Plain Talk

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XX No.VI Pg.2

August 1983

The "Free Thinker"

Robert F. Turner

While in the east I met a reader of PLAIN TALK who said he thought of me as a "free thinker." Does one ignore, thank, or shoot the person who says such a thing?

To some, "free thinker, means one who submits to no standard of truth. Sometimes this attitude has a "heady" effect, and the "free" individual may cultivate odd behavior and proclaim bizarre "positions" to call attention to himself and his freedom. He rejects and seems almost to despise any widely received concept. Standing alone becomes an end in itself, his proof (?) of superiority. I hope the P.T. readers didn't mean that.

Some equate the iconoclast with "free thinking": one who attacks the "sacred cows" — breaks down icons of tradition — lives in the objective case and kickative mood. Traditions have a way of becoming authority, and we believe all are subject to objective examination in the light of the word of God. But when the realm is one of human judgment the traditional way may be far superior to a hurriedly cooked up replacement. It has been tested by time, and often has hidden qualities that are realized only after the free thinker discards them. In my estimation, commendable "free thinking" in such matters means only that we are capable of being objective, and not bound to traditions.

But the "free" man in the highest and best sense is the slave of God (1 Cor. 7:22-23). "Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men." He is a "free thinker" in that he recognizes no ultimate Master save the Lord, no truth that does not conform to the Word of Truth. He keeps himself "free" to continue his search for God's ultimate will, and cannot be bound by creeds or parties which are less or other than the ultimate. He answers to conscience, his honest sincere understanding of what God has declared right. Here, alone, he truly relates to God: a direct relation between citizen and King which must obtain, and remain. He recognizes his obligation to brethren, but he will not allow man in any form (domestic, civil, or religious) to come between him and his God. Conscience tells me this is a mountain yet to be climbed.

Then there is the so-called "free thinker" who is simply too lazy or egotistic to consider the learning of others. History? He doesn't like to read. Commentaries? Doesn't believe in any, except his own. He just makes up his "private interpretation" as he goes along — "free" in his monumental ignorance. Oh I do hope my P.T. reading friend didn't mean that.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XX No.VI Pg.3

August 1983

Bible Teacher Dropouts

Dan S. Shipley

If Bible teaching is essential in the local church (and who could question its importance?), then so are Bible teachers. In fact, few things contribute more to the growth and strength of the Lord's church than qualified and dedicated teachers. 'lost parents want the very best instruction available for their children, and they deserve it. So do the parents and other students. Yet, at a time in which mature and competent teachers are so desperately needed, many of them are giving up their Bible classes in favor of "retiring" to a student's seat. Why?

It may be that they need a rest. Conscientious teachers do work hard in the preparation and presentation of their lessons. They do need a well-deserved break once in a while — but not a permanent one! Not one that will cost the church one of its most effective teachers. God has the very best "retirement" program for his people, but its benefits are in the next life; for those who "endure to the end" (Matt. 24:13). "And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not" (Gal. 6:9). Teaching God's word is "well-doing" that ought to be without weariness (i.e., losing heart). "Fainting" teachers need to remember that. The business of teaching gospel truth is complemented by men and women with a spirit of determination; the kind of people who act from principle, not from selfish motives. A season of rest and refreshment is always appropriate; burying talents never is. For the apostle Paul, the course was not finished until his time of departure was "at hand" (2 Tim. 4:6,7). Unless forced to do otherwise, qualified teachers need to get back out on the course instead of looking for a rocking chair!

Another reason for teacher dropouts may be discouragement. It is, no doubt, one of the worst enemies to the cause of Truth. Disinterested and misbehaving students, unconcerned parents, or even uncooperative elders and brethren are enough to discourage even the strongest at times. However, we must remember that discouragement is temporary, it will soon pass. With faith we can overcome (1 Jn. 5:4). No temporary problem is greater than the Lord's work. Succumbing to a case of "Elijah blues" only compounds our problems and hurts others (1 Kg. 18,19) while leaving God's work undone. Nothing encourages discouragement more than remembering and mentally rehearsing our misfortunes. The remedy is in setting our minds on the things that are above (Col. 3:2) and pressing on.

Finally, teacher dropouts may be the result of not feeling needed. Even when the church is fortunate enough to have too many qualified teachers to use in Bible classes (and few are!), there is always teaching to be done at home and elsewhere. Paul says that older women are to teach the younger (Titus 2:4) — and, it does not have to be done in the church building! Teachers could put their talents to work in neighborhood Bible classes with other women or children. Start your own classes! The world needs God's truth. There is no excuse for unemployed Bible teachers! — Dont be a dropout!Box 1110 Lindale, TX 75771

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XX No.VI Pg.4

August 1983

Balancing Life

Robert F. Turner

"But this I say, brethren, the time is shortened, that henceforth both those that have wives may be as though they had none; and those that weep, as though they wept not; and those that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and those that buy as though they possessed not; and those that use the world, as not using it to the full: for the fashion of this world passeth away" (1 Cor. 7:29-31).

How easy it is to so over-indulge in and over-emphasize the relationships, emotions and activities of life that our perspective is lost. Thus it is that Paul sent a warning to Corinth that we need as well. We need to remember that there is more to life than

Marriage. "Seriously, but not too seriously" should be our attitude toward marriage. Why? Our duties to our mate end at death, never to be resumed (Mt. 22:29-30). But, our duties to God never end. While living I am accountable to Him, and after death I must answer to Him (2 Cor. 5:10). For these reasons, the desires of a mate should never take precedence over duty to the Lord. The unbelieving or weak mate will be won by Godly behavior (1 Pet. 3:1-6). "Love" that is willing to compromise is doomed to failure (Lk. 14:26).

Sorrow. Our Savior wept (Jo. 11:35) and David knew the agony of grief (2 Sam. 12:15- 23). But David expressed his despair while there was hope for his child's life (vss. 16-17). When hope was gone and the child was dead, David's conduct changed (vs. 20) for he knew there was no useful purpose to be served by continuing to fast and weep (vss. 22-23).

Joy. We need doses (and sometimes large ones) of good fun and for the same reasons we need medicine (Prov. 12:22). But Solomon's conclusion was that there is more to life than having a good time (Ecc. 2:1-11). Wise use of time (Eph. 5:15-16) involves a balance between enjoying life (Ecc. 8:15) and rejoicing as did Paul (Phil. 1:3,18; 2:1,17; 3:1; 4:1,4,10). Give the emphasis to the latter, for God will "ask" us about it (Ecc. 11:9-10).

Buying. We should've learned from the rich fool (Lk. 12:13-21) but we haven't. We rush to make more, buy more, and have more, forgetting that our lives aren't made up of what we possess (vs. 15). Sadly, some do not learn this until death (vs. 20). Wives and husbands, parents and children are virtual strangers who have never gotten to know one another because of unnecessary time spent in chasing a dollar.

Using the world. Travel and recreation — opportunities for such are abundant. But how sad it is that many local churches are deprived of leaders and teachers because many are "on the road again" and too busy to help. Use the world? Paul said, "yes." But to use it to the full is to abuse the privilege.

Brethren, "the time is shortened ...the fashion of this world passeth away." For these reasons and for the sake of our souls remember that there is more to life than what we often make it. David Smitherman

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XX No.VI Pg.5

August 1983

Use Your Bible

Dan S. Shipley

1. RELIEF FOR NEEDY SAINTS IN JERSUALEM, 2 Cor. 8 1. SENDING, OF RELIEF ENCOURAGED

A.By example of Macedonians (v. 1-5)

B.By example of Christ (v.9)

II. PARTICIPANTS IN SENDING RELIEF A. Churches of Galatia (1 Cor. 16:1)

B. Churches of Macedonia (8:1; Rom. 15:26)

C. Churches of Achia (including Corinth, Rom. 15:26; 1 Cor. 16:1)

D. Note: Here is a scriptural example of many churches sending to the needs of Christians in one church. They cooperated through independent, concurrent action and without a "sponsoring church" arrangement.

III. OBJECTS OF THIS RELIEF

A. Needy saints (Rom. 15:25,26,31; 1 Cor. 16:1,2,15; 2 Cor. 8:5; 9:1,12)

B.Note: 1.Every NT example of church functioning in benevolence is for saints 2.Relief always sent direct to those saints in need

IV. PURPOSES FOR SENDING THIS RELIEF

A. To meet a genuine and uncreated need

B. To fulfill a commitment (v.10,11)

C. To show proof of love (v.8,24)

D. To achieve equality (i.e., in necessities, v.13,14)

E. To honor a spiritual debt (Rom. 15:26,27)

V. PRINCIPLES OF SCRIPTURAL GIVING DEALT WITH

A. Necessity of first giving self (8:5)

B. Giving to be in accord with prosperity (8:12; 1 Cor. 16:2)

C. Giving to be done willingly (8:3,11)

D. Giving to be done purposefully (9:7)

E. Giving to be done cheerfully (9:7)

[RETIREDFAN1]

.XX No.VI Pg.6

August 1983

Confession Is Hard

Robert F. Turner

"It is so hard to walk down the aisle with all those people..." Whoa! Wait a minute! You think "walking the aisle" is hard? Confessing sin — done right — is what is really hard.

Confessing sin is necessarily individual — personal. "We all sin" or "he sinned" is not hard to say. The hard part is when I must say, "I have sinned." Sin is individual; guilt is personal. Personal confession is demanded. Note David's confession — "my sin" — "mine iniquity" — "my transgression." Read Psalms 51.

Confession of sin is definite. "If I have done anything..." is easy but it simply is not confession of sin. A fellow who is unsure whether he has sinned should find out. Until he knows and admits his sin, he can make no real confession. "If" confessions are a farce. Confession must say, "I have sinned" — no doubt about it. David was definite — "my sin is ever before me."

Confession of sin is specific. A confession of generally sinful life is proper but this is not the thing under consideration. Confession admits the particular sin. David referred to "this evil" and "blood-guiltiness." True confession says, "I have been a gossip" or "I have been a troublemaker" or "I have stolen." Have you heard such a confession? It is so hard that few will do it.

Often sin is renamed; the crime is reduced. This is common practice in civil law. The criminal is allowed to admit a misdemeanor rather than the felony he actually committed. That is not allowed in God's court: You cannot confess to "hurting someone's feelings" when you have slandered the man. "Accidentally misrepresenting the facts" or "exaggerating" will not do when you lied. Confession names sin.

Confession addresses the one who has been sinned against. Send that fellow back down the aisle to the door of the man he injured. Let him look that man in the eye and say, "I lied about you." That is confession. A dozen times down the aisle would be easier, but not acceptable. Confessing to the church will not replace it. David knew this principle — "against thee have I sinned." Send that other brother from the front seat to a secluded corner to pray. Before he says ought to the brethren, he needs to talk to God. He has sinned against God; he must confess to God. Later he may need to talk to the church, but not before he confesses to God. There is another fellow on the front pew who has no business there. He walked the wrong aisle; he confessed to the wrong church! He sinned against the church across town when he sowed discord there. Send him to confess where he sinned.

Confession of sin anticipates a plea for forgiveness. A man may admit his meanness — in fact he may even be proud of it. That is not the Bible brand of confession. A man who seeks no pardon is not confessing sin. Listen to David — "Have mercy upon me..."

Confession is good for the soul, but mighty hard — especially on pride.

Joe Fitch, San Antonio, TX.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XX No.VI Pg.7

August 1983

?You Know What?

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

What is a "professional preacher," and are such approved of God? B.I.

Reply:

The term suggests the opposite of an amateur; one who has trained and prepared himself to make preaching his life's work. Beyond this, the term has taken on multi-hues because of (a) the concept of "priesthood" or "clergy-laity" distinctions; (b) financial support provided by a church or those served; and even (c) sneeringly applied to one who flaunts his degrees, supposes his every word is wisdom from above, and shamelessly lives off of the flock with little pretense of earning his salt.

There is no hierarchy among God's people (Matt. 23:8-12, 20:20-28) and all obedient believers are "priests" (1 Pet. 2:5,9; Rom. 12:1). God approves the support of His workmen (1 Cor. 9: 14), even while warning of and disapproving "hirelings" whose predominate interest in "Preaching" is the money they will be paid (Jn. 10:12-13, 2 Pet. 2:3,15). Of course God disapproves of the pompous, holier-than-thou person who revels in the "chief seat in the synagogue" and praises of men.

In some places, where "mutual edification" once reigned, any "located preacher" was called "professional." Opposition to schools where the Bible is taught has contributed to the use of "professional" as a term of derision for men who have had academic training in subjects designed to assist them in preaching the gospel. A self-trained man may be and often is highly effective in the Lord's work. Experience is a wonderful teacher and is needed by the college graduate as well as by the self-taught man. But because one can preach without school training should not blind us to the value of that additional discipline and experience.

I do not regard "preaching" as a "profession" in the doctor-lawyer category; for I recognize the man lacking formal training as having as much right to preach as anyone, and having obligation to do all he can for the cause of Christ. In fact, I have more respect for the untrained man, giving his best; than for one who could take more extended training but is content to limp along, taking support for half-baked work while casting slurs at what he calls "professionals."

Preaching Christ deserves the highest use of our capabilities. If that is "professionalism" then Paul said get with it ("Whatsoever ye do, work heartily, as unto the Lord, and not unto men," Col. 3:23). Learn to read — not just call words. Get all training possible in interpretation, and in communication of ideas. Take advantage of the study of others — respectfully yet critically, searching the Scriptures. Ancient history is helpful. Learn to type. Learn research techniques, study doctrinal history. Observe people, for they are the clientele of your work. Language study will open new fields in use of the Bible "sword of the Spirit." Find out how little you really know, for that can keep you humble. From beginning to end, "Pray without ceasing." Trust in God for your support, and fret not if someone calls you a "professional."

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XX No.VI Pg.8

August 1983

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

I was told that in former years the State of Tennessee required those getting married to (a) pray, and (b) put up $1,250 bond. Now that's Stuff About Things material, so I asked for proof and was given a Xerox copy of a license (July 17, 1905; Houston County) which read: _______ (groom) and _______ (apparently someone who would go his bond) "are held and firmly bound to the State of Tennessee, in the sum of Twelve Hundred and Fifty Dollars, to which payment well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves... etc." There followed the two signatures.

Then, "The condition of the above obligation is such, That whereas, the above bounden _______ (groom) has this day prayed and obtained a license to marry_______ (bride); Now, if there is no lawful cause to obstruct said marriage and for which license is desired, then this obligation to be void, otherwise to remain in full force and virtue in law." If you do not "catch" it on first reading you need not feel badly.

The legal terminology may "throw" you, but no more so than preconceptions established by my first remark. If led to expect certain things we tend to see them, even when they are not there to see. "Pray" means, "entreat, implore." This instrument says someone asked for a license: "prayed" to the County Clerk. And the $1,250 bond was to insure there was no legal obstruction to the proposed marriage, like bigamy. The money was due only if it turned out the man had no legal right to use this license.

The point in calling this to your attention could be the importance of examining our current position before God (not just before men) before we contract a marriage. Someone remarked (before we understood this Tennessee license) that if it took prayer and $1,250 to get married, the contract might be more seriously regarded. I'm doubtful. If God's will and eternal judgment fail to sway us so would the $1,250 price tag.

But another point is the necessity for objective reading; for looking carefully at words, understanding use and meaning at the time of writing. Do you read your Bible with preconceptions, seeing what you want to see? No dollar bond can cover that blunder.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XX No.VII Pg.1

September 1983

Adult Temper Tantrum

Robert F. Turner

Down in my back, prone in a recliner chair, with typewriter on a board across my lap, and deadline staring me in the face. Seems like an ideal time to write an article on frustrations.

Somewhere I read, "Frustration is a form of adult temper tantrum. It is a determination to have our own way. It is not caused by our circumstances but by our refusal to accept and to adapt to those circumstances." At the moment I think that is a lot of pure bologna. But at the moment I am very frustrated, and it's hard to think straight during a temper tantrum. I must get control if this article is to be genuinely helpful to anyone.

Paul said he had learned, in whatsoever state he was, to be content (Phil. 4:11-13). He said, "I can do all things through Christ..." This was not mystical or magic strength. He learned, by heeding the word of the Lord. He prayed three times for the removal of some "thorn," but the Lord said, "My grace is sufficient for thee for my strength is made perfect in weakness" (2 Cor. 12:7-10). Our circumstances need not be just what we desire, in order for God's purposes to be properly served. We must learn that, as did Paul.

In most cases the causes of frustration are homemade. (I had no business mixing concrete and rolling big rocks.) We may procrastinate, make too little preparation for our job; or, being self-centered, expect all to go our way wholly inconsiderate of others. We may "blow off" at another, when we are really peeved at ourselves.

However, except for problem identification and correction, we should not waste much time assigning blame. Spend your time at work with present circumstances. "Casting all your care upon Him" and "Be not anxious for the morrow" (1 Pet. 5:7, Matt. 6:34) are not stop work slogans. We must use what we have, believing that God will help those who help themselves. Our weakness, working for Him, becomes strength. Let the "trying of your faith work patience" (Jas. 1:3). Frustration uses up the energy you need to fit the broken pieces of disaster into a new, beautiful mosaic.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XX No.VII Pg.2

September 1983

Assurance, 1 Jn. 3:14-24

Robert F. Turner

John wrote, "We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren" (1 Jn. 3: 14). Here is assurance, but it is objectively determined. As following verses show, assurance is on the basis of the fruit demonstrated in our life. We must love "in deed and truth" (v.18-19) for "hereby shall we know...and shall assure our heart..."

The same objective determination is seen in v.22: "whatsoever we ask we receive of him, because we keep his commandments and do the things that are pleasing in his sight." (All textual emphasis in article, mine. rt) This text and John's whole epistle negate subjective feelings as assurance, and stress obedience to God's word.

John's message leans so heavily in that direction he offers aid to those who may quake in fear they will not serve and be as loving as they ought. He postulates, "If our heart condemn us..." (v.20). This is the opposite of the cocky, self-assured man. Deep respect for God has a humbling effect that makes us tremble in recognition of our unworthiness. The true saint is aware of his inadequacy. He "knows not how to pray as he ought," groaning within himself as he realizes his hidden sins are "naked and open" before God's eyes. His heart aches. But John says, "God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things." If that repeats God knows our sins it only deepens our despair. But clearly this is encouragement. Without backing off one bit from the context of the need for "doing," I believe John meant God knows if we are trying. God knows the true intent of our heart. Compare this to Rom. 7 where Paul is wretched in the awareness of his sin, while delighting in the law of God inwardly (7:18-f). He does not say good intentions negated his sin; wrongdoing is sin regardless of intentions. He recognized his need for the crucified Christ (forgiveness), but found solace in the assurance God gives to those who "walk after the spirit" (Cf. Rom. 1:9; 2:29; 7:25 — our spirit).

1 Jn. 3:24a reads, "He that keepeth his commandments abideth in him, and he in him." God's abiding is objectively determined. Verse 24b continues, "And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he gave us." To consider this the Holy Spirit, subjectively determined, defies the context. Believing it is the Holy Spirit "because we obey" removes it as a separate assurance factor. 1 Jn. 4: 1-6 continues context, testing spirit by what it produces. We conclude John says sinful man, seeking to obey God has a heart- seeing, merciful Judge.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XX No.VII Pg.3

September 1983

Pastorizing Preachers

Dan S. Shipley

The denominational concept of the preacher and his responsibility as set forth in a popular creed-book reads: "A pastor is a preacher who...is in charge of a station or circuit." (i.e., a church or group of churches, dss). Such a concept is not only unscrip- tural; it betrays a serious misunderstanding of the work of both pastor and preacher. The NT pictures the pastor (shepherd) as an overseer, elder or bishop (Acts 20: 17, 28) who, by virtue of meeting certain God-given qualifications (1 Tim. 3; Titus 1), and, along with other such men, "tend the flock" which is among them, "exercising the oversight" thereof (1 Pet. 5:2), taking care of the church of God (1 Tim. 3:5). The pastor may also be a preacher, as was Peter (1 Pet. 5:1), but the terms are not synonymous — and neither is their work.

The preacher, on the other hand, is a herald, a proclaimer of the word of God (1 Tim. 2:7; 2 Tim. 4:2) and is instructed to "do the work of an evangelist, fulfill thy ministry" (2 Tim. 4:5). The preacher has no spiritual oversight and is not a pastor by virtue of his preaching work. Most brethren understand this.

However, while the idea of evangelistic authority and oversight would be opposed by most brethren, it is not always so in practice. We, even if unwittingly, often encourage the pastorizing of preachers by putting them "in charge" of the local church. This problem is compounded, of course, when the preacher covets such a role — especially among brethren who are unwilling to assume responsibility. Many are content to let the preacher handle whatever needs handling — except, of course, his meeting schedule, vacation time, and his raises. Good elders can be an effective deterrent to the pastor system, but rubber-stamp elders who do little more than OK the preacher's decisions only promote the pastorizing process and demonstrate themselves as unqualified to serve as true pastors in the Lord's church.

Even among brethren who know the local preacher is not "in charge" of anything and is not to be called "our pastor," there persist certain subtle indications that the clergy concept remains. One is in our language. For instance, reference is often made to a preacher as "Brother" so-and-so (with a capital B:), or "our Minister" (with a capital M!), or even "THE Minister." We note that equally faithful but non-preaching brethren and ministers (servants) are not referred to thusly. In addition, some brethren feel that they have not been adequately prayed over unless the preacher does the praying. Others feel unvisited until the preacher comes calling. And, there are indications that some even feel less obligated to attend Bible classes and worship services when the preacher is out of town.

In pointing up the equality among believers, someone has said, "All men stand on level ground under the cross of Christ." That certainly includes the preacher. Even though he is engaged in one of the most important works on earth, he deserves no preferential treatment. To be treated as a brother is enough.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XX No.VII Pg.4

September 1983

Serpents And Doves

Robert F. Turner

"Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves" (Matt. 10:16).

Serpents and doves — two creatures that have little in common. And yet, in the development of our character, we are to be "as" they are in some respects. Quite a paradox, isn't it? Well, much of the Christian's character is a paradox. For instance...

We are to control our tongue (Jas. 3:1-f) but also speak boldly (Eph. 6:20). There is no virtue in a bold tongue that is uncontrolled or one so controlled that it is never bold. Our tongues need a "controlled boldness" in order to rebuke sin both publicly (Gal. 2:11-f) and privately (Matt. 18:15). Though the consequences may be unpleasant (Mk. 6:16-18) we must speak boldly, and when occasion demands it our bold tongues must be blunt (Matt. 23:15). Fear of saying a wrong thing should not keep us from saying the right thing (Matt. 10:26-27). "Silence is not always golden, sometimes it is just plain yellow."

Paul's humility (1 Cor. 15:9) and yet his confidence (2 Tim. 4:7-8) exemplify yet another paradox. Humility should not breed timidity but neither should confidence give rise to arrogance. Humility will keep us aware of our own weaknesses but should never cause a hesitancy to point out sin in the lives of others (1 Cor. 5:1-13). We are humbled by our liability to err in opinions and understanding of Truth, but are confident that there are some things of which we are sure that cannot be compromised (Gal. 2:5). The virtue of longsuffering (Gal. 5:22) must be balanced by intolerance (Col. 2:4, 8, 16, 18). Longsuffering is needed as attempts are made to progress toward maturity, but intolerance is demanded when progress is not made and goals not reached (1 Cor. 3:1-3; Heb. 5:11-f). It is one thing to suffer long with sinners as they attempt to conquer sin but quite another to tolerate wrongdoing (Rev. 2:15-16; 20-21).

We must certainly care what others think about us (Matt. 5:13-16) but at the same time think little of how others evaluate us (Gal. 1:10). The virtue of living to influence others (Phil. 2:12-16) can so easily become the vice of living to please others (Gal. 2:11-f).

Some are prone "by nature" to be as serpents" or "as doves" and the Devil uses our "natural inclinations" to cause an imbalanced character. He would have us emphasize what comes easily and de-emphasize what doesn't. As a consequence we often go to extremes: either a pseudo-sophisticated person who thinks that "cultured" people avoid bold speech, confident affirmations, intolerance of sin, and conduct that may "offend" others; or a crudeness that is abusive in speech, arrogant, intolerant, and unconcerned about what others may think.

The development of a balanced, yet paradoxical, character does not come quickly (Heb. 5:12 — "by reason of time") nor is it easy (1 Cor. 9:25 — "striveth...self control"), but there are no short cuts to maturity.

David Smitherman

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XX No.VII Pg.5

August 1983

Use Your Bible

Dan S. Shipley

From Sin To Righteousness, Rom. 6:15-23

Intro.

1. A remarkable change has taken place with these Romans. They were once servants of sin but now are servants of righteousness; were lost but now have eternal life (v.22)

2. Every sinner stands where they once stood and desperately needs the salvation they came to have. Theirs is a pattern for its attainment.

I. WHAT THEY WERE

A. Servants of sin (v.17,19,20) 1.As other Gentile sinners had been: in darkness, under the power of Satan, blinded and lost in sin (Acts 26:18) 2.As the Ephesians had been (Eph. 2:1-3, 12; 4:18)

B. Fruitless in their living (v.21)

C. In a state of spiritual death (v.21,22)

D. Such is the state of every sinner and needs to be realized.

II. WHAT THEY DID

A. First, they learned something (could not obey what they did not learn) 1.They learned what God wants all men to know, the gospel, "that form of doctrine which was delivered you" (Matt. 28:18-20; Rom. 1:16) 2.This means they were teachable, which is so important 3.Only those who hear an -learn from God can come to Christ (Jn. 6:45) 4.Thus, it is faith that comes from the word of God that becomes the basis of serving God (Not experiences, tradition, or "family" religion)

B. They became obedient to what they learned (v.17) 1.Their doing was in accord with the teaching; they were taught the gospel, they obeyed the gospel (cannot obey truth by learning error) 2.As other NT converts, they expressed their faith by repenting of past sins (Acts 17:30), confessing Christ as Lord (Rom. 10:9, Acts 8:37), and being buried with Christ in baptism (Rom. 6:4).

C. They obeyed "from the heart" 1.Their obedience was sincere, intelligent (with understanding), willing

III. WHAT THEY BECAME

A. Saved'. ("free from sin") 1.The greatest blessing mortal man can know! 2.Notice: they were made free from sin after obeying. Obedience stands between every sinner and salvation. 3.THE point of pardon (being made free from sin) is the culminating act of obedience that puts off sin and puts on Christ. This is baptism. (Acts 2:38; 22:16i Gal. 3:27)

B. Thus, they became 'servants of righteousness" 1.Cleansing from past sins makes them fit for the Master's use. 2.Saved to serve the living and true God (1 Thss. 1:9)

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XX No.VII Pg.6

September 1983

Scrounger's Confession

Robert F. Turner

Hard times and an empty wallet had required building projects to be done with whatever could be scrounged. And cull lumber was the best I could do. There was generally a disappointment with the finished product. Cabinets just did not fit together due to twisted and warped boards. Larger projects were never square — or plumb — or straight. They were strong, but not pretty.

One day I bought a truckload of fine damaged lumber. Oh, it had a scratch or a stain here and there, but nothing I could not correct. And some of the lumber was absolutely flawless. It was delightful! I would go to the barn and admire the rich grain and feel the smooth finish.

More opportunities came. Materials were bought and sold, but the best was always sorted out and set aside. Soon the barn was full.

Work time comes and I carefully sort the lumber stack. I select the best pieces, and put them aside. They are not to be used; they are too good to use. You see, I still build with culls — though better quality. I now choose the culls. I cannot bear to saw up those good boards.

A fellow comes to buy. He spies my lumber stack. I show him everything I have, but he wants those boards. He offers a good price, but I am not happy. They are too pretty to sell.

Wait a minute! "Too good to use" and "too pretty to sell" — that looks strangely like a covetous footprint just a step behind my shoe! Covetousness is the "inordinate" love of things — loving things too much. Money, land, houses all have value but covetousness exaggerates it all out of proportion. Covetousness makes an obsession of accumulating. It is a greed with endless appetite (Eccl. 5:10). It is devotion to things — idolatry (Col. 3:5).

Covetousness grasps at the things of others. It longs for a neighbor's money till theft is planned. It seeks his land till fraud acquires it. It desires his wife till morals are abandoned and adultery is embraced.

And covetousness grasps a man's own things. The rich ruler found his pitfall in his love for his own possessions (Matt. 19:16-). He could not let go of them to take hold of life. Covetousness so grasps possessions, it makes misers. The rust on his money and the moths in his clothes accuse him (Jas. 5:3). Silver only tarnishes when not used; moths attack clothes that are not worn. As stewards, all things are entrusted to us to use — not hoard.

Among all sins, covetousness is one of the hardest to recognize. 1 think the rich ruler was honest when he said, "All these things have I kept..." Jesus opened his eyes with "Go and sell all you have and give it to the poor" "Thou shalt not covet" needed a little more work. Oh, to be able to see ourselves as we are!

Excuse me. I have to go and cut up some pretty boards.

Joe Fitch San Antonio, TX.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XX No.VII Pg.7

September 1983

?You Know What?

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner

From History of the Reformation by Merle D'Aubigne, Bk. 5, Ch. 4, read his account of a debate between Eck (Roman Catholic) and Carlstadt (Protestant). D'Aubigne favored Carlstadt.

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

"Man's will, before his conversion," said Carlstadt, "can perform no good work: every good work comes entirely and exclusively from God who gives man first the will to do, and then the power of accomplishment." This truth had been proclaimed by the Scripture, which says: "It is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure;" and by Saint Augustine, who, in his dispute with the Pelagians, had enunciated it in nearly the same terms...Now there is in man a natural opposition to God — an opposition that the unaided strength of man cannot surmount. He has neither the will nor the power to overcome it. This must therefore be affected by the Divine will...

"I acknowledge," said Eck, "that the first impulse in man's conversion proceeds from God, and that the will of man in this instance is entirely passive." Thus far the two parties were agreed. "I acknowledge," said Carlstadt, "that after this first impulse which proceeds from God, something must come on the part of man, — something that St. Paul denominates will, and which the fathers entitle consent." Here again they were both agreed: but from this point they diverged. "This consent of man," said Eck, "comes partly from our natural will, and partly from God's grace." "No," said Carlstadt; "God must entirely create this will in man."

---------------------- The basic issue is "free will" (so poorly understood today); and how this affects the nature of "conversion." Honestly, do you agree with Eck, the Catholic, or with Carlstadt, the Protestant; or with neither? And what is your "Bible" explanation?

Note that both men agreed that man was so depraved before his conversion he could do "no good work." The issue then becomes: does God affect man directly and immediately, or intermediately (through media of the word and human facilities)? If by "first impulse" (par. 2) both mean. God's love and preparation for man's redemption (Christ's sacrifice and the inspired gospel message) we are "with" them. But we deny a depravity that erases man's capacity to receive truth; and we believe the unconverted man's will can be changed by the inspired word of God (His instrument), no other or direct Divine influence being needed.

Augustine (an earlier Catholic theologian) and Carlstadt say, "No, God must entirely create this will in man" — and cite Phil. 2:13. We believe that passage recognizes the moral influence of God on saints (as Satan affects children of disobedience, Eph. 2:2) without negating individual responsibility. "Work out your own salvation" clearly calls for human response. God works to the end that we choose, and we work to obey Him. The inspired verse itself (Phil. 2:12-13) is an excellent example of how God works to bring about obedient saints.

If we made greater effort to grasp such basic matters we would not be so confused by today's "spirit" issues.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XX No.VII Pg.8

September 1983

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

The lady on TV is about to pour into her washer a prominently displayed brand of detergent when her neighbor stops her, showing disbelief and consternation. "Surely you wouldn't use that detergent," she cries.

"But this is my long-time favorite," the lady protests; "and I know you have used it for years."

"No longer," says the know-it-all neighbor. "Now I use NEW AND IMPROVED detergent (calling the brand name) for whiter whites, brighter colors, static free, lint reduced, all-temperatures, less suds-clogging washes." She pauses to get her breath, the first lady raises her hands in amazement, and the neighbor is ready to add, "just see how it took the raspberry jelly and chocolate ice cream out of my little girl's dress!"

Both women become ecstatic over the NEW AND IMPROVED product (those words are now shown printed on the corner of the box — flashing like a Saturday night), and I assume the old product is cast into the nether world with the dodo bird, soft music, and the Loxolophodon.

We have no way of knowing just how or to what extent the product is NEW, or IMPROVED; but we are willing to go along with progress. What "gets" us is the shabby treatment given the OLD and RELIABLE, that just last week was producing brilliantly white and flashing colors in the same TV wash room. With our own eyes we saw it tested against the latest, most popular powders and liquids, and came out with a no-contest win. Now, it leaves ugly smears and stains that look as if they had hardly been in water alone.

This is not Lipscomb, attempting to sweep back the tide of change. We are reminded of politicians who think we have forgotten earlier speeches; of preachers who praise NEW, IMPROVED church work and organization which they once recognized as unscriptural. We should be able to thank God for better methods of doing something scriptural without ridiculing earlier practices which served us well.

OLD or NEW are neither good nor bad because they are OLD or NEW. The modern yen for faddish disposables can do much harm in the church based on eternal principles of divine truth.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XX No.VIII Pg.1

October 1983

Dependence Upon God

Robert F. Turner

When the Israelites wanted a king "like all the nations" (1 Sam. 8:4-5), the problem was much deeper than the name by which they would call their ruler, or the form of government. Moses had told them the time would come when they could have a king (Deut. 17:14-20); but it was to be one whom God would choose (v.15) and he would be the means for God's rule over them (1 Sam. 12:12-15). Their basic sin was lack of dependence upon God.

The same fault was apparent with regard to the Jew's chosen status. In Romans 9 Paul points out that Ishmael and Esau were also descendants of Abraham, but Isaac and Jacob were chosen — wholly dependent upon God. The lineage of Christ was God's business — and arguing with Him was like clay arguing with the Potter.

Paul then asks, "What if God..." chose to show mercy to Gentiles as well as to Jews. "What if God..." made Christ the testing stone — so that He saves those who accept Christ, and rejects those who reject Christ. It is His business; who are we to complain? This chapter does not teach particular election. It emphasizes our dependence upon God. He provides the means of our redemption — the crucified Christ — that will save those who put their trust in Him.

Salvation is a gift of God (Eph. 2: 8), something promised. (Check multi-uses of "promise" in Gal. 3; 4:21-31) A "promise" is a statement of intent which prompts expectation and hope. The Jews failed to please God when they forgot their dependent position and acted as if God owed them honor. We will likewise fail to please God if we forget our constant dependence upon Him and His gift, and begin to act as if he owed us something.

We are to beseech Him for daily bread (Matt. 6:11) and be not anxious for other needs (vs. 31-34). We may cast all our care upon Him (1 Pet .5:67) but this requires that we humble ourselves "under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you in due time." There is no room for demands. We come before God as sinners, unworthy; "Just as I am, without one plea, but that thy blood was shed for me." Without Him, we are nothing.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XX No.VIII Pg.2

October 1983

Dying In Reverse

Robert F. Turner

While in a recent meeting in southern Kentucky someone pointed out that fifteen years ago there were but four (4) churches in that section standing openly and unashamedly against church support of "churchhood" institutions, "fellowship halls" with their "fun and frolic," and like modern developments. Now, in that same section, we counted twenty-five (25) such churches. The so-called "dying antis" seem to be "dying" in reverse. But I am persuaded that being against something is not enough to lead these churches through the coming years to strength and stability. In fact, I see now the strongest of those churches have combined positive factors with their stand against error.

It is encouraging to note growth of the cause of Christ, and we must thank God for it. But we must not allow ourselves to glory in the flesh. As "fun and frolic" and churchhood promotions put large crowds in some churches the "public image" grew; but fewer God-serving saints were being added to the work force, and congregations lost their spiritual character. The only way we can maintain solid long-term growth is to make greater sacrifices of time, money and effort; and concentrate on deeper commitment to spiritual development.

Many (institutionally) "sound" brethren are still undeveloped doctrinally. They may oppose churchhood projects, but be unable to present positive arguments for congregational independence. More recently, they may be hyper-suspicious of the word "grace" while being unable to give a Bible explanation of the subject.

I believe much of the organizational problems of my generation grew out of the fact that many brethren opposed the "missionary society" without knowing why it was wrong — could not present positive scriptural reasons for operating independently. If we continue to promote only reaction to the growing number of "issues" that will always hound us, we are doomed to a purely negative role.

The solution is courageous positive teaching — a setting of right beside wrong, so that it instructs in a positive way while it corrects. The solution is a positive program of personal work — taking the gospel to our neighbors, here and abroad: doing rightly what we criticize others for doing wrongly. The solution is closer genuine "fellowship" — concern for members who are weak, showing true love for their souls — so that "disfellowship" takes on new meaning. Unless we grow in the Lord our growth is meaningless, and we join the ranks of other "anti" sects.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XX No.VIII Pg.3

October 1983

God Has Spoken," But...

Dan S. Shipley

God "hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in his son..." (Heb. 1:2). But men have also spoken unto us. With excellency of speech and persuasive words of wisdom, they have troubled us with many variations of a perverted gospel; all different from that preached by the apostle Paul and other inspired men (Gal. 1). Missionaries have taken the doctrines and command- ments of men throughout the world. It has been printed on slick paper with the latest in sophisticated printing equipment and mass mailed to millions. It has been embellished with impressive and professionally produced TV specials featuring slick orators and moving testimonials. And, not without results.

More people have been more influenced in religion by what men have spoken than by what God has spoken. Denominationalism itself is a living monument to the influence of false doctrine. Doctrines of men denominate and divide, not the doctrine of Christ. Denominationalism offers men many ways to be wrong; the doctrine of Christ offers men one way to be right. Not that denominations do not claim to follow the Bible. Notice this affirmation from a popular creed-book: "The Holy Scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith, or thought requisite or necessary to salvation". To which we say, "Amen!"

However, in the same creed-book may be found "articles of faith" and practice that are not contained in the Holy Scriptures and certainly cannot "be proved thereby". One, for instance, says that "we are justified by faith only..." The Scriptures say otherwise (Jas. 2:24). Many believe and are influenced by what this and other denominations teach concerning justification by faith only. They think it to be Bible doctrine, but God has never spoken thusly.

Elsewhere, the same creed-book gives instructions for the baptism of infants. From whence cometh such a practice? From heaven or from men? The same could be asked concerning another statement about baptism. "Let every adult person, and the parents of every child to be baptized, have the choice of sprinkling, pouring, or immersion." The NT knows nothing of baptism by sprinkling or pouring; only an immersion, a burial (Rom. 6:4) as the word itself indicates, and as demonstrated in the baptism of the Ethiopian in Acts 8. Infant baptism and sprinkling as baptism are practiced, not to please or obey God, as some may suppose, but in response to doctrines invented by men. God deserves better.

It is not enough to be "religious" and well intentioned. Fellowship with God is possible only as we abide in the doctrine of Christ (2 Jn. 9). That requires knowing Truth (Jn. 8:32) and making it the standard of everything believed and practiced in the name of religion. False prophets and false teachings offer false hope. We need to be sure about our salvation! — and we can as we "prove all things" by the gospel standard (1 Thss. 5:21).

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XX No.VIII Pg.4

October 1983

No Works, No Law?

Robert F. Turner

I'm surprised that some brethren haven't started a "movement" in which they affirm their "freedom" from having to work; a "liberty" that allows them to do nothing. After all, didn't Christ himself say, "Work not for the food that perisheth..."? (Jo. 6:27).

And, how long will it be until we hear brethren questioning the need to be baptized and basing their contention upon 1 Cor. 1:17, "Christ sent me not to baptize..."?

Now most students would know how to answer anyone who seriously used these verses to teach such things. The emphasis in these texts isn't on the phrases after the word "not." Our Lord didn't teach "work not at all," but rather the need to be concerned about working for another type of "food" — "...but for the food which abideth unto eternal life." Nor did Paul say that baptism is unnecessary. He was emphasizing his work as an evangelist when he said, "...but to preach the gospel."

It is strange, therefore, to hear some brethren affirm their so-called "freedom" from law and works by citing "ye are not under law" (Rom. 6:14) and "not by works" (Tit. 3:5) in order to justify their claim. Why is it that some so easily see the misinterpretations of Jo. 6:27 and 1 Cor. 1:17 and then so badly misinterpret Paul's statements?

"Not under law" and "not by works" are not even the point of emphasis in these verses, much less a denial of law and works. The statements in both texts which follow the word "but" are what the writer is emphasizing: "...but under grace" and "...but according to his mercy." Just as working for food and being baptized were not being minimized, being "under law" and having "works" to do aren't being excluded either.

Under law? Certainly we are. But there is a difference between being under a system of law (and seeking justification by that law) and being "under law to Christ," (1 Cor. 9:21). It isn't law as such that Paul had in mind when he speaks of "the curse of the law," (Gal. 3:13), but a system requiring perfect obedience, (Gal. 3: 10-12). We are not under that kind of system but we are under law, for "...where there is no law, neither is there transgression" (Rom. 4:15).

Works to do? Yes. But there is a difference between works that are an attempt to earn salvation, and works that are an expression of faith and an attempt to do God's will. Rom. 4:45 illustrates this well. "Him that worketh" is not the man seeking to please God through obedience, but one seeking to work perfectly so that he can earn salvation, God owing it to him as a debt. "Him that worketh not" isn't one who does nothing, but one whose attempts at obeying God are imperfect.

Grace and mercy are needed as we submit ourselves to God's will or "law" for we imperfectly seek to do the "good works" we were "created in Christ Jesus" for (Eph. 2:10). It is this of which Paul speaks in Rom. 6:14 and Tit. 3:5.

David Smitherman

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XX No.VIII Pg.5

August 1983

Use Your Bible

Dan S. Shipley

GOD'S WORKER, 1 Cor. 15:58

I. GOD'S WORKER IS STABLE (Steadfast, unmovable) A. Not easily influenced by false teaching 1.Not "blown about", Eph. 4:4

B. Not easily influenced by distractions and discouragement 1.Even persecutions, adversities 2.Lack of visible results from work 3.Personal problems

II. GOD'S WORKER IS ALWAYS WORKING

A. Like Jesus 1."We must work the works of him that sent me.." (Jn. 9:4)

B. Like the apostles 1."They kept right on.." (Acts 5:42 NASV)

C. Like the early disciples 1."Continued steadfastly" (Acts 2:42)

D. Like Paul 1."I press on" (Phil. 3:12-14)

E. Great need of our time is persistance, perseverance 1.Too much "sputtering" service; too much giving-up

III. GOD'S WORKER ABOUNDS IN GOD"S WORK

A. A message here for all who would just "get by" 1.Willingness to go the second mile (Matt.5:41) 2.Abounding grace deserves abounding works (2 Cor. 9:6ff)

B. Worthy N. T. examples 1. Macedonians ("beyond their power", 2 Cor. 8:3) 2. Paul ("As much as in me is..", Rom. 1:15) 3. Mary ("She hath done what she could..", Mk. 14:8)

IV. GOD'S WORKER DOES GOD'S WORK

A. Not all work done in religion is God's work 1.God is not honored when our work is without Scriptural authority 2.Note emphasis on a Social Gospel

B. Work of the Lord is that authorized by the Lord 1.That unto which man of God is furnished completely, 2 Tim. 3:16,17

V. GOD'S WORKER DOES NOT WORK IN VAIN

A. Much "religious" work is in vain 1.That which is unauthorized and that done from wrong motive 2.That which we quit

B. Nothing in vain in the Lord's work

1. Not even the cup of cool water; not even the widow's mite

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XX No.VIII Pg.6

October 1983

Evolution And Evidence

Robert F. Turner

I admit it. I just cannot believe the theory of evolution. Why?

I cannot believe in evolution without rejecting plain Bible statements. Theistic evolution? "Believe evolution and the Bible?" No way! Such is a complete contradiction of terms. It is like a round rectangle — easy enough to say but impossible to draw. The Bible declares man was formed by God from dust; evolution says he evolved from the slime. The Bible says Eve was made by God from one of Adam's ribs; evolution traces her evolution to some apelike creature. The Bible limits creation to seven days — days defined by an "evening and morning"; evolution says this took millions of years. The Bible attributes to man a spiritual part — a soul like God; evolution accords him the place of a refined animal. No sir, to believe evolution I would have to ignore the Bible.

I cannot believe evolution while accepting the evidence of antiquity. The geological record is supposed to be evolution's stronghold, yet it does not fit the evolutionary picture. The more we learn from the geological record, the wider the gap becomes. Evolution's picture of the geological record is not what is found in the earth! All geologists — and evolutionists — know this to be true. And evolution affirms there were millions of years filled with transitional forms between the primitive creatures and those we now have. Where are all the transitional fossils? Surely some must be there! Nope! All the missing links are still missing. Not one has been found. Further, look at which fossils are found together. A man's footprint is embedded in the same formation as a dinosaur. Evolution says they did not live in the same age. And what about fossils of "modern" man found in formations containing "primitive" man from whom he supposedly evolved? No doubt about it — you cannot pay much attention to the ancient record and still believe evolution.

I cannot believe evolution because of current evidence. A kind of evolution works within all species today — what the Bible calls "kinds". For instance, cows are bred — evolved — to produce more meat or milk. We see this evolution. No one questions it. But where is the other kind? Threatened species do not evolve to solve their problems as evolution claims their ancestors did. Man may interfere and produce a mule or a chicken without wings. "Natural selection" does not produce even such small changes much less a whole new creature. And ask a cattleman if "natural selection" is progressive — will improve his herd. Seeing is not believing in evolution.

I cannot believe evolution because of its own testimony. Some stories are so far fetched they are unbelievable. Evolution tells of fish that leave the water to become birds. Hmm. This demands abrupt change. That fish must evolve in a few minutes or be a dead fish! A million repetitions will just produce a million dead fish! — and not a single bird! It is more incredible. Consider. Two fish must make that wild transition — at the same time — at the same place — and of opposite sex. Now that will tax anybody's gullibility!

Joe Fitch San Antonio, TX

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XX No.VIII Pg.7

October 1983

?You Know What?

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

Were the apostles "officers" in "the church"? If so, is this "the church local, or universal?

Reply:

"Apostle" means "one sent," having a special reference to chosen messengers "sent" by Christ to deliver His word to the world, and an ordinary reference to other messengers (Acts 14:4; translated "messenger" 2 Cor. 8: 23, Phil. 2:25). Jesus ruled out any hierarchal concept among His saints in saying, "One is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren" (Matt. 23:8,10). Apostles, bishops, preachers, all — brethren, with one Master.

Christ is our High Priest, and all saints are priests in His priesthood (1 Pet. 2:5,9; Rom. 12:1). There is no "clergy-laity" distinction among His people. The "bishopric" system which recognizes "officers" as a superior "class" having inherent authority, is contrary to the rule of Christ as an absolute monarch. Where the K.J. says "If a man desire the office of a bishop..." office is used in the sense of work or function. Webster illustrates this use by "It is the office of the eye to see."

Brethren sometimes say, "Apostles were officers in the universal church" but this is an error. They were chosen by Christ, specially equipped to bear His message to the world; but they spoke what they were told to say by the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 4:5-7). Their "authority" (10:8) was of this nature only: for "edifying," not legislating. They have an "office" only in the sense of being special "messengers." Very early writings outside the New Testament recognize the "priesthood of believers" (the right of any saint to teach, baptize, etc.) but early hints of clergy authority were rapidly developed into a "bishopric" system. It is claimed the apostles "passed" their authority to successors; and saints "under the governance of lawful pastors" became an essential part of the definition of "church." (This is why many Reformers continued to claim a connection with the Roman Catholic church — derived "authority" to function. This is why Mormons say Peter, James and John appeared to Smith and others, and "laid hands on them: — restored this "authority" to function. Exactly the same principle is involved in saying one has the right to preach only if "sent" by some church: a misuse of Rom. 10:15.)

The sacerdotal system (belief in a divinely authorized priesthood) is Judaism or worse, without New Testament authority, highly detrimental to the right of individual access to salvation in Christ through the divine word of God. The apostles are not "officers" in this sense in either the local or the universal church — and we should know the universal body of saints is not a functional organization anyhow.

Overseers, preachers, deacons, and others have various functions to perform, in keeping with qualifications and selection — a God-approved order. But "authority" remains with God, and is approached by appeal to His word, in good conscience. No man or group of men has the right to claim "infallible interpretation" or exclusive right of access to truth.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XX No.VIII Pg.8

October 1983

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

"If one man had killed another in cold blood, but no one knew about it; then, later in his life, he learned the gospel truth and wanted you to baptize him — but told you about his crime, and asked if he must first confess to the civil authorities — what would you tell him?"

I do not know what I would tell him. I do not even know what I would do if I were the man. But whatever I would do, or tell another to do, that is not the standard of right. If I could explain my feelings about this in great detail, it would not change the man's actual condition or final judgment, one way or the other.

I believe the Bible teaches murder is sinful. I believe it teaches those who have so sinned to look to Christ for redemption, and this necessitates their repentance (genuine sorrow for sin, and a turning from sin) and submission to Christ in baptism (Acts 2:38). It seems reasonable to expect restitution to accompany repentance when this is possible — certainly one cannot have repented of something in which he continues to engage, or from which he continues to profit. The penitent man in Christ's parable on the subject "went" to do what he had previously refused to do (Matt. 21:28-f). I would tell this man, and all men, these basic gospel truths.

"But if this man confessed his crime and went to prison, his usefulness to the cause of Christ would be lost — his life wasted,"

I did not say he should take this course — I do not know what course I would recommend in such a hypothetical case, and it is foolish for any one to pass judgment on such evidence. But let me remind you that Paul did some great work for the Lord while in prison. Who knows the outcome of whatever choice the man might make??

"Would you baptize him?"

To be or not to be baptized is his decision, and is validated by his heart, opened before God. My acceptance or rejection of the man neither saves nor condemns him. If I consider him a true penitent believer I could baptize him in good conscience. But "The Lord knoweth them that are his." I will not presume to judge for God.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XX No.IX Pg.1

November 1983

Polite To Sinners?

Robert F. Turner

One aspect of "fellowship" and "disfellowship," that seems to cause great disturbance, is its relation to association. Do I "have fellowship" with a person by doing business with him; or, if he is "disfellowshipped" may I speak to him on the street? Jesus "received" sinners and ate with them. Did he "fellowship" them? Paul went into Jewish synagogues and discussed scripture with Jews there. Did he "fellowship" Judaism?

Fellowship with God (who is Light) is contingent upon my walking in the light, whereupon my sins are forgiven and my sharing relationship with God is confirmed. But in addition to this common walk before God, where judgment is in His hands; I must decide whether or not to have a sharing relationship with other imperfect folk like myself. This sharing involved in Christian fellowship suggests common faith and goals, working to the same end. Condoning, encouraging, or entering a partnership to promote sinful activity would be fellowshipping sin. We believe neither Christ nor Paul did that, although they associated with sinful people. A subtle distinction may be seen in Paul's instructions re. meats. If one sees you sitting at meat in an idol's temple, he may think you honor the idol. He is led to do likewise, and you have harmed him (1 Cor. 8:7-f). Paul says he had rather not have meat than do that. But later he shows it is not the meat, per se, nor even the association that is wrong. He could eat meat at an unbeliever's feast if there was no "test case" made (10:25f). We must make such judgments with God's glory in mind (v.31).

When a former brother is disfellowshipped he is to be unto us "as the Gentile and publican" — i.e., as he was prior to conversion (Matt. 18:17). Christians do not snub, insult, or gossip about outsiders — do they??

We would have to leave the world to avoid association with all fornicators (1 Cor. 5:9-f), and Paul does not ask that. But he forbids eating (or other relations) with an ungodly "brother" that would seem to approve such life styles for Christians. Fair and courteous treatment for all men is not the same as fellowshipping all.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XX No.IX Pg.2

November 1983

Closing An Era!

Robert F. Turner

PLAIN TALK, a publication of the Oaks-West church of Christ, Burnet, Texas, was begun in January 1964, in an effort to promote better attitudes among brethren. We hoped to achieve this, not by "sugar-talk" or by hiding our true convictions, but by fair, open, objective discussion of issues common among brethren. The publication has been fully supported by Oaks-West, free to all who request it.

The February 1984 issue of P.T. will conclude twenty years of service and at this editor's request will be the conclusion of his work in this capacity. The elders of Oaks-West, in view of the editor's resignation, and sensing the closeness of the editor to the character of this paper, have decided to cease its publication with the twentieth volume.

The elders, and this editor, are keenly aware that there are highly qualified men who could carry on this work. Current writers do an excellent job, with special reference to the extended service of Dan S. Shipley, and the oft-quoted Joe Fitch. This church will retain her rights to the name and front-page format, for possible future use. Robert F. Turner and Publishing Systems, Inc. have copyrighted STUFF ABOUT THINGS.

In March, 1980, upon repeated requests from the public for reprints of earlier P.T. issues, and with consent of the Oaks-West elders, Dan S. Shipley and Robert F. Turner formed a partnership, provided capital, printed and bound in hard back, the first four years of Plain Talk. This was a private business enterprise, related to the church only in offering the public material first published by the church. Book Two, Three, and Four have followed. Book One is now out of print, and Books Two and Three are in short supply. Shipley-Turner plan an advertising mailing soon, to determine if there is sufficient demand for reprinting Book Five — the final four years of Plain Talk.

The closing of PLAIN TALK is saddening to this editor — though it is my doing. It is a closing of an era in my life, but not (God willing) of my work. With God's help new fields will be explored, more writing done, more teaching of God's word. Vivian and I continue to make Burnet our home, and my relation with Oaks-West church is unchanged.

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

In Sept. issue I said I was "prone" in a chair, trying to type. A reader correctly observed that meant, "face down, typewriter underneath you" and "no wonder you were frustrated." WOW!