Often they bring serious questions, and require time-consuming, studied answers. We are humbled by the responsibility. But they also bring brother-to-brother communications, and the sharing of personal experiences. When I wrote about lizards, an Indiana brother had to tell me about the one that ran up his pant leg. Different parts of the country are identifiable by their expressions. An old timer mentioned "in time work" as opposed to vacation time. Another says today's news-casts " give me the thumps" (excite, frighten. It was "real thoughty" of one to be so considerate of another; and if I will come for a visit one will "churn and kill a chicken." (The last from Jack, who knows how I love Kentucky talk.) Our parents used to say, "I'll wear you out" if we didn't shape up; and apparently one "Texian" uses that expression. He wrote that in a public prayer he asked God to "wear us out in thy service," and on the way home his little girl exclaimed, "Mommy, Daddy asked God to wear him out." He commented, "Well, that was not the kind of wearing out' I had in mind, but considering that 'whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth' maybe we should ask the Lord to 'wear us out' when we need it." See why I get such a 'kick' out of my mail? Of course not all the mail is complimentary. One fellow wondered why "Antis" had such petty problems as we discuss on the question page, and he hinted this was due to our "picky" nature. But about the same time that letter came, I was reading from a "liberal" brother (not "picky"), and he was disturbed that they had so many issues like "authority of scriptures, Holy Spirit influence apart from the word, speaking in tongues, and 'youth' and social movements that dominated the church. Independent study and thinking, apart from controlling "centers of influence," will produce some petty problems. But I got the impression this last brother would gladly trade problems with me. Finally, a letter from Aussie Rolly McDowell saying he and Nancy would arrive in the U.S. in August. I advised him to hold his head high, act like he knew it all, and people would think he was just another "Yank." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted February 14, 2023 Author Share Posted February 14, 2023 Vol. XVI No.VI Pg.1 August 1979 Man Must See The Fruit Robert F. Turner "Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries..." and we must "obey from the heart that form of doctrine..." (Matt. 15:19; Rom. 6:17). Surely every Bible reader is aware that overt action, good or bad, begins in "the seat of thought, emotions, and will or volition." That is why keeping the heart pure, and positively directed to that which is true, honest, just, etc., is the very essence of man's service to God (Phil. 4:8; Rom. 1:9; 2:29). We are assured that God knows our heart (Rom. 8:27; Heb. 4:12-16); and this is both a warning and a comfort. But do such passages lessen the need for overt obedience? Because God can know man's intentions, and may approve an intent never carried out (as in the case of Abraham, Gen. 22:), may we judge a man God-approved before his obedience is consummated? Or consider the flip side: because we are warned: "whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart" (Matt. 5:28), should we treat one we regard as guilty of lust, in the same way we do overt adultery? We can correctly judge neither heart, and must operate upon overt actions. Jesus countered the legalism of his day in many ways; but never by ridiculing the doing of things commanded. He reproved those hypocrites who were particular about details but omitted "weightier matters" (Matt. 23: 23-26), but he didn't set one aspect of obedience against another. Rather, he coupled the inner and outer parts, saying, these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone." The inside must first be clean, but the outside must be clean also (v.26). "By their fruits ye shall know them" (Matt. 7:20). The fact that God knows them before the fruit is apparent to man, is no justification for extending fellowship, or withdrawing it. Freely admitting we have less than perfect knowledge, our responsibility is to act in keeping with what we believe to be God's will. And we must consider those who have not done what God commanded "for remission of sins" to be yet in their sins. By the same token, we must seek to correct those we believe to be in error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted February 15, 2023 Author Share Posted February 15, 2023 Vol.XVI No.VI Pg.2 August 1979 To Attain Unity -- Robert F. Turner Periodically there are flurries of articles or private discussions about Unity Among Brethren, and the need to revive our efforts to attain a oneness among so-called liberal and conservative elements. All honest effort along this line should be welcomed, and everything possible done to encourage and pave the way for it. But many times the article or effort itself is indicative of the very thing that separated. It may be a thinly veiled political ploy; clichs that play up to gullible masses in a bid for "votes." We know whereof we write for we have taken a few such offers seriously only to have our response scorned or used in books or other media for sectarian advantage. Something sparked the editor of the Gospel Advocate (Ira North) to write an editorial (May 10,) headed, "Anti-Cooperation Brethren Should Come Back Home." The very nature of his plea caused many brethren, seriously interested in unity, to ask, "Home to What?" He offered large numbers, fancy buildings, and past generation traditions. If he even knew the basic issues that divided us he gave no indication; and certainly had no scriptural plea to make. The Baptists and Presbyterians, from whom "we" separated in the early nineteenth century, could make exactly the same plea. Thoughtful God-loving people, the kind who can have genuine fellowship in Christ, are only made to despair of ever repairing the breach. Lipscomb must have turned in his grave at such a use of the G.A. No doubt there are divisions among nominal brethren that were caused by, and could be healed by such appeals. But true fellowship in Christ is neither made nor broken on those terms. Brethren sincerely interested in promoting genuine unity must realize that the breach worth the effort to close is caused by differing convictions, differing Bible conclusions. This rent can be mended only when these people are willing to seek a clear understanding of the other's concept, honestly measure it by the word of God, and share their studies on the true issues until, in singleness of desire to serve Jesus Christ, they are brought together. Sectarian ballyhoo and vote-seeking promotions have no place in this endeavor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted February 16, 2023 Author Share Posted February 16, 2023 Vol.XVI No.VI Pg.3 August 1979 Erring Toward The Erring Dan S. Shipley Erring brethren seem to have been a persistent problem in the Lord's church almost from its beginning. And, if that were not bad enough, the problem has been compounded by the way in which many have erred toward these erring brethren. In the first place, some have erred toward them by treating their sins too lightly. The plight of erring brethren and our responsibility toward them is clearly set forth in Jas. 5:19, 20: "My brethren, if any among you err from the truth, and one convert him; let him know, that he who converteth a sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall cover a multitude of sins." Notice how God depicts the condition of the erring. First, they have left the truth. Secondly, they need converting (lit., "turning around"). Thirdly, God sees such a one as a sinner in "the error of his way". Not that he has merely stumbled in doing wrong, but that he practices sin. And, finally, God sees this sinner as a soul in the way of spiritual death. To convert him is to "save a soul from death". This is how God sees the unfaithful and it is the way in which we too must see them. In fact, to view them otherwise is to their hurt as well as our own. To play down the sins of brethren is to play into the hand of Satan. Paul's letter to the church at Corinth clearly shows that such sins cannot be ignored by faithful brethren (1 Cor. 5). For the sinner's sake and for the church's sake, sin must be acknowledged, faced up to and dealt with. Failure to do so now makes it more difficult later, and, worse, invites more of the same. But, some have gone to the other extreme and have erred toward erring brethren by over-reaction. Accordingly, some have found themselves snubbed, avoided and practically ostracized without being visited, admonished or even encouraged to repent. The cause of truth is no better served in this way than in ignoring their sins altogether. God shows what our attitude should be when He says, "And yet, count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother" (2 Thss. 3:15). Here is what must be done with the erring and how. Admonish him — and do it "as a brother". Personal hostility has no place in such soul-saving efforts. One other thing may be appropriate in this connection and it is this. No form of "congregational reprisal" can become a substitute for dealing with the erring brother and his sin. It may be wise not to use these unfaithful brethren in our worship services, but we err in making that the extent of dealing with the problem. The word of God knows of no such limited and partial withdrawing of fellowship. Finally, any Christian errs who does not see a personal responsibility toward his erring brother. One reason why we do not restore more of the unfaithful is because many among the "faithful" do not relate themselves to such work. God looks to the "spiritual" (all of them) to make the effort of restoring (Gal. 6:1). It is obvious that God is concerned about our attitudes and efforts concerning those who err from the truth. May God and the erring brother know that we are concerned too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now