Jump to content

Plain Talk


RETIREDFAN1

Recommended Posts

Vol.XVI No.IX Pg.5
November 1979
Godliness
Robert F. Turner

"Godliness" is sometimes incorrectly explained as "God-like-ness" or having the quality of God. The word, eusebeia, does denote an affinity for God and things of God; but Moulton and Milligan, Alford, and other Greek philologists note that the word was common among the Greeks, and that it denoted "an operative, cultive piety rather than of inherent character." That means it is a characteristic subject to cultivation, or is produced, rather than inherent. Vine says, "that piety which, characterized by a God-ward attitude, does that which is well-pleasing to Him." (emph., rft.)

Put simply, a "godly" person wants to please God, and he does that which God has revealed as His will for man. The results is "godliness."

Living "godly" in this present world (Titus 2:11-f) puts one in the role of pilgrim, "looking for a city" and doing all things "as unto the Lord." Aware of past sins and of present imperfections, the godly man confesses his constant need for the Savior, his High Priest and his offering for the remission of sins. Such an attitude and manner of life is called "walking in the light" (1 Jn. 1:7).

We are fully aware that this "fellowship with God" would be impossible but for Christ and His sacrifice of Himself for us, hence it is a wholly unmerited blessing. But the "godly" individual is not created so against his will, nor apart from his effort. The "God" standard is eternal, the "means" by which godliness is attained was in God's eternal purpose, and in the fullness of time was perfected; but the individual must hear, believe and obey the voice of God to be "godly" or have "godliness."

Vine says, "In 1 Tim. 6:3 'the doctrine which is according to godliness' signifies that which is consistent with godliness, in contrast to false teachings; in Tit. 1:1 'the truth which is according to godliness' is that which is productive of godliness ...etc." A godly person doesn't just happen to be that way, nor is he particularly elected, called or blessed. He puts his trust in Jesus Christ, and works hard to "deny ungodliness and worldly lusts." He uses the means God universally provided to cultivate and produce the result.

The godly man is acutely aware that godliness is not a static condition attained, but is a movement, a manner of life. An "honest man" may stumble at some point, but his conscience stabs him and he makes correction. He is not content to keep quiet and reap the ill-gotten gain. Nor will a godly man condone a way that is contrary to the way of God. He may sin — he will sin — but his very character cries out in protest, and he makes correction. His inner guidance system is "locked on" to the way of God and he wants to keep it that way.

Can a godly man become ungodly? Oh yes! (2 Pet. 2:1, 4, 20-22) But the remedy for fear is love, perfected by abiding in God. To this end the godly man studies his Bible, prays, meets with fellow saints for worship, and works to save others. He has little time to worry about temporal matters, for heaven and eternity are in view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.XVI No.IX Pg.6
November 1979

Funerals In 3,700 B.C.

Robert F. Turner

"The Book of The Dead" is a generic name given to the various texts found in early Egyptian tombs — apparently placed there so the deceased could "bone up" for the great final examination, or serve as "ticket" for passage through the dark halls of the unknown into the presence of Osiris, "the conqueror of death, who made men and women 'to be born again'." These funeral texts were used as early as ca. 3,700 B.C. Through a long history many changes and additions were made, and we could not begin to give more than a few samples; but I want to put some of this material before you, and then comment upon it.

A section of The Negative Confession reads: "Hail, Usekh-nemmt, who cometh forth from Anu, I have not committed sin. Hail (various 'gods') I have not committed robbery with violence ...I have not stolen grain have not uttered lies ...I have not committed adultery, I have not lain with men." Apparently there was a special "god" for everything, for each negative in this section begins with something like: "Hail Basti... Hail Tutu... etc." "I have not eaten the heart (or, I have not grieved uselessly)... have not been angry without just cause ... have not set my mouth in motion (or, talked too much, or slandered)."

Another section, The Great Judgment, contains some real goodies. "I have not opposed my family and kinsfolk... I have not known men who were of no account (i.e., friend of worthless or profligate men)... I have not caught fish with bait made of the bodies of the same kind of fish ...I have not added to the weights of scales."

First, we observe that this early civil- ization had a sense of "ought" or what was morally right. Adultery, homosexual acts (many specified) were wrong, and could adversely affect the judgment. "Eavesdropping, cursing" or even "making others to weep" are included in things considered wrong. There was no lack of moral perception. I found one: "I have not shut up my ears to the words of truth." How does our society measure to this standard?

They related their actions in this life to judgment and the life beyond. I don't know how seriously they regarded these things while they had good health, but the thought of death had a sobering effect. From the number of "Books" found, I suspect some were prepared to lie to the "gods" — as today's funeral orations foolishly lie to the true God who knows all.

The pagan concepts, and child-like concepts of appeasement, symbolism, and ceremony, remind one of "Secret Orders" of our day — and, in fact, we find the source of some of today's foolishness in these ancient papers.

And the negative aspects of their "religion" is overwhelming. One might fill his coffin with "I have nots" and be woefully lacking in positive service to God. Of course the whole philosophy is inadequate. We could fall into the same error on a positive side — thinking a list of "Have dones" would earn for us heaven. But Christianity is Christ, not man centered. We can only say, I have sinned, and then turn to Christ for mercy. In faith that "presses toward the mark" we have marvelous assurance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.XVI No.IX Pg.7
November 1979

?You Know What?

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

Is it wrong to use the Old Testament for sermon texts? We are not under the Old Covenant, but does this mean O.T. principles are invalid? HK

Reply:

God gave the Scriptures making up the thirty-nine books we call the Old Testament, and this revelation of His will is part of the total scheme of redemption. We err if we use Old or New Testament out of context, making applications unwarranted by the total picture; but both Old and New Testaments tell us of God's dealings with man, and both are necessary.

This is not to say redemption in Christ is dependent upon Judaism. On the contrary, "they without us should not be made perfect" (Heb. 11:40). We are not questioning the completeness of the "law of liberty" when we say that all inspired Scriptures are profitable ...that we may be complete ... to every good work (2 Tim. 3:16). That passage refers to Old as well as to New Testament Scriptures. We are just saying what the Apostles and evangelists of the N.T. said by their use of the O.T., viz., it was something more than prophecies of Christ.

"I would not that ye should be ignorant..." and "these things were our examples" (1 Cor. 10:) suggest an application of principles established of old: the need for faithfulness and punishment of the wicked. The Hebrew writer teaches the benefit of chastening by reference to an O.T. text (Heb. 12:5-6). By the same method Peter emphasizes the Holiness of God (1 Pet. 1:16), and Paul. argues that they who preach the gospel should live of the gospel (1 Cor. 9:6-14). When Daniel showed Nebuchadnezzar that "the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men" he showed us the same principle, whether or not the manifestation is the same. With a little time and a cross-reference Bible this list of examples can be greatly extended.

Jesus shows (Matt. 5:) that there is much more in the Old Law than the legalistic Jew had imagined. Even in Moses' time, "thou shalt not kill" was intended to forbid vindictive anger, and "thou shalt not commit adultery" forbade lust. Some things were "suffered" which "were not so" (Matt. 19:8) from the very beginning. It is not true that the Old Law dealt only with externals. The laws of that moonlight age had in them the seed of the ideals to be more fully revealed in the sun light of the New. They were basically sound, being founded upon divine authority. (Study Hosea 6:6; Amos 5:21-24; Micah 6:8.)

The Hebrew writer says the law had a "shadow" of good things to come and not the "image." Lightfoot comments, "The skia is a dark outline, faint and indistinct like an artist's first sketch of a picture; the eikon is the image itself, an exact representation

" But the outline must accurately fit into the finished picture, and what God revealed of Himself of old is enhanced, made plainer, in the New Testament. It is not contradicted. We should learn to use the divine revelations of the Old Testament as the skeleton upon which the flesh of the New fits perfectly, and which gives added insight to marvelous truth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.XVI No.IX Pg.8
November 1979

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

This story will curl your hair but hear me out if you can stand it. Such an approach would not be here if I had not tested it, and found it workable in other quarters.

Suppose some enemy overran our part of the country and took captive a large number of citizens. These were made slaves, and taken to some far away island where they labored in chains day and night. Our government, much concerned and determined to free these people, called in the wise men and asked them to devise a plan of salvation — a scheme of redemption.

Now, our day seems to be dominated by Wonder Woman, Superman, and the Incredible Hulk; so the wise men decided that Superman should be sent to deliver the captive citizens. Whereupon, Superman rushed to a closet, donned his uniform, and went flying through the air to the far-away isle.

He swooped down upon the enemy, smashing them right and left, and drove them far a-field. Then, pushing over a mighty tree, he karate-chopped four great wheels from the end of the trunk, sliced the remainder into lumber, of which he built a great wagon. Now, stepping into the sea, he began to heap the bottom soil into a high causeway, which joined the island with the mainland. He then told all to get into the wagon, and when they did so he pulled the wagon along the highway to home and safety. Howz at?

But when the news reporters milled around the survivors and asked what they thought of the government's plan of salvation they seemed to think the plan of salvation was "get into the wagon;" and some thought it was a great plan, and some thought it was not really necessary. A curious bystander was led to believe the government's plan of salvation was "glad tidings of a wagon" instead of the coming and works of Superman. (Superman was last seen sneaking into a phone booth.)

This story is not intended as an extensive parallel to God's plan for our salvation from sin. It is given for ONE purpose only, i.e., to make us re-examine the common practice of defining the "plan of salvation" as "faith, repentance, confession and baptism." Is "get into the wagon" the GOOD NEWS? One does not lessen the importance of submission and obedience by recognizing that God sent Christ as Savior, and that the "plan" is centered in what He did for us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.XVI No.X Pg.1
December 1979

Not A Hoof Left Behind

Robert F. Turner

Exodus 7—12. records the efforts of God through Moses to persuade the Pharaoh of Egypt to release the children of Israel from bondage. As that bondage is often used to typify sin, and Satan's hold on us, a better understanding of that ancient struggle could assist us today.

Pharaohs heart was stubborn, and the plagues of blood, frogs and lice did not move him, but when the flies came Pharaoh offered his first compromise. "Go ye, sacrifice to your god in the land — do it here, no need to leave this land. When Moses refused such a suicidal attempt, Pharaoh offered his second compromise. "Go, only ye shall not go very far away: entreat for me". God removed the plague of flies, only to have Pharaoh harden his heart and refuse to let the people go. So, the cattle murrain, boils, and hail came, and the threat of locusts. Then came the third effort at compromise. "Go now ye that are men," leaving your women, children, and the flocks behind. Neither Pharaoh nor Satan let go without a struggle, but Moses stood firm, so the locusts came; and after that the darkness. Now Pharaoh tries one more compromise. "Go ye, serve Jehovah; only let your flocks and your herds be stayed." Take all to serve God, except your material possessions. Perhaps he knew their hearts would remain with the possessions — or perhaps he sought to deprive them of that which they would need to successfully carry out their new venture. Whatever: we are doomed to failure if we think we can serve God acceptably while leaving anything we control in Satan's hands.

But Moses accepted no compromise. "NOT A HOOF SHALL BE LEFT BEHIND!'

We must live in the world, but our citizenship is elsewhere. In making the transfer of allegiance, when we determined to give up the world and give ourselves to the Lord, we should then have determined that "Not a hoof shall be left behind." We should know that Satan will do all possible to convince us that we can serve God "in Egypt" or ''just a little way out" or compromising for the sake of family or possessions. It won't work that way. Give Satan a hoof, and he will take leg, loin, chuck roast and all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.XVI No.X Pg.2
December 1979

Empty Slogans?

Robert F. Turner

The "liberals" are fighting their "liberals" or trying to find a new word for the Cross Roads (Gainesville, Fla.) culture, and someone brought me a packet of their Bulletins to read. No space here to describe the situation, but the nature of the arguments intrigued me.

One deplored "Band-wagoning" (deciding who will win, then jumping on). Another facetiously remarked, "There are no liberals — only misunderstood deep thinkers!" And the ultra-liberal must have called the liberal a "fanatic" for he retaliated, "I have known a long time when you cannot answer someone, about the only thing left is ridicule. It usually is a sure sign of a weak case."

It is amazing how many of the old slogans lived anew. "Bible things in Bible ways," and "We plead for local churches to organize according to the teachings of the N. T., and do their God-given work through the type of organization set forth in the N.T." Sounds so good it would be a shame to ask them to produce a little N.T. for their own brand of organization — and have everything suddenly become still. Wouldn't stay still long however. The cry of "fanatic" would break forth.

A "clich" is a trite, worn-out expression. Well, we all borrow ways of saying things. But repeating fine sounding affirmations of faith when we will not live by them; or attacking others with principles we will not apply to self; is a form of dishonesty. I put the papers away a bit sick at heart. Brethren, are we nothing more than empty slogan bearers?

Two Guest Articles This Month!

As most of you know, I have spent the past four months teaching some upper division classes at Florida College. In one course on Hebrews emphasis was placed on research, and each student was required to write a paper on a subject suggested in the epistle. Many of the articles were exceptionally well done, and because such research provides assistance for church members who study the Bible for less academic reasons, two of the papers appear in this month's PLAIN TALK.

Scott Mann's article came in early so I asked him to "boil it down" for P.T., and he did a fine job. Lack of time forced me to do the condensing on Scott Smelser's material, but much of his wording was retained. Welcome these young men — pages 6 and 7.

It is great to be back in Texas and to continue association with the Oaks-West church. Our 1980 work plans will be published in January issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.XVI No.X Pg.3
December 1979

Serious About Salvation

Dan S. Shipley

One of my golfing friends asked the local pro if taking golf lessons from him would guarantee a better score. The wise pro replied, "Not until you get serious about golf!". Obviously, this instructor had learned an important lesson from indifferent students; namely, that those who don't care don't succeed. Many still need to learn that lesson, especially in the spiritual realm.

Even in the Lord's church there is much evidence of much complacency. In fact, I see it as one of the most dangerous enemies of Truth today. Many Christians are just not serious about getting to heaven! The empty pew says it. The man who becomes careless and negligent about worshiping God is a man who is not serious about going to heaven, all excuses to the contrary not withstanding. I read somewhere that participation is one of the most obvious indicators of interest. For the Christian active participation in spiritual activities such as Bible classes and worship services is but an expression of faith. Do we say more when we call it an expression of interest? One is cause; the other effect. When only half as many participate in Sunday evening services as in Sunday morning services, what does it prove? (Other things being equal, of course) IT PROVES THE PRESENCE OF A SERIOUS PROBLEM! — and Christians who think otherwise have an even more serious problem! Every Christian who identifies with a local church agrees, in essence at least, to give of his time, talents, resources, and influence to help make that church what God would have it to be. Doing less hurts the church and dishonors its Head. We say that sinners need to hear the gospel and that saints need to be edified. But conduct a gospel meeting` for that very purpose and hear again the incriminating testimony of the empty pew. Are we really serious about serving God?

Precious few, if any, Christians have not been exhorted to involve themselves in personal evangelism. We know the value of a soul (Matt. 16:26). We know that only the gospel can save lost souls (Rom. 1:16). We know that the fields are "white unto harvest"; that the time is short; that the laborers are few —but how many are involving themselves with reaching the lost in a meaningful way? Many unsaved souls say it too —"some Christians are not all that serious about going to heaven! — or helping us get there". And, if we would but listen, we could hear similar testimony from other sources as well.

For example, our closed and little used Bibles are harbingers of spiritual weakness. None can deny it. The man who has no interest in reading and reflecting upon the scriptures cannot be very serious about his salvation. Neither can the man who has forsaken prayer and introspection. When thoughts of Christians are seldom centered on "things that are above", it is evident they are not headed that way. Seriousness about salvation flavors every facet of life. It means to "seek ye first" and we must not deceive ourselves into thinking less is good enough. Think of what great things could be accomplished if ALL of God's people got serious about getting to heaven!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.XVI No.X Pg.4
December 1979
"Love Not The World "
Robert F. Turner

"And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat..." (Gen. 2:17). What happened? Man chose to listen to Satan rather than God. In Exodus 23, God instructed the Israelites to drive out the other inhabitants of Canaan "lest they make thee sin against me; for if thou serve their gods, it will surely be a snare unto thee" (vs. 33). What happened? Israel did not heed God's command and was soon influenced by the nations around her. "But the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations..." (1 Sam. 8:19). In Jeremiah 6:16, the prophet pleaded with Judah to rid herself of her idolatry and worldly practices and return to God's paths. What was the reply? "But they said, We will not walk therein."

By these and other examples in the Bible, it becomes obvious that man has the tendency to be influenced by those around him. It also becomes obvious that most of the time, most men choose the world's way rather than God's way. It would be foolish for us to think that we are not affected by this carnal nature. Paul warns us, "Be not deceived, evil companionships corrupt good morals" (1 Cor. 15:33). Yet, too often when those words reach our ears, we try to rationalize our choice of companions and "hear" Paul as saying "sometimes corrupt good morals" or "corrupt others good morals." Paul said, "EVIL COMPANIONSHIPS CORRUPT GOOD MORALS." Don't argue the point with me; those are God's words. Solomon wrote, "My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not." He also warned, "Enter not into the path of the wicked, and walk not in the way of evil men. Avoid it, pass not by it, turn from it, and pass on." And it was Solomon who said, "Walk with wise men, and thou shalt be wise; but the companion of fools shall be destroyed." (Prov. 1:10, 4:14, 13:20) Yet, it was recorded of this man in 1 Kings 11:4 -- "For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods..." If one of the wisest men who ever lived yielded to the influence of the world, who are we to assume that we can resist that influence? We should soberly remember God's word, "Wherefore, come ye out from among them, and be ye separate." (II Co. 6:14)

One brother, trying to defend his practice of visiting bars and dance halls, explained to me that he had to spend time with the world if he was going to convert anyone. It came as no surprise to me to learn that he no longer even professes to be a Christian. We cannot teach someone the truth by engaging in their worldly activities.

So, are we to avoid the world completely? Of course not. Christ prayed not that we should be taken out of the world, but that we not become of the world. (Jn. 17:15) A Christian is in the world, but he is not of the world. The scriptures tell us that we have an obligation to the last. (Matt. 5:13-16, 28:19,20) Any relationship with an unbeliever should be one of concern for his soul. Kevan O'Banion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.XVI No.X Pg.5
December 1979

"We Have An Altar"

Robert F. Turner

"We have an altar whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle." The preceding verse, Heb. 13:9, warns against "strange doctrines" and says "the heart be established with grace, not with meats" so it would be contrary to the argument of the context t o have this (v.10) advocate some sort of ceremonial eating at some Christian (?) altar. We have no man-built sanctuary (Heb. 8:1-6) and our "altar" is in heaven (9:24). (Compare Rom. 14:17-18) Hebrews 13:9-f. is not discussing the Lord's Supper though it is sometimes so used. But to what does it refer?

Verse 11 reminds us that although the flesh of other sacrifices offered under the Old Covenant was eaten by the priests and Levites, only the blood had significance in the atonement, being brought unto the Holy of Holies by the High Priest once a year. The body of the offering was "burned without the camp." (Cf. Lev. 4:11-12; 6:30) Expositor's comment: "The burning of the victim was not intended to sublimate (elevate, make sublime, rt) but to get rid of it. The body plays no part in the atoning act, and has in fact no significance after the blood has been drained from it."

Reflection upon these matters will protect us from two common errors: 1) that redemption, atonement and justification are directly related to Christ's faith or impeccable life before death, imputed to us; 2) that we are cleansed from sins in partaking of the Lord's Supper. The peculiarity of our Christian sacrifice is that it is not eaten — literally. We partake of bread and fruit of the vine as a memorial — "in memory" of Him. But we feed on Christ in "believing" on Him (Jn. 6:41; 47-48; 58-69) — in feeding on the truth He has brought us.

The Hebrew text we are studying (13:9-f) makes another point. The body of the typical atonement was burned "without the camp", and the Hebrew writer selects this to remind us that Christ's body was slain upon the cross "without the gate" of literal Jerusalem. If Christians have a literal altar in any sense of the word, it would have to be the cross — and this was erected outside the wall of that which represented the first covenant (Gal. 4:21-f). The significance of the cross takes us outside of Judaism. "We have an altar" apart from and wholly superior to that, so the Hebrew writer urges his brethren to be faithful to Christ, and avoid drifting back into their old ways.

Alford comments: "Let us then not tarry in the Jewish tabernacle, serving their rites, offering their sacrifices; but offer our now only possible sacrifice, that of praise, the fruit of a good confession, acceptable to God through Him." By this he relates our text to that which follows in verse 15.

"We have an altar" really says, "a different concept" of altar, atonement and worship. The ritualistic and ceremonial idea of service to God has fulfilled its role of introducing man to his Creator. Now, we must grow up. Mere ritual and ceremony is no more valid in Christianity than in Judaism. Our study and worship must come from hearts that hunger for righteousness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ol.XVI No.X Pg.6
December 1979

Angels On A Pinhead

Robert F. Turner

In the Middle Ages the question, "How many angels can dance on a pinhead?" was hotly debated. While this is typical of the nonsense written about angels both past and present too often the extreme of speculation begets that of neglect. In truth, there is much to be learned in a biblical analysis of angels and their work.

The ambiguity of the words translated "angel" causes some confusion. The same word "angel" in Gen. 22:11 is translated "messenger" in 1 Sam. 16:19. Likewise, in Mat. 1:20 we find "angel" while Mat. 11:10 renders the word as "messenger" speaking of John the baptizer. The context determines whether it is a human messenger or a divine messenger (angel).

Observe some traits of angels. Created by God, they dwell in His presence (Col. 1:16; Mat. 18:10). Heb. 2:9-10 indicates they are on a plane above man but below the Godhead. Even in this exalted state all things have not been revealed to them (Mat. 24:36).

Do angels have wings? Biblical descriptions usually portray them as glorious and arrayed in brilliant apparel. However they do not always don this distinctive clothing for "some have entertained angels unawares". (Heb. 13:2). The idea of wings probably came from the winged cherubim atop the ark of the covenant.

A common misnomer is that of the guardian angels. This notion is no where found in scripture. When the saints speak of Peter's "angel" in Ac. 12:15 they are not necessarily referring to a guardian angel, neither are their statements inspired. Another passage used to argue this is Heb. 1:14: "Are they (angels) not all ministering spirits, sent out to render service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation?" This passage says nothing about guardian angels yet it does describe their true service. We will study their work around this theme.

Consider the panorama of angelic activity rather than isolated specific circumstances. What was the purpose of their every act in Scripture? Acting at God's command they furthered the scheme of redemption "for the sake of those who will inherit salvation." Angels first appeared to Abraham, in whom all would be blessed. They guided and protected his family in succeeding generations. Ex. 14:19; 23:30: an angel went before Israel and guarded them. Later, angels ministered to prophets (1 Kg. 19:5). This aided God's unfolding scheme of redemption. The N.T. opens with angels announcing the coming of Christ (Lu. 1&2). They ministered to Him and declared His resurrection (Lu. 22:43; 24: 6). In Acts they aided the spread of the Gospel (5:19; 8:26). In all of this they rendered us service by helping bring our hope of salvation.

If angels are now active on earth we lack the inspired guidance to identify their work; but they have served us throughout the Bible record. Their primary concern for man is shown in Lu. 15:10, "there is joy in the presence of angels over one sinner who repents." Thanks be to God for His "ministering spirits."

L. Scott Mann

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.XVI No.X Pg.7
December 1979

? You Know What?

Robert F. Turner

Is the "sabbath rest" of Heb. 4:9 the extension into the Christian age of the Mosaic Sabbath, or the perfect eternal and final rest to be enjoyed by all people of God-- is it Heaven?

The general context of Hebrews is that of Superiority of Christ and the New Covenant, to Judaistic messengers, Lawgiver, and Priesthood; by which Jewish Christians are exhorted to be faithful — don't give up the complete and perfect for the types and shadows of the first covenant. Heb. 3: warns that their ancestors could not enter "rest" because of disobedience, and uses this to urge them to be faithful.

David (Psalms 95) is cited to show that Joshua did not lead Israel into the true "rest" of God (4:4-9), and identifies TODAY as the time for so entering. "Today" refers to the Christian age, Paul's "Now" or "the accepted time," in which believers are saved. God's rest can be entered only after labor (4:4, 10-11).

"There remaineth" defines a conclusion from previous words (Westcott); "is used as a technical term in wills" (Vine); Vincent says, "it still remains." The idea is not that which we had remains, but that which remains to be had. Sabbatismos appears in no other place, and may have been coined by the author (M&M). It is taken from the verb — differing from the noun form that would indicate the day or time. It refers to rest, or Sabbath-like rest; and both Westcott and Delitzsch say Jews recognized eternity as a "rest." Reread above, carefully! The rest which remains for the people of God is a promise left to us, Heb. 4:1; not an ordinance leftover on us. It is to be entered, 4:1, 10; not observed. It is a retirement, 4:10; not a coffee break. It is a rest that can be denied us if we are not found pleasing to God, 3:19; 4:1. It is entered by believers, 4:3, who are to fear, 4:1, and give diligence to possess it, 4:11. It is erroneous to suppose that the writer, whose purpose in writing the epistle was to illustrate the superiority of the perfect over the temporal, would throw in an out-of-context binding of the Old Testament Sabbath, which was an imperfect type of the real thing.

Recall Colossians 2:16-17, "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a feast day or a new moon or a sabbath day: which are a shadow of the things to come." Hebrews argues the end of the Mosaic law in the same words, 10:1, "For the law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things can never ... make perfect them that draw nigh." The rest of Hebrews 4:9 is clearly that good thing to come, or Heaven.

We summarize with the words of Vincent: "Man's portion in the divine rest inaugurated at creation has never been really appropriated: but it still remaineth. This statement is justified by the new word for rest... The sabbath rest points back to God's original rest, and marks the ideal... This falls in with the ground thought of the epistle, the restoration of all things to God's archetype."

—Digest of article by Scott Smelser.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.XVI No.X Pg.8
December 1979

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

During my college days two Speech teachers tried to teach me "Oral Interpretation." One demonstrated a lot — showing us how a slight movement of the hands, a widened eye, or the inflection of a syllable, could convey different meanings to an audience. The other gave little attention to such matters, but concentrated on the meaning of the material, "syllable by syllable, nay letter by letter." His philosophy was that if we fully understood what we were saying, so that we made it our own and felt its emotions we would then convey its message to the fullest extent of our talents.

Hopefully, I learned from both; but the latter seemed best suited to my temperament. The first always reminded me of artificiality, while the last seemed to encourage genuineness. The first was easier to implant in the mind of the reader. He could put tiny notes alongside his script, such as: raise voice here, or, stomp foot. If the directions were carefully followed one could read quite life-like, and impress the listeners. But there was no mask upon the reader who had dug out the text and made it his own. I am reminded of the two who read the twenty-third Psalm publicly and were later critiqued. The first was told: "You know the Psalm very well," but the latter was told, "Apparently you know the Shepherd." These things come to mind when I see brethren trying to make their worship more "spiritual" by dimming the lights, holding hands, humming softly or "setting the stage" by other mood-makers. A mob can be worked to a frenzy by rhythmic stomping, shouting in unison, or giving undivided attention to an expert rabble-rouser. The same tactics, properly adjusted, can cause others to think they have received a direct operation of the Holy Spirit; and this is especially true if they are programmed to expect such a thing.

No doubt we have become tradition-bound to certain structured forms of "worship" — publicly and otherwise. But there is little in the growing efforts to "unstructure" that will not be "structured unstructure" in a few years. Most, if not all, that our free-wheeling "worshippers" now practice, is old hat in denominationalism.

We should not bind ourselves to human traditions, and changes in the realm of judgment help to break the threads; but nothing is better for genuine worship than genuineness. We will "feel" it best, when we "do" it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.XVI No.XI Pg.1
January 1980

Churching Young People

Robert F. Turner

The first article I wrote for publication in a "brotherhood" paper was "Churching the Young People" (Firm Foundation, V.58 N.21; July 8, 1941). It acknowledged the need for discipline, pointed out that too often we act only when our pride or "public image" is threatened, and concluded with "the old people, too."

It bothered me, then and now, that discipline was looked upon as punitive, with little or no attention given to its role in teaching, admonishing, helping to shape a better person. Our fear of compromise, grounded in our history of doctrinal struggles, fills a needed place. But its validity depends upon issues that are matters of faith. In matters of human judgment compromise is a virtue. And in matters of judgment, one's pride is involved. Put all of that together and you may find elders who dislike a beard "refusing to compromise" and maybe even disfellowshipping one who wears a beard. It is in order here to remind the bushy fellow that he also has obligations. In mutual understanding, and mutual compromise, both parties have been "churched" for good. Do you get the picture? "Churching" (or church "discipline" for those who do not use the other term) is far more than recognizing the obstinate and unfaithful ones, and delivering them to Satan (1 Cor. 5:5). It also includes the blending, strengthening, molding effect brethren can have on one-another to promote greater service to the Lord.

"Churching" is taking place when we recognize our brethren as peers — when we feel a desire to blend with them, and occupy common ground. If we will work at making the young people feel they are a part of this family, with responsibilities as well as privileges, then the "churching" process can be affirmative and beneficial.

But if no effort is made to understand; if the young member is given no opportunity to develop talents and the feeling of having a place in the family; don't be surprised if he or she does exactly like they do in the domestic family. They "leave home" at the first opportunity, and "churching" becomes little more than negative reaction — recognition of a failure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.XVI No.XI Pg.2
January 1980

Entering The Eighties

Robert F. Turner

The decade, not my age — although the limitations Vivian and I must now impose on ourselves make me feel old. It is galling to have to cancel meetings in order to keep a more leisurely pace; when all my life I have wanted more, not less work to do.

January 11-13, I will preach in Jacksonville, Fla.; and Jan. 14-20, in Melbourne. Then, Mar. 2-7, in W. Columbia, TX.; and Mar. 23-28, in Little Rock, Ark. Vivian will accompany me to Little Rock, and we will continue into Kentucky for meetings at Richmond, Apr. 6-11; Providence, Apr. 13-18; Frankfort, Apr. 20-25; and Bowling Green (Eastside), Apr. 27-May 2.

We will be in Burnet through the summer, but we currently plan to return to Florida College for special teaching work through December.

Brother Shipley has a busy schedule this year. In addition to the local work in Burnet, he is to be in meetings at Fayetteville, Ark., Mar. 23-28; Odessa, TX. (Sunset), Apr. 13-18; Phoenix, Ariz., Apr. 27- May 2; and Globe, Ariz., May 4-9. He goes to Magnolia, Ark., May 25-30.

Later in the year, he goes to San Antonio, TX. (0'Conner Rd.), Aug. 3-8; Albuquerque, N.M. (Zuni Rd.), Aug. 24-29, and Madisonville, Tx., Oct. 5-10. Bros. Shipley and O'Banion continue to write for Plain Talk, and maintain an active program of personal work, classes, and home studies. We all are thankful for Oaks-West growth in the seventies, for concerned and respected elders who guided this work, and for the prospects of the eighties.

WHAT MAY WE EXPECT IN THE 80s?

To a great extent, what we bring to them from the 60s and 70s. We will reap a part of our past — the fruits or thorns of our labors. Don't blame the 80s for the shallow teaching, the poor attitudes, or the sectarian spirit of the past. If we have sown to the wind we will reap the whirlwind.

But, if time continues, the 80s will hold opportunities of their own. Babes of the 70s will become fresh prospects for the gospel. Prejudiced families of the 70s will have children who are sick of the bickering and ready for reasonable studies. The youth who sowed wild oats in the 70s will be looking for a way out of his foolish life — wanting to find peace.

The 80s will see the passing of many of today's strong steady leaders. We are grieved to think of it, but we must develop men to take their place. Let's hope we encouraged and helped the weak faltering youth of the 70s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.XVI No.XI Pg.3
January 1980

The Must Concept

Dan S. Shipley

One thing that characterized the ministry of Jesus was His abiding sense of responsibility. Nowhere is that disposition better exemplified than in His remarkable statement of Jn. 9:4: "We must work the works of Him that sent me, while it is day; the night cometh, when no man can work". At this time the night of the cross was about six months away. So little time! So much work to be done! As Jesus saw it, the issue was clear: "WE MUST WORK WHILE WE CAN!" — and His followers must see it that way too.

The must concept is sorely missing today. Somewhere down the line we seem to have lost something of our sense of obligation. Back before the current and popular attitudes of "so what?" and "who cares? responsibility was a thing to be taken seriously by most. Today, however, it is not unusual to see weighty obligations being lightly treated.

Take the casual attitude with which many enter into marriage, for example. Instead of the determination that says, "it must work! or "we'll make it work! divorce is treated as a practical option from the very beginning. With such thinking, it is not surprising to see so many exercising the "option". Even in marriages that continue in conflict, there is often a reluctance for one or both to face up to their God-given "musts". Until wives learn the must-nature of subjection and all that it involves; until husbands learn the must-nature of love and all that it involves, the marriage can never be successful according to the divine standard (Eph. 5:22-23). The must concept is likewise needful in the serious business of rearing children for heaven. Many will readily acknowledge what they "should" or "ought" to do in this regard, but how many really see it as an unqualified MUST? Obedience and respect must be required, discipline must be administered, and a Godly example must be lived before children if their bringing-up is to be "in the Lord", Eph. 6:1-4. We may rationalize and excuse ourselves for doing less but the results will surely be reflected where it hurts the most — in the spiritual welfare of our children.

When Jesus says, "We must work", he surely includes all those who make serious claim to being his followers. As Jesus had God-given work to do, so do we. And it is no less important for us to do the will of God in our sphere than it was for Him in His. We must quit the practice of a religion that is controlled and manipulated by every circumstance and situation that happens along. Something is drastically wrong in the life of a Christian who subordinates doing God's work to practically everything else. It needs to be reversed; it needs the must concept that subordinates all else to serving God! That's the way it was with the early Christians. After being warned, "not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus". Peter and John replied, "We cannot but speak the things which we saw and heard" (Acts 4:18-20). Later, they said, "We MUST obey God rather than men" (5:29). May God help us to develop such a concept in serving Him. Not, "MUST I?", but "I MUST!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.XVI No.XI Pg.4
January 1980
Nature Of The Assembly
Robert F. Turner

We have been handed a paper headed "Nature of the Assembly," and asked to comment upon it. It is more than three pages, single-spaced, so we cannot reproduce it here, but will try to give a fair gist of its content.

---------------------------
All form or ritual that God has instituted has deep meaning and is ordained for our good. He wants us to be happy, mature, and beautiful, and all his work in our behalf is to this end. He does not exact responses from us to see how near we can come to measuring up to his demands. The assembly must be seen in this light. It is not simply a response to some command or duty. The primitive church did not have to be begged, threatened or dragged into attending. It was a natural expression of their devotion to Christ and love for one-another.

There is no indication in scripture that the saints gathered to worship. Worship was the whole of their lives; a day and night devotion and dedication to their Lord (Heb. 12:28; Rom. 12:1). Neither of these passages have any connection with the assembly.

There are therefore no acts of worship. Running errands for a neighbor is as much worship as partaking of the Lord's Supper. Paul seemed to think so (Col. 3:17). One who "misses worship" to help a stranded motorist may render a more acceptable service, which is what worship means, than if he spent that hour sitting in church.

Where did we get the idea that certain perfunctory acts constitute worship? I say perfunctory for they are usually just that. We begin to sing, and ipso facto, just like that, worship has begun; for that is one of the acts that constitute worship. We should learn better. Such acts as breaking bread or reading scripture are worship only in the sense that talking, feeding the dog, and all the rest of daily activities are worship. It is our very selves — our bodies, minds, spirits — that are offered as a living sacrifice. This is the only worship known in the scriptures. (See Heb. 13:15-16) The scriptures know nothing of "five acts of worship" in or out of the assembly.

We do not assemble to perform acts of devotion. It is to be with Jesus and his Body, to be built up in faith, encouraged, and instructed in truth. Mutual edification is the principle to be applied in and out of assembly. In assemblies, the Body is to build itself up through mutual sharing. We are without scriptural authority when we split the assembly into one speaker and a silent body of listeners. We have come to equate silence with reverence, thus by-passing spontaneous ministry that builds, encourages, and informs. This is the atmosphere conducive to "the fellowship of the Spirit," the sharing of the common life in Jesus that we must seek to achieve. This is the nature of the assembly.

------------------------
The above paper was unsigned, and it was only after I had made notes for reply, and was in process of typing them up, that I learned the author. I am now told his initials are Leroy Garrett; but I still do not know where the paper was published.

(continued next page)

.XVI No.XI Pg.5
January 1980
And What We Regard As A Needed Response
Robert F. Turner

(continued from previous page) The writer seems to think that if one believes certain things are commanded for "worship" he has a low and mean esteem of God — as if He would "see how near we can measure up." We can not accept his implied dilemma of that concept of no acts of worship. One can believe God specified certain things to have special significance in worship, and can observe or do those things out of genuine devotion to God, being neither "perfunctory" nor "tradition bound." Assembling can be "response to some command" without being SIMPLY a response. God-fearing saints do not have to be "begged, threatened, or dragged" there. We resent the unloving and illogical dilemma the writer seeks to put on us.

Saints gathered to partake of the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. 11:20,33; Acts 20:7), and gathered to pray (Acts 12: 12). By his own definition that is worship! But the writer seeks to negate specific acts of worship by citing scripture for a worshipful life. How can a generic negate its parts? Is there no distinction in a prayerful life (1 Thes. 5:17) and a consciously worded petition for specific blessings? No difference in being "ever mindful" of the Lord, and obeying His "This do, in remembrance of me"? There is no conflict in a worshipful life, and" gathering to worship" on specific occasions; nor are these mutually exclusive.

We do not live under Judaism, with its typical ceremonies, earthly altar, priestly service, and the like. Mere presence, or perfunctory doing of ritualistic things does not constitute worship — and never did (Deut. 10:12-16). But early saints did gather to pray, sing, give, edify one-another, and to partake of the Lord's Supper. I can count five without regarding these things as rituals to be "performed" in a perfunctory manner or otherwise; and without limiting one's service to God in any way. It is ridiculous, if not sacrilegious, to put feeding the dog and partaking of the Lord's Supper in the same category.

If some brethren believe five "perfunctory acts" constitute worship then they are wrong. Some may use the writer's "worshipful life" concept as excuse to go fishing on the Lord's Day — to which he would no doubt reply, "That is an abuse of what I con-tend." Likewise, if a large number of brethren are perfunctory in their singing and praying, it does not mean there are no acts by which a truly sincere worshipful heart is expressed.

It is gross error to say there is no authority for one speaker and a silent body of listeners. Even in days of special spiritual gifts Paul said one should speak at the time (1 Cor. 14:26-32), and the context makes edification the end. Where many are qualified to edify, opportunity can be made without "spontaneous ministry" from an emotion-stirred band of babes. Too, the right to speak does not guarantee wisdom on the part of all. The "pastor system" error does not justify another extreme of spirit-moved (?) nonsense. A third choice, open to all, is to develop scripturally qualified bishops, evangelists, and brethren who respect one-another's talents and work together in a "decent and orderly" fashion toward spiritual maturity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.XVI No.XI Pg.6
January 1980

Preaching And Practice

Robert F. Turner

"You will not find a perfect congregation. Every group will have its problems and your responsibility is to preach the truth, not police it." I nodded in agreement. Both of us knew that the only thing that "enforces" truth is the honesty of a person's heart. I continued to listen as the older preacher warned me against becoming as some "sectarian preachers" he knew, "For example, they say that they cannot work with a congregation that finances social activities (and the speaker agrees that such use of local church funds is unscriptural). Yet, they will work with a group that is not actively involved in personal evangelism, and that is just as wrong as far as God is concerned!" Hold everything — let's back up a bit! I had agreed that no congregation was perfect and that a preacher could teach, but not enforce, the truth. But did that mean I could work with any congregation as long as I intended to preach only the truth? I would have to think and study about that for a while — and I did.

It is true that every local work has its problems. No group is perfect and without differences among its members. But to work with a congregation which is collectively engaging in error (as in supporting social activities with the church treasury) and to work with a congregation whose members are not fulfilling their individual responsibilities (as in lack of personal evangelism) is not the same situation. Let me explain.

A local church is simply a group of saints who have agreed to work together as a team. In this relationship with one-another, Christians agree to join forces and pool their resources in order to carry out the Lord's will. "When brethren function collectively, this imposes upon each 'member of the team' the need to do his part (1 Cor. 14:27f; 16:1-2). Each is also accountable for what he agrees to support, encourage, and promote in this collective activity (as in supporting social activities — ko) (Rev. 2:20f; 2 Jn, 11). It is understandable, and commendable, that one should exercise patience toward those in error — while making an effort to correct the error. But even this does not make it right to jointly participate in that error!" (PT - Vols. 1-10, 2-2, 5-9, 12-2)

Every Christian, in every congregation, sustains a personal obligation to God's will for which he will give an account (Rom. 14:12). In the example of personal evangelism — many of the members of a local work may not be fulfilling this obligation. However, their actions do not commit me to the same actions, as in collective work. I can still choose to personally teach others and encourage my brethren to do the same.

As a result of the "preaching, not policing" reasoning, preachers are being encouraged to work with congregations involved in unscriptural practices. If they have reservations about working with such a group, they are reassured with the statement that no local work is perfect. The Bible teaches that if a Christian supports or encourages anything he doubts or knows to be wrong, he jeopardizes his soul (Rom. 14; 1 Cor. 8). Kevan O'Banion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

XVI No.XI Pg.7
January 1980

?You Know What?

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

Will you please discuss what really changes a person? What takes place in the conversion of a person? L.P.

Reply:

There are many answers to this but not many explanations. The religious world generally leans toward mysticism, saying God does the changing in a direct or immediate way. They call it grace, Holy Spirit, etc., and say we have nothing to do with it. This, of course, denies free agency and any human implementation, and makes us but puppets or pawns of God. I can not believe the Bible teaches this.

It seems to me the Bible shows God dealing with man as a creature of choice, capable of understanding and acting upon divine instructions. If this be true (and there is no space here to argue such a subject) then we are changed by our response to stimuli. We are moved by external forces, but being intelligent creatures we can subject ourselves to some forces, move away from others. To the extent we can perceive destinations, we can seek and move in that direction.

As respects spiritual and eternal goals, all this would be meaningless without revelation of the divine will. Man seems to have a yearning for something higher than himself, but he must have guidance from that higher plane if he is to attain to it. I believe the Bible is an unfolding of the divine will — God's plans for His creatures — and that God guides man by an appeal to the intellect, emotions, and will of man. He teaches us to desire, and to come to Him. Man's sin separated him from God and made salvation a matter of love, grace, and mercy. God gave His Son as our Redeemer; but gave Him in such a way as to appeal to the heart of man. He is the perfect manifestation of Deity to man. Our sin is dark and accusing against His purity. His unselfish sacrifice on our behalf draws us to Him, and His resurrection assures us of His power to give a new life. As faith grows our attitudes change and we hunger for further instruction. We are taught, hear, learn, and come unto God (Jn. 6:44-45). Yes, God draws us; and Christ said, "I, if I be lifted up ... will draw-" (same word). The story of the Cross, the gospel, draws.

One is changed by God, by what God has done for him, because this changes his thinking, his motives, his goals. When the heart is changed, the life is changed. "He is a Jew which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." (Rom. 2:29).

The Holy Spirit uses an instrument to prick and cut the heart. It is the "word of God" (Eph. 6:17, Acts 2:37). Many things contribute to a person's change, initially and in the growth toward maturity. Our associates, further study, worship, and the introspection that goes with it — all help to shape and mold us anew. But in the absence of divine revelation as the standard, we can not change God-ward. The new creature has been reconciled unto God to the word of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:17-21. Christ provides the means, but we must hear, believe, and obey His will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.XVI No.XI Pg.8
January 1980

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

It all began as a necessity — no drapes to cover a kitchen window in our Florida apartment. The window opened upon the main walk on the ground floor of our complex; so we brewed coffee, made sandwiches, and washed dishes on a public stage. People went by in great number, looked in, and seemed embarrassed when we waved or spoke to them.

By the second day we had covered the kitchen window, but when we sat down at our dining table (beside another window) we felt shut in. So, we opened those drapes to enjoy the view — and neighbors we began to recognize. (Texans like to "howdy!" and wave at passing "Podnuhs!") It was hard to keep a straight face as we saw the results of our unorthodoxy.

Some tried hard to ignore our brazen effrontery. Accustomed to apartment dwellers who fought for privacy, they seemed wary, almost insulted, by neighbors who extended an open hand. Some would sneak a little look, then turn hurriedly away when they realized we were also looking. Some gave a little nod of recognition — a few trips later, a smile and a wave. 'We are well aware of the need for privacy; and the fact that close living quarters impose certain rules and respect for your neighbor's territory. There were times when we drew our drapes. But that open window became our "house by the side of the road." With no introduction other than our window waving, one man came asking my help with a wiring problem. We became friends, had a meal together, and he attended church with us.

It was wonderful to notice progress, from curt nod, to smile, to a wave, and finally to brief conversations about weather, their dog, or my work of study and grading papers. We did not invade their private lives nor they ours. In many ways we trod widely different paths, but the open window taught us something about our fellows. We need one-another, whether we like to recognize it or not. Maybe I opened that window because I needed out, as much or more than others needed in. Who is left to criticize that?

The leaven of righteousness was not meant to be kept in a baking powder can. Somehow we must open our window to the world, and say "Howdy!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.XVI No.XII Pg.1
February 1980

If I Had But One Sermon ...

Robert F. Turner

One Saturday night in the dim past some unknown preacher strove desperately for a sermon idea. He tore his hair and beat the desk with his fist, and said, "Oh, if I had but one sermon to preach tomorrow — if I had..." Then, he "saw the light" and next day he presented a masterful oration on fleeting time and opportunity, on the vital themes that would be preached if this sermon were his last.

And since then, thousands of sermons have sprung from this imagined situation. I have built a few of my own on this theme — usually emphasizing man's lost condition, the redemption in Christ, and closing with, "If this were your last opportunity to obey, what then?" It will lather!

But in recent years I have re-examined this subject. The great final sermon, from the preacher's viewpoint, may present a summation of his finest thoughts, emphasizing the very heart of the gospel of Christ, and yet fail to make the application most needed by those who are hearing their last sermon. Now my question becomes, If I Have But One Sermon To Preach — will I strive for a preacher masterpiece, or will I go for the lost souls that are before me?

The finest sermon is not necessarily the most pleasant to hear, or the most complimented. If I am covetous, mistreating my brethren, allowing the cares of this world to overshadow my service to God; the truly great sermon for me is one that makes me see my ungodly ways and brings me to repentance. The preacher has done me no favor if he is content to tickle my ears when he might have saved my soul. Nor has he done the job his noble calling demands of him.

This is not to say browbeating or harangue make the best sermons. The best is that which meets the spiritual and eternal needs of the hearers. Nathan's masterpiece was a simple parable that ended, "Thou art the man" (2 Sam. 12:7)

If you have but one sermon for me, seek me where I am; and find me with a message that touches my heart and causes me to say, "I will arise, and go to my Father..." (Lu. 15:18)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol. VI No.XII Pg.2
February 1980

Begin Year Seventeen

Robert F. Turner

PLAIN TALK was begun in January, 1964, as a publication of the Rhomberg and Washington Sts. church of Christ, Burnet. (In March, '66, this congregation moved into its new building, and became Oaks-West church.) In our Volume One, No. One, we made no claim to greatness, but pledged ourselves to live up to our name. "We have nothing to hide, and operate upon the principle that truth is best served by unhampered, open investigation. We do not believe ourselves infallible, and realize we may make many mistakes — both in content and in manner of presentation. But we do pledge honesty of intent and purpose." In the sixteen years since then we have missed but two months publishing the paper, and although we have made a strong effort to send only to those who want and read the paper, our mailing list has grown to near 7,500. The paper continues to be available to all who ask for it, free of charge.

By the end of the first year we established our present format: each article complete on one page, front page having to do with "Attitudes," second page editorial, articles on practical Christian living, exegesis and special "issue" articles, "quote" page usually from church history, a queries page, and "Stuff About Things" on the back page. (In recent years we have written some two-page center-spread articles on special topics.) All articles not otherwise identified. have been written by Robert F. Turner. While Joe Fitch was preaching in Burnet, he wrote a regular page, and Dan S. Shipley has had a regular place in our paper for many years. We are also thankful for guest writers, from time to time.

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

REPRINT, BOUND VOLUMES COMING! Requests for back issues have been filled as long as supplies lasted but that day is rapidly passing. Now bros. Shipley and Turner have decided to reprint and bind Volumes 1-4, and if demand is great enough, to follow with V. 5-8, 9-12, 13-16, each book having topic and scripture indexes. Because of many requests for this expressed to the church, we make this announcement, asking those interested to contact bros. Shipley and Turner for details of that private project.

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

Elders of Oaks-West have asked bros. Turner, Shipley and O'Banion to continue their work with Plain Talk. We enter our 17th. year with the same principles and purpose as at first; praying that only good may be done:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.XVI No.XII Pg.3
February 1980

Futile Figuring

Dan S. Shipley

"Then came Peter and said to him, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? until seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times; but, Until seventy times seven." (Matt. 18:21, 22)

There are times when it is best to forget the arithmetic. One such time, as Jesus implies here, is when it involves extending forgiveness. Since God will not forgive the unforgiving (Matt. 6:14, 15), any limitations imposed on man's showing mercy would also limit his receiving it. The parable introduced by Peter's question makes this very point. Like the unmerciful servant, every Christian has received infinitely more than he could ever pay out in the coin of forgiveness. Why, then, this business of score keeping? Why taint mercy with a spirit of reluctance? Where mercy is needed, counting is criminal. The important thing is not "how many", but to forgive from a truly merciful heart (Matt. 18:35).

Another time when "How many?" becomes a needless concern is when it is applied to the number who will be saved. An inquirer apparently had this in mind when asking Jesus, "Lord, are they few that are saved?" (Lk. 13: 23). Without involving Himself in the arithmetic of the matter, Jesus shows at once where the concern should be: "Strive to enter... The important thing is what about ME? — and whether I am striving to enter. The business of saving self (Acts 2:40) deserves priority because that's where we can do most. Only with a striving ME can we help the few to be many. A similar, but equally fruitless, concern of some involves itself with how many will be in heaven (not the same, with them, as how many will be saved). They wrongly envision a whole host of saved dwelling in an earthly kingdom, but only 144,000 making up the "little flock" of priests and kings in heaven. Again, the important thing is my striving, but for what? — certainly not a glorified earth-bound existence! The only eternal abode of the saved is in heaven. That is where the inheritance of the righteous is reserved (1 Pet. 1:4); that is where our hope is laid up (Col. 1:5); and that is where Jesus has gone (1 Pet. 3: 22) to prepare a place in which the redeemed can be with Him (Jn. 14:2,3). Its inhabitants are not limited by a fixed decree of God, but only by a striving by faith to do His will from the heart (Matt.' 7:21).

Yet another area of futile figuring concerns the time of Christ's return. Some have been so bold as to set specific dates, the coming of which did not bring Christ, but only frustration and disappointment. Yet, in spite of such failures, "wiser" ones keep on figuring and letting us in on what the Lord said no man or angel could know (Matt. 24:36). The important thing is that He is coming, not when! What difference should that make to the faithful? Admittedly, our time IS short! — not because we know Christ is coming soon, but because we will be leaving soon! But for now, God's longsuffering continues. The time is too short for idle pursuits and hindering speculations. We must look carefully to how we live — and be wise, redeeming the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.XVI No.XII Pg.4
February 1980

You Make The Choice!

Robert F. Turner

Last Spring, when I did my student teaching at San Marcos High School, I noticed a common attitude among the students. It seemed that many of them did not want to take the responsibility for their actions — especially if those actions led to unpleasant consequences. I was reminded of Paul's words in Galatians 6:7, "...for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." I tried, during the few weeks that remained, to get my students to apply this principle to more than just their grades. It was not uncommon to hear, in most of my classes, "You can either enjoy the consequences of your actions or suffer the consequences of your actions: the choice is up to you."

Most people realize, to some extent, that certain actions will yield certain consequences or results. The student knows that unless he spends some time studying, he will not reap a passing grade in the class. The athlete knows that diligent practice will yield better abilities. The farmer knows that a field planted with wheat always yields a crop of wheat. What we shall reap is determined by what seeds we have chosen to sow. Yet, while we are aware of this principle, we do not always apply it.

We can easily see the application of this principle in the physical realm (as in the examples of the student, athlete, and farmer), but there seems to be some hesitancy to make the application in the spiritual aspects of life. Too often, we either fail to realize or we refuse to recognize the consequences of our actions in the spiritual realm. The foolish virgins chose to take only a small amount of oil for their lamps. They failed to realize the consequences of their short-sightedness until it was too late (Matt. 25:1-f). In Luke 16:19-f, we read of a man who made the choice to serve himself rather than God and others. The result — "the rich man also died, and was buried; and in Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torments..." Many are ignorant of God's spiritual laws, but that does not excuse them from the consequences of their sins.

There are also those who refuse to listen to God's laws. A person may know that certain actions will lead to his spiritual ruin; yet, he does not want to give up those actions. So he makes the choice to ignore God's will and continue in his sin. "But they refused to hearken, and pulled away the shoulder, and stopped their ears, that they should not hear... therefore came a great wrath from the Lord of hosts" (Zech. 7:11, 12). When we choose to sin, whether in ignorance or rebellion, we will suffer the consequences of our sin.

God has set forth certain laws in both the physical and spiritual aspects of life. These laws are in existence for our benefit, but we are not forced to comply with them. God has given us a free will; and, as creatures of choice, we can choose to follow or disregard these laws. But remember — we will either enjoy the consequences or suffer the consequences of our actions because "whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." The choice is up to you. Kevan O'Banion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.XVI No.XII Pg.5
February 1980

Are You Really Free?

Robert F. Turner

This is a rerun of a thought that is so often in my mind it demands repetition. Paul wrote, "All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any" (1 Cor. 6:12). The "all things" is a synecdoche, or way of saying "many things." (As, "We do it all the time" — i.e., it is common, we do it often.) Paul is saying there are many things right within themselves that are not expedient or profitable. They contribute nothing useful to our lives (1 Cor. 10:23), or they may wrongly influence others and cause them to go astray (Rom. 14:16).

And the second clause goes further: "I will not be brought under the power of any." At face value, this rules out tobacco, "pot," or the like — any thing that has power to limit our control of self. But it also applies to the "sports nut", music fanatic, or those glued to the boob-tube. Some Greek philosopher said if one found himself overly attached to a particular art object, say, a valuable vase, he should break it rather than have this attachment control him. The pagans had no higher object than self-mastery; but Christianity has a more noble use for self-control.

True God-service can come only as we give our "self" to the Lord (Matt. 16:25) in a very real sense "self" is our will or volition. We are what we think, feel, and desire. Superficial "doing" is not acceptable service to God; we must obey from the heart. It follows, therefore, that to give "self" to the Lord we must be in control of "self", have self to give. It is obvious that many of us have habits, passions, or tastes that exercise greater influence in our lives than does God. For example, if we can not pull ourselves away from the TV football game to worship God, we either want to see the game more than we want to worship, or we want to put God first, but our desire to see the game controls us —, overrides our better intentions. Sure, you can wiggle out of this by some ploy about "worshiping at home" — but did you turn off the TV to do it?? People who genuinely worship God in their daily activities are the first to acknowledge their need to assemble with saints, and recognize God's instructions regarding such matters.

The alcoholic has lost part of his or her "self." The "pot" smoker takes a "trip" at the expense of fully controlled self. The smoker who "can't quit" is no longer his or her own master. But the list does not stop here. Can we give up a golf game for something more important, like our family? Can we get up and walk away from any thing that stands between us and service of God? How truly are we our own? Are we "brought under" same power??

The value of an untrammeled will is further seen when we realize that only such a self can come to Christ (Lu. 14:33). This is the element essential for a good conscience, for speaking and acting upon our convictions. "Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life" (Prov. 4:23). It is no "little thing" to give ones will into the hands of habits or other people. It is the one thing we could give God for eternity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vol.XVI No.XII Pg.6
February 1980

The Christian Life

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Ben F. Taylor, now 101 years old, wrote the material from which the following is condensed. We took excerpts from the full text, as published in Way of Life bulletin; and offer this as a tribute to bro. Taylor's long life of Preaching Christ.

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

I feel deeply my responsibility as I stand in defense of that way of life which is ridiculed and scorned by the skeptic, mocked by the ignorant, disregarded by multitudes; and within its own ranks is forsaken and besmirched by the carnally minded.

Christianity may be said to be the sum total of the principles of life as given by our Lord Jesus Christ and the Christian Life is the translation of those principles into the activities of life. Christianity is a life to be lived. It is not an empty profession to enhance our social standing. It is not a dress-suit to be worn on Sundays in which to parade our surface piety. Neither is it a storm-shelter to be disregarded when the sun shines again. Nor is it an asbestos suit to be put on at our exit, as a protection against the fire of the world to come. It is not an insurance policy which pays its dividends only after death.

The Christian Life is the highest type of life known to man and he who conforms to it reaches the highest possible attainment in this world. Christ opens to us an abundant life of purpose and service. If man were wholly mortal and death made him no more than brother to the insensible rock and clay, the Christian Life would pay the highest possible returns for the moral investment made. But we should have a fuller conception of the Christian Life. It is an index of faith, an index of our belief of divine testimony. And it is the means by which the world reads our faith. It is sheer folly to make a loud profession of faith and then live an indifferent, careless, or foul life and expect the world to respect revealed Christianity.

The Christian Life is a mold of our eternal destiny. I do not mean to discredit the love and mercy of God, nor the redemptive power of the blood of Christ. Without these no man can be saved. But the choice of these and a faithful service to the Deity of heaven lies within the volition of man. We must be judged according to things done in the body (2 Cor. 5:10; Rev. 20:12). In the great day of judgment we must meet the life we have lived, the character we have built.

And the Christian Life is one of self-denial. Jesus said, "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me" (Lu. 9:23). Beware of that way of religious life which offers the crown without the cross. In the Christian Life we surrender our will to that of the Lord, in personal life, in obedience, in worship, and in work. As the muddy Missouri, the Beautiful Ohio, and the winding Cumberland blend into the Father of Waters and we see only the Mississippi; so we must become one in Him, and let the world see Christ in us — the divine will, in what we are and do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...