Plain Talk

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.XII Pg.1

January 1966

For The Love Of God...

Robert F. Turner

She sat across the desk from me -- and asked, with obvious sincerity, almost in desperation, "how can I increase my love for God?"

I felt like thanking her, then and there, for restoring my faith in God's people. Someone really did care about this vitally essential relation to the heavenly Father.

"Why do you feel that you do not love God enough?" I asked.

"I do not do the He wants me to do," was her simple reply. She added, "I want to be a faithful Christian, but I am so weak." Her voice was low, but it conveyed an unmistakable message.

It said, "I am a sinner." It said, "Help thou my unbelief." And it said, "I love God!" Yes, it said that too. "I love God, and recognize His rightful demands of me. I want to serve Him, but I am weak. Help me to be a more faithful Christian."

In contrast I could not keep from thinking of the many who sing, "Oh, How I Love Jesus!" -- on the rare occasions when they assemble with the saints for worship. "I Need Thee Every Hour" -- once a week, or less; depending on fishing conditions. I reminded the contrite sister that God knew her heart. The apostle Paul also felt this struggle between his sincere desire to serve God, and the weakness of the flesh. "What I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I." (Rom. 7:15-f) Paul found the solution for this problem in the promise of forgiveness through Jesus Christ. As a positive approach, I urged the sister to more carefully screen her associates (I Cor.15: 33) and to pray more often. (1 Thes.5-17)

And I believe her love for God WILL grow. Her humility, her desire to please God, will feed and nourish this love; and love begets love. Her future looks brighter -- filled with hope. Meantime, the shallow-minded, selfish, and indifferent, will meet -- sing of their love for God -- and grow colder, and colder, and colder.

Oh church-member, be a Christian!!

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.XII Pg.3

January 1966

We Must Repent

Robert F. Turner

When John the Immerser began to prepare the way for Christ, he said: "Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand". And, "Bring forth fruits meet for repentance" (MAT.3:1-f.).

Jesus began His personal ministry by preaching, "Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (MAT.4:17). He spoke of the destruction of certain wicked men in disasters of His time, then said, "I tell you, Nay: but except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish" (LUK.13:1-5).

The first converts to Christ in the Christian dispensation had to "Repent, and be baptized every one of you -- " and "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, -- " (ACT.2:38,3:19).

Paul told the pagan philosophers of Athens, "The times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent" (ACT.17:30). Paul rejoiced that the Corinthian brethren "sorrowed to repentance:" "for godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death" (2CO.7:9-10).

It would appear that repentance is universally needed and demanded -- on the part of pagan, Jew, non-member and member of the body of Christ. The obvious reason is sin -- and where sin exists, God calls for repentance. We must recognize our sinful condition, and sorrow after a godly manner. This means we realize that we are in the presence of God, and are ashamed of conduct, word or thought that is so unbecoming to a creature of our pure and wholly good Creator. The shame we feel, knowing that our loving heavenly Father is aware of our sin, makes us truly humble. We prostrate ourselves, figuratively if not literally, before Him. Pride can not exist in such an atmosphere. The deeds, words or thoughts that brought us to this shame are loathsome to us - we turn from them with revulsion. There is no room for self-pity, no effort at self-justification. Our hearts cry out, "Oh God, I am a sinner!! Be merciful to me!!

That is repentance.

It swallows the penitent -- brings him submissively to the throne of God. It sets the stage for his future conduct. It is an essential element in the Christian system -- set in juxtaposition with the faith in God which makes true repentance possible. It aligns man with the mercies of God, providing the proper setting for his obedience. His faith lives in repentance and obedience, and by repentance faith and obedience are joined. Small wonder that Peter wrote, "The Lord is -- longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" (2PE.3:9).

Now hear this!! The pride that keeps you from repentance, keeps you from the salvation of your soul. You know you are in error -- but "what will people say -- " "how will friends react"?? Repent -- or perish!!

Current trends, including atheistic psychiatry, say "feel no guilt" - but God says feel, regret, repent, be forgiven -- -and begin a new life.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.XII Pg.4

January 1966

Use Your Bible ...

Robert F. Turner

This page is usually devoted to rules for Bible study, or to an outline which encourages personal searching of the scriptures. The later purpose prompts the following somewhat unrelated material. 

 

JESUS CHRIST SAYS "I AM-----" 1. The bread of life------------------------------------------------------------------- Jn.6:35 2. The light of the world------------------------------------------------------------ Jn.8:12 3. The door----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jn.10:9 4. The good shepherd-------------------------------------------------------------- Jn.10:11 5. The resurrection, and the life------------------------------------------------- Jn.11:25 6. The way, the truth, and the life---------------------------------------------- Jn.14:6 7. The vine------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jn.15:5 

Give yourself the satisfaction and profit of turning to each of these passages, and read enough of the context to grasp the significance of Christ's self-revealing assertions. 

TO HIM THAT OVERCOMETH......... 1. "will I give to eat of the tree of life"----------------------------------------- Rev.2:7 2. "shall not be hurt of the second death."--------------------------------- Rev.2:11 3. "will I give to eat of the hidden manna, 

and will give him a white stone----"----------------------------- 

Rev.2:17 4. "will I give power over the nations--- 

will give him the morning star."---------------------------------- 

Rev.2:26-f. 5. "shall be clothed in white raiment; and I 

will not blot out his name out of the 

book of life, but I will confess his 

name before my Father, and -- angels."---------------------- 

Rev.3:5 6. "will I make a pillar in the temple of my 

God, ----- write on him my new name."----------------------- 

Rev.3:12 7. "will I grant to sit with me in my throne"-------------------------------- Rev.3:21 

 

Although these seven promises, coming from a book of highly figurative language, present technical problems in interpretation, the majesty and greatness of the promises are unmistakable. They urge us to faithful service, to the very end of our earthly journey.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.XII Pg.5

January 1966

"...Isms" Among Brethren

Robert F. Turner

The Lord's church s neither denominational nor sectarian. It is simply the aggregate of God's people -- the "saved" (people) -- the (people) called out of darkness by the gospel (ACT.2:47; 1PE.2:9; 2TH.2:14).

Baptism is not a "church ordinance" for it does not depend upon a church for its authority (MAT.28:18-f) nor for administration (ACT.8:35-38). We are baptized into Christ (GAL.3:27) -- not into a local church. When one is "joined unto" Christ he becomes a member of Christ's church (EPH.5:23-f), a part of that "body" joined unto the Lord. This "universal" church is an organism, a relationship of individuals unto Christ, not a functional organization. Christians are citizens in Christ's kingdom in the same sense that they were once citizens in the kingdom of Satan (COL.1:13).

The scriptures do recognize an organizational structure among saints -- the overseers and servants of a local church; (PHI.1:1) but God-approved organization "begins and ends" with a local church (ACT.14:23; 1PE.5:1). Further, the "rule" and standard for the Lord's church is of divine origin (2CO.10:12-f; ACT.2:42). It is not the traditions or "majority opinions" of the members.

Denominationalism and sectarianism arise when the principles of the past paragraph are ignored. Single, independent congregations can never form a denomination. With such an arrangement the "brotherhood" remains a hood of brethren -- the units being individuals. We open the door to denominationalism when we change "brother" to "church"-hood; and think of the body of Christ as consisting of "sister" churches. Failure to emphasize this point has made "our" brethren ripe for denominational developments. Sectarianism puts its foot in the door if we fail to "prove all things" by God's word. A peculiar characteristic of sectarianism is its ability to make folk think they have proved a matter if they have "always" done it that way, or if "big" preachers or papers approve it. The sectarian spirit is manifested in an unwillingness to fairly examine one's practices in the light of God's word; with name calling and "marking" of any who dare to differ with us. The sectarian thinks all who question his practices or leave his place of assembly have "left the church". Poor fellow!!

Today denominationalism and sectarianism run riot among many who claim to be followers of Christ and members of His church (Some even speak of themselves as "church-of-Christers" -- and rightly so. This is not the language of a simple New Testament Christian.). These folk do not like "Plain Talk" -- they will likely fire this issue back at us, marked; "Refused!" or worse. But they will not change their sectarian attitude; they will not hear our plea for fair open Bible study of all problems.

What can we do about denominationalism and sectarianism among brethren? The same thing we do about it among those who have never known the truth! We love them, teat them fairly, try to teach them the truth both by plain speech and Christ-like example.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.XII Pg.6

January 1966

Current History

Robert F. Turner

This Month our "History Quote" is current - a reprint of statements from the charters of various benevolent societies which are now operated by some brethren and supported by some churches of Christ. We thank bro. Jesse M. Kelley, editor, RESTORATIN APPEAL, for compiling this material.

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

CHILDRAVEN: "A benevolent Institution under the name of Childhaven." 

-- Charter Preamble. 

GUNTER: "This Corporation is created for Benevolent and Charitable Purposes only." 

-- Article 6 

SUNNY GLENN: "We do hereby associate ourselves for the purpose of forming a Charitable and Benevolent Corporation." 

-- The Charter Preamble. 

TURLEY: "Articles of incorporation of a Charitable and Benevolent Corporation. 

-- Charter Heading. 

BOLES: "This corporation is created for Benevolent, Charitable and educational purposes only." 

-- Charter. 

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

Can you not see why we contend that these are NOT "needy churches" or "needy saints" -- objects of assistance according to scriptural example? These are "institutions" "corporations" -- societies set up by men, to do benevolent work for the churches. These societies ARE NO "METHODS" BUT ORGANIZATIONS WHICH "USE" METHODS. Contributing churches support a human institution or society; and the society provides a home, or education, or whatever their charter allows.

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

CHILDRAVEN: "The purpose for which this corporation is formed is to establish and provide a home for dependent, destitute or homeless children."

-- Article 3.

SUNNY GLENN: "The purpose for which this corporation is formed is to maintain and operate a home for the support, maintenance and education of orphaned and other indigent children."

-- Article on Purpose.

BOLES: "The purposes of this corporation are to provide a home for destitute and dependent children."

-- Article 2.

CHRISTIAN HOME AND BIBLE SCHOOL: "The purpose of said corporation is to establish, maintain and operate an orphan's home and elementary and secondary institution of learning."

-- Article 4.

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

Do you wonder that those who advocate church support of colleges are saying that if the churches can support benevolent societies, they can also support educational societies???

Institutionalism is smothering the Lord's church; appropriating its functions, draining its treasury, and creating a denominational "organized brotherhood" behind the smoke-screen of "poor little orphan children."

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.XII Pg.7

January 1966

Queries And Answers

Robert F. Turner

Dear bro. Turner:

Must an unbeliever receive the Holy Spirit before he can understand the written word of God? Please discuss 1CO.2:12 in this connection.

Reply:

Apparently you have read the Nov. 9, '65 Firm Foundation, in which this doctrine is espoused. I have written the editor, pointing out the error, and urging him to repudiate it. This is Calvinistic doctrine, wholly without proof in the scriptures.

The writer makes the old arguments of Calvinism, i.e., scriptures are "spiritually" discerned, and "the Spirit becomes the glasses, as it were, through which he (alien, rft) can perceive the truth of the gospel". He joins the unbeliever "in his very analysis and examination of that revelation, so that he can rightly undersand it (1CO.2:12)". There is much more, but space limits quotations.

1CO.2: refers to inspired men, as the apostles; not to an unbeliever who is studying the word. Paul says, (1CO.2:4-f) "my speech -- was in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, desiin the power of God". Compare 1CO.2:7,10, "we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery" and "God hath reveled them unto us by his Spirit" with Paul's statements in EPH.3:3,5, "by revelation he made known unto me the mystery" and "now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit". It is shameful that such a blunder was printed without some sort of correction. The F.F. writer says "A natural or unspiritual man cannot even understand the message the Spirit brings, because it is 'spiritually discerned' 1CO.2:14". But in context (above) this only explains the difference in the uninspired man and the "apostles and prophets" of the NT. One injects, without warrant, an entirely new thought into Paul's statement when this is applied to any unbeliever.

Further, Paul is talking about receiving information directly from God; not about reading what inspired men wrote. Paul told the Ephesians that "when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ" (EPH.3:4). Truth had to be revealed to the apostles and prophets, but we can grasp this truth by reading (see JOH.20:30-31; 2PE.1:13-21, 3:1-2).

True, the gospel is hidden to them that are lost (2CO.4:3-f). This is the results of willing blindness, not the failure of the H.S. to enlighten (Context -- "when it (the heart) shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away" 2CO.3:15-16). Compare JOH.5:37-47; MAT.13:11-16 etc.

I dislike sounding like an "old-timer" -- I'm not really that old; but many of our current preachers need to lay aside their commentaries and other books written by Calvin College, Presbyterian and Reformed, and like scholars; and read their Bibles for awhile. Ramm, Hendricksen, Barclay, and others like them have some fine works; but many of them are shot through with Calvinism, and/or other H.S. error. If you just must -- read T.W. Brents, Gospel Plan of Salvation.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.XII Pg.8

January 1966

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

This Is Just A Little Story!!

Two library books, dusty and shelf-worn, slipped quietly from the room one hot sultry day, and took a little walk beside a cool stream that flowed through the town. The trees cast a deep shade over the little park; and there were no people around to break backs, turn down corners, or write on margins. They had such a lovely time.

After a while, one book proposed, "Come, let's wade in the cool stream." The second book hesitated, but the first firmly grasped its hand (-- er, bookmark) and led it into the pool.

"But it is rather deep here," the second book protested. "Do you really think this is the thing to do?"

"Exactly the thing," replied the first book. Then, without a word of warning, it grasped the unsuspecting volume and pulled it back -- gently but firmly -- until it was completely buried beneath the water's surface.

When it raised the surprised and puffing book once again to a standing position, the second book shouted, "Hey! That's no way to treat a friendly dictionary!"

"That was to teach you something," replied the Bible. "Now THAT, is what I mean by BAPTISM." And the gentle summer breeze parted the pages to reveal Rom.6:4 --

"Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."

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

Karl Von Clausewitz is quoted in Reader's Digest as saying," A conqueror is always a lover of peace. He would like to make his entry into our state unopposed."

And the promoters of innovations in the worship and work of the church manifest the same love for peace. The error is taught, the church treasury is used to support it, but "we must have peace" -- meaning, "keep quiet, do not oppose our pet projects."

It is forgotten, or ignored, that our first obligation is peace with God; and this kind of peace demands that we be at war with error. Freedom from strife must not be traded for freedom to strive for peace with God.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.III No.I Pg.1

February 1966

The Authority Of Truth

Robert F. Turner

Truth is, abstractly, "a conformity to fact or reality" and its authority is the authority of reality. What is, must remain in constant conflict with that which only seems or claims to be.

Other types or sources of authority, such as that of parent over the child, state over citizen, must conform to truth or "right," or face an inevitable rebellion. (Might can not make right -- a lesson all advocates of "majority rule" should remember.) (Rebellion, of itself, does not prove a thing right; but does confirm the force of conflict between truth and error. Both represent power.)

Truth does not, as error, seek to force itself upon us. It must be sought after -- freely grasped. Many never find truth for the simple reason that they are too lazy or unconcerned to seek it. But let none think respect for free-will lessens the authority of truth. Disregard it, and the consequences of error are imposed. The world is filled with confused and unhappy people who, knowingly or in ignorance, have tried to live in conflict with truth. Truth is a benevolent ruler. It frees its subjects from entangling traditions and prejudices. It opens to us the wondrous harmony of the universe; with Creator and creature, spiritual and material, each in its place. It breeds the peace of unity.

But truth exacts her price. An honest man may walk in error while he searches for truth; but once he finds it, he must change his ways or become dishonest. Truth is the boundary of research in any given field; for when truth is known, one has no further freedom there. He must be subject to that truth, or wear the cloak of hypocrisy. Truth beckons the seeker, but binds those who enter her realm.

Such sovereign authority is, in its ultimate sense, suited to God alone. Jehovah is God of truth, His word is truth (Deu. 32:4; Jno. 17:17). Respect and desire for truth leads man to God, and any other attitude is contrary to God-like-ness. The way to heaven is the Way of truth (Jno. 14:6) and woe to him who spurns Him.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.III No.I Pg.3

February 1966

Water In God's Plan

Robert F. Turner

In the very long ago God chose to use water as the means of destroying a sin-cursed world. (Gen.6:) I do not know why He did it this way. I'm sure there were many other means at His disposal--but God sent a great flood upon the earth, by which he removed the corruption, and saved Noah and his family. (1 Pet. 3:20-f) Thus water became a "dividing line" between the filthy and the cleansed.

When God delivered the children of Israel from Egyptian bondage, he led them to the Red Sea. This was not the regular route out of Egypt. Not far to the north was a dry-land route. But God led them to the sea, and made for them a path between walls of water. They were immersed in cloud and sea. (I Cor.10:1-f) When Pharaoh's army sought to follow them, the sea closed on it, destroying this enemy. Thus water became a "dividing line" between bondage and freedom. I do not know why God did it this way.

When Naaman, captain of the Syrian army, came to God I s prophet for healing of his leprosy, he was told to "wash in the Jordan, seven times. (2 Kings 5:) It does seem a strange requirement! Naaman said, "I thought" the prophet would do differently. He reasoned that his homeland streams were better than Jordan -- if water was all that was needed. But of course water was only the medium chosen by God for this miracle. I do not know why God did it this way.

But I know that when Naaman submitted to God's command, and dipped seven times in Jordan, he was healed of his leprosy. Some may ask, "Was there anything in the water that contributed to this healing?" I answer, "Yes!! Naaman was in the water, where God told him to be." The healing was by God's power, but it was applied to an obedient subject only. Thus water became the "dividing line" between sickness and health.

When Jesus healed the man born blind (Jn.9: 1-f) he used water as the "dividing line" between blindness and sight. He anointed the man's eyes with clay, then said, "Go, wash in the pool of Siloam."

I do not know why He did it this way. I only know that the man was blind until he did what the Lord told him to do -- and when he washed, he could see.

God, with divine power, cleansed the world, freed Israel, healed the leper, and gave sight to the blind. In all these manifestations of His power He used the element water. He asked the subjects to use that water as He directed; and He withheld the blessing until their faith was thus demonstrated. I do not know why. It has not occurred to me to question.

And it is difficult for me to understand why people who claim to have faith in God, will question His command to be baptized "for the remission of sins." (Acts 2:38; 22:16) Is it so strange that God would choose to use water as the "dividing line" between the old life of sin, and the new Christian life? (Rom. 6:3-f) The more puzzling question is how a true believer could "reject the counsel of God against himself?" (Lu.7: 30)

 

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.III No.I Pg.4

February 1966

A Christian Pays His Debts

Robert F. Turner

In past issues we have used this page for Bible Outlines, and articles about Bible study. Now, in Volume 3, we will devote this space to articles on Christian living -- or, if you are allergic to that particular adjective, we'll call it A Living Christian.

A living Christian pays his debts. He pays them with money, or whatever it is that he owes. Lacking that, he makes a satisfactory arrangement with his creditor on a substitute basis -- perhaps he "works it out" or pays with other substance of equal value. He squarely faces his just obligation and his conscience will not allow him to ignore, forget, or use any unjust means of "side-stepping" it.

Rom. 13:8 reads, "Owe no man anything -- " and commenting upon this bro. Whiteside wrote, "If a man pays promptly according to contract, he owes nothing. 'Render to all their dues' -- pay what is due."

Years ago someone asked David Lipscomb if one should make his wife a "freeholder to hold property against his indebtedness." Bro. Lipscomb replied, "It is sin for any man to make arrangements with his wife or any one else to avoid paying his debts -- that is, to defraud his creditors; and all fraud to avoid paying debts -- is dishonest. A man who owes others and is not able to pay ought not to give money to the service of God. God likes clean offerings, and will accept no other kind." (Queries and Answers, 127)

While yet a very young preacher I heard bro. N.B. Hardeman say that if we (a group of young preachers) did not learn to live within our means and pay all bills promptly, we could never serve the Lord successfully. I have seen his statement proven many times -- with fine Bible scholars and wonderful speakers loosing their influence and wrecking their lives because they ate Canadian bacon on a hog-jowl salary. Preachers are not the only ones that need to find their proper place on the hog.

I further agree with bro. Lipscomb that "there is no point at which the cause of Christ suffers more than in the dishonesty and indifference of church members to act honestly and uprightly and to be faithful in paying their debts, or in trying as far as able to pay them. Then the church treats these cases with indifference, honors men that do not pay their debts, and the cause of God suffers. A revival of honesty is greatly needed among Christians" (Ibid., p. 127)

Credit buying is not, within itself, wrong. But it requires skillful and cautious use. The "easy-payment" plan has triggered many foolish purchases, and led foolish people far beyond their means. No, I am not an economist -- I'm trying to be a faithful preacher. When one buys beyond his means he opens the door for many temptations. The "bind" may cause him to compromise his convictions, slight his obligations to the Lord, or cheat his neighbor. A free, independent man must be an honest man, pay his debts. He must shun all indebtedness he may not be able to pay -- promptly, fully.

"You Can't Get Nuthin' Fer Nuthin'."

 

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.III No.I Pg.5

February 1966

"Discipline" Or Revenge?

Robert F. Turner

A young man wishes to be baptized into Christ. Request for the use of a baptistry is refused -- with strong language. Those who have taught the boy to want to obey the Lord, are thought to be in error on another matter. They must be "disciplined."

The mother of a member of one congregation dies; and the family (many of whom worship with that church) ask the preacher of another congregation to "preach the funeral." Members of the first church refuse to provide the singing (although the funeral is conducted in their building); and a "singing-preacher" of the same town "has a sore throat" (but is able to attend and ridicule the effort.) (The whispering and elbow jostling was reported by non members too.) All this to "discipline the Anti-s."

Whenever people differ there may be some whose little souls can do no more than think personal bitterness. This is true on both right and wrong asides." But to assign such vindictiveness to "discipline" is self-deception of the first order. This is not "discipline," it is revenge.

The word "discipline" comes from the same root word as "disciple." It refers to teaching and learning. The motive behind scriptural "church" discipline is love for the erring, with a sincere desire to teach them the truth and have them conform thereto. Paul denounces the incestuous person at Corinth, and calls upon others to "purge out" the old leaven; but the same passage says "that the spirit may be saved," and warns of malice and wickedness. (I Cor. 5:1-f.)

The Thessalonians were told to "have no company with" the disobedient saint "Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother."(2 Thes. 3:)

If my brethren believe me to be in error they are obligated to try to teach me the truth. (God's word is truth -- not man's traditional ways.) My doors are open to them. The elders where I preach have invited their preacher to come and preach to us. We would welcome any sincere effort to have a public or private discussion of the scriptures pertaining to our differences. We have asked for consultation meetings, to no avail. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to take this "discipline" bit seriously. The actions smack of cruelty.

Whisper campaigns, misrepresentations and snubbery are no part of N.T. discipline. If I and my brethren need discipline (teaching) we are being cheated. Our souls could starve to spiritual death on such treatment.

And let me make this plain. We believe someone else needs some teaching, and to this end seek to make the various contacts mentioned above. our PLAIN TALK is kept as objective as possible (we could multiply the incidents given in opening paragraphs, and spell out the people involved) but we want to help, not hurt. We do not wish to treat our brethren as an enemy, but admonish as brethren-- and pray for the salvation of their souls.

The cause of Christ will prosper-not through the use of carnal weapons (2 Cor. 10:2-f)-- but through the few or many who will obey His truth.

 

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.III No.I Pg.6

February 1966

Church "Cooperation "?

Robert F. Turner

Jan. 28, 1932, writing in the Gospel Advocate, bro. H. Leo Boles said:

"To operate means to work, and to cooperate means to work together to the same end. There can be no working together of churches without the churches themselves working. Churches that do not work cannot work together; churches that do not operate cannot cooperate.

Every church in the universe that operates or works according to the will of God cooperates or works together with every other church in the universe that is working according to the same rule. Churches which are fulfilling their mission separate and independent of other churches nevertheless are cooperating with all other churches that fulfill their mission. It seems that we ought to see this, that we ought to recognize this fundamental truth. This is the only church cooperation that is taught in the New Testament.

When a number of churches undertake to work in or through an association or organization not authorized in the New Testament, or by a law or rule not of God, they place themselves out of harmony with all the churches operating under the divine law, out of harmony with the law of God, out of harmony with all the will of God, and out of harmony with God Himself. Such churches cannot claim to be cooperating with other churches that are fulfilling their mission as God directs churches to do."

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

Bro. Boles clearly recognized what brethren today refuse to see; viz., that there is a vast difference in COOPERATION and the more limited concept of COLLECTIVE ACTION.

COOPERATION is a broad term, which includes collective action, but which also includes concurrent independent action. My neighbors and I may "cooperate" in a Clean-Up Week without pooling our funds or acting through a "sponsoring" family. Each family, working with complete independence, (using its own funds, and making its

own decisions through its constituted head) could clean up and paint-up. This is the kind of "cooperation" the scriptures authorize -- the kind bro. Boles was advocating.

True, if the neighbors agreed to act as one on the clean-up project-if they established a common treasury (of means and/or abilities) and allowed one man, or family, to oversee and direct the project-- this would also be "cooperation." But it would be COLLECTIVE ACTION cooperation, and would involve something more than the single independent family structure. COLLECTIVE ACTION cooperation of a plurality of churches is completely without authority in God's word.

The organizational structure of the church begins and ends with the independent congregation. We say that -- and we also practice it.

Others say it-- but do not practice it. And because we call attention to their inconsistency they accuse us of "not believing in cooperation." It might be "amusing" if it was not so downright "confusing."

6

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.III No.I Pg.7

February 1966

Queries And Answers

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

Please discuss the oneness taught in John 17:11-f. ES.

Reply:

The oneness of Jn. 17: is profound; and I can not do it justice here. The problem is further complicated by the shallow and almost blasphemous uses to which the passage has been put; as, "This proves we should all remain in the same building".

Oneness of Father and Son, of the Apostles, and of all who believe -- is obviously something more that organized or mechanical unity. Commenting upon Jn. 14:21, Henry Alford says:

"This unity has its true and only ground in faith in Christ through the Word of God as delivered by the Apostles; and is therefore not mere outward uniformity, nor can such uniformity produce it. At the same time its effects are to be real and visible, such that the world may see them". 

The apostles were kept in God's name during Christ's personal ministry; and in His absence He prays God to continue this keeping "that they may be one" (Jn. 17:11-12). The name here is not a label, but refers to Holy characteristics of God, manifested in Christ; (Jn. 17:6) in which those who abide in God's word are kept.

(If you haven't enough interest in this to read Jn. 17: -- carefully -- do not expect this to make sense.)

Christ prays that all believers be one "in us" (Father and Son) and says this oneness is made possible through "the glory which thou gavest me" (Jn. 17:22). This is not the "glory" of authority (Jn. 7:39; Matt. 25:31) but a characteristic which believers share with Christ and the apostles -- "the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth" (Jn. 1:14).

Jesus had said, "If a man love me, he will keep my words; and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him" (Jn. 14:23). The point of Jn. 17: is the oneness achieved when followers of Christ partake of His nature (2 Pet. 1:4) having the mind of Christ (Phil. 2:5-f.) loving and obeying Him, and thus having a "kinship" with God.

This kind of oneness among saints is the only true basis for their working together. Without it "meeting together" is meaningless, and the bonds of such mechanical union become sectarian. When oneness with God is hampered by union with men, separation is commanded (Acts 19:9; 1 Cor. 5:). Who "stays with the building" has no relation whatever with the spiritual unity God demands. This was so when loyal brethren "left the building" when the issues were the missionary society and the organ. It is so today when the issues are the benevolent societies and the social gospel.

Brethren truly desirous of attaining the oneness of Jn. 17: (by which physical "togetherness" is also kept) must show a willingness to study the Word of God together. Human tradition and sectarian lines must be put aside. Oneness in God and Christ are not achieved by quarantine, slander, name calling, or cruel treatment.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.III No.I Pg.8

February 1966

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

And the devil taketh him into a city, close to his home community and near his wife's people, and showeth him a new modern church childing. Behold, the elite of the city attendeth there, and the mayor of the city was an elder thereof.

And the devil showeth him the home of the preacher; having three baths and being air-conditioned. Verily the salary was large, and the car-allowance liberal. And the devil sayeth, "All this can be thine -- if thou wilt fall own and worship me."

And there are plenty of takers for the devil's proposition. I believe it is not the size of the reward that is so attractive -- (a hard-working man can match it in many ways) but the self-deceiving ease by which the devil may be worshiped. One need not bow before a horny-headed, long-tailed, fork-bearing red devil. Nothing so evident as that. But many can, and do test the wind of majority opinion and decide doctrinal "positions" accordingly. This is a subtle way of rejecting the authority of God. Many can reduce sin to generalities, state bible principles in such broad terms that the application is missed, and in many other ways, serve Satan.

Faithful preachers are both cursed and respected. Cursed for standing in the way of evil designs, for firm convictions to which they hold, for making the sinner -- rich or poor -- uncomfortable. They are not our conscience but they stir the conscience to life, and hold before us God's perfect way. But they are respected, even by the ungodly, who are still honest enough to recognize sincerity and integrity.

Today the "position" of the preacher is much lower than in former years. More general education and social contact by the masses is not the only reason. The character of the preacher has changed. Now he is "one of the boys," a "good sport" who is not shocked by immodesty nor fired to action by corruption. He is moved by "policy" rather than by faith; by conformity rather than by conviction. Perhaps in quiet moments his spirit is troubled-- he sees himself and is appalled -- but he does nothing. He has "Sold Out" to Satan, and even the pool-room boys know it.

The fault is not his alone. "The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and MY PEOPLE LOVE TO HAVE IT SO--"

--------------- Jer. 5:30-31

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.III No.II Pg.1

March 1966

Our Attitude Toward Error

Robert F. Turner

Now and then some readers get upset because we speak so plainly. They seem to think that our battle is personal, and that we are trying to punish someone with words. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Grievous error exists among members of the Lord's church, respecting institutionalism, the social gospel, and a sectarian attitude that forbids open discussion of the errors. These ARE NOT JUST LOCAL PROBLEMS, but extend nationwide. (Nearly 75% of our PLAIN TALK goes outside Burnet Co., to 20 states or more.) We feel an obligation to God, as soldiers of the King and lovers of His people and His cause, to strive to reach those souls that will be lost through error. And, failing this, to keep others from drifting into the same errors.

Yes, many non-members get PLAIN TALK. We have nothing to hide. There is no shame in fighting honestly and openly for the truth of God. Significantly, it is those who refuse open Bible study who dislike our unashamed approach. As for private studies, or Bible discussions with parties involved, our desire for such brotherly discussions is so strong that the slightest hint of reciprocal interest would bring us together.

Some day some honest souls are going to awaken to the fact that we love those who are lost -- aliens, backsliders, sectarians, all. It will finally soak through that our PLAIN TALK does not mean we think we are perfect, or the standard for the conduct of others. Somehow some folk will get the message -- that we simply want to fulfill our obligation to our neighbors, asking them to join with us in the search for truth in the word of God. We pray God for patience, and that includes perseverance.

Truth does not fear investigation; but error hides behind quarantine tactics. It says, "Don't read PLAIN TALK!! Take me off your mailing list." Upon request, we'll do just that. But stopping the clock does not change the time of day. You and I must one day give an account of our attitudes, words, and deeds, to an all wise God who knows exactly how fairly we have dealt with His precious Word.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.III No.II Pg.3

March 1966

Christian Or "Moses-Ian"?

Robert F. Turner

The law that God gave the Israelites through Moses had been in existence for 1,500 years when Christ came. Since Christ lived and died under the Mosaic dispensation, we are not surprised to hear Him say, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; -- ". Then Christ warned of the hypocritical actions of these teachers. (Matt. 23:)

Did Christ mean we today should be "Mosesians" instead of Christians? No, He was teaching Jews, at a time prior to the Christian Age. Later He sent His Apostles into "all the world" to preach His gospel to "every creature." (Matt. 28:19; Mk. 16:15; Lu. 24:46-) Yet many people today think Christianity is nothing more than a few moral principles -- which, in reality, Jesus cited from the Law of Moses.

For example, many seem to think "Christianity" consists of keeping the 10 Commandments. These commandments were given through Moses, and are recorded in Ex. 20:1-f. The text states that they were given to the Israelites; and the 7th. Day Sabbath is directly related to Jewish history. (Deut. 5:15) How can keeping the 10 Commandments make Christians?

What Jesus had to say on killing, adultery, swearing, etc., is different from what Moses said. Take time to read Matt. 5:21-f. "But I say unto you" is prominent throughout. Jesus taught "as one having authority, and not as the scribes." (Matt. 7:28-29) Now does it not clearly follow that in order to be a disciple of Christ we must accept His statement of matters -- and not rest our case on Moses? It is not enough to refrain from adultery. We must cleanse our hearts of lust. The oft-called "golden rule" was, according to Christ, a summation of "the law and the prophets" (Matt. 7:12). We read "Love thy neighbor as thyself" in Moses' law (Lev. 19:18).

It is not my intention to minimize these great truths; and I realize that Christ gave them new dimensions; but He did much more than this for us. Christ died for us! As our King and Priest He reigns from heaven. From heaven He sent His New covenant, via the inspired Apostles and Prophets of the New Testament. And we must hear Christ -- not Moses -- if we are to be Christians. (Note Matt. 17:1-5)

Christ established His church, giving certain commands by which we may become followers of His. (Matt. 16:18-19; Mk.9:1; Acts. 1:8,2:1-f.) He is savior of the church (Eph. 5:23-) having given Himself for it. (Acts. 20:28) He commanded His followers to partake of a memorial supper, saying, "This do, in remembrance of me." (see Matt. 26:26-f; 1 Cor. 11:23-f)

The church, baptism, the Lord's Supper, etc., are not from Moses, nor from some church society of today. They are things of Christ, clearly. How can one ignore these things, yet claim to be a Christian?

To sum up, we have too long made Christianity some general moral platitudes, as Mosaic as they are of Christ; and have ignored the genuine challenge of following the Son of God.

 

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.III No.II Pg.4

March 1966

A Christian Works Hard

Robert F. Turner

And there goes my tremendous popular appeal! I can hear someone say, "he's quit preaching, and gone to meddling". But I must stick with my gun. A hard worker is not necessarily a Christian, but a good Christian is also a good worker; for good reasons.

A "sluggard" is one habitually lazy; a drone. Solomon said, "Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways and be wise." (Prov. 6:6) He describes the sluggard "as vinegar to the teeth, and as smoke to the eyes" "to them that send him." (Prov. 10:26) In Eccl. 9:10 he says, "Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; --" advice sorely needed in our "get by" world.

The Christian has the right attitude toward work. Paul wrote, "Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God: And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men." (Col. 3:22-f; Eph. 6:5-f) A Christian works "heartily" -- puts his "heart" into it. He approaches the job with joy, with positiveness which begets vigor. And the task is lighter because of this.

The Christian's motive for work is high. He works "as unto the Lord" knowing there is a Master above his earthly master. Then in Eph. 4:28 Paul writes, "Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labor, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth". Here is a human facet to work-motive. It takes "self" out of the picture, and adds nobleness of purpose. There is nothing undignified about this kind of work, be it banking or ditch-digging. It is an essential part of a rich, full life.

Paul wrote, "Let him steal no more" -- which may point up the fact that a lazy man is often a thief. He may steal by stealth -- killing time at the water cooler, leaning on the hoe, or working only when the boss is in. He thus accepts wages under false pretense; insulting the name of Christ. Or, he may commit armed robbery, with an unfair, pressure-bought union arrangement as his gun. This is not a blanket attack on labor unions; but a reminder to boss and worker alike that might does not make right, in secular or spiritual affairs.

It is a sick society that no longer feels pride in accomplishment, nor considers the completion of a job a part of the reward of labor. The challenge of the task should be stimulating -- a mountain that must be climbed because it is there. I do not know how our "wages by the hour" economy could be changed -- but there is something basically wrong in its tendency. It places no premium upon accomplishment. It does not prompt an unskilled worker to improve. It encourages "put in your time" instead of "get the job done". And blanket wage scales tend to favor the sulky, "good-for-nothing" "let John do it" employees.

But this economy does put the "Christian" worker to the test. He can prove himself a true follower of the Lord "working with his hands;" or prove himself a miserable failure at applying Christian principles to life.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.III No.II Pg.5

March 1966

"Becoming" A Church-Member

Robert F. Turner

For years gospel preachers have taught "one does not join the church"; and members have parroted "one does not join the church, one is added to the church." The distinction is valid if properly understood; but I fear it is not widely understood, and often the words become mere "church of Christ" nomenclature.

Receiving Christ gives one "power to become" a child of God. (Jn. 1:12) Of "become" Robertson says, "to become what they were not before." The new baby does not "join" the status of son or daughter---it "becomes" a child, and a member of the family. Of the new life, Paul wrote, "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature; old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." (2 Cor. 5:17) Coming into Christ one becomes a part or member of Christ's body (Eph. 2:13,16) thus one "becomes" a member of Christ's church. (Eph. 1:22-23) Now take it slow and easy---and read the scriptures cited with great care.

One does not "become" a Christian and then, at some later date, "join" the body of Christ. One "becomes" both a Christian and a member of the church of Christ by one and the same process. The "church" of which we are writing is, of course, that one great universal body of saints; those called out of darkness by His gospel. This church is not a "church-hood" or "brother-hood of sister-churches"---if you can picture such. It is neither all the churches, nor a special portion of the churches. It is simply a figurative (or "spiritual" if you prefer) gathering or assembly of saints, of which you may "become" a part. But when you have become a member of the body of Christ (His "church" in the universal sense) you will, if possible, "join" with other disciples in your worship and service of God. Paul sought to "join" with the disciples in Antioch---at least he was no longer considered a part of the Jerusalem company. (Acts 15:22)

These local groups, or fellowships, (such as the saints at Philippi; 1:1) were also known as "churches" (1 Cor. 1:2; Rom. 16:16) and exemplify the one and only church organization known in the New Testament. Perhaps one may speak of "joining" the local church, and do no injustice to language; but we should understand that we "join" with other disciples to form a local church. "Join" (kollaw) means to glue or cement together; then generally, to unite, to join firmly. In passive voice it signifies to join oneself to, be joined to." (W.E. Vine)

The true church of Christ on earth today is not a group of congregations bound together in some "church-hood" by name, creed, or practice. The true church of Christ is, today as always, the body of called-out people who acknowledge Christ as their head, and serve Him faithfully. If, in your community, there are true disciples of Christ "joined together" to do the Lord's bidding, they constitute a local "church of Christ." But don't be fooled by a Name. Test their preaching and practice by the Word of God. The true church of Christ welcomes such investigation. They urge you to "become" a Christian, and "join" them.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.III No.II Pg.6

March 1966

Burnett's Advice In 1895

Robert F. Turner

In 1895, churches of Christ (or "Christian churches" as some called them) were divided into "Progressive" and "Anti" groups -- Or "digressive" and "loyal," depending on who named them. The controversy had begun with cooperation meetings, which led to "brotherhood projects" and finally to the setting up of an organization through which many churches could "do good" (such as sending preachers to a foreign field) by pooling their funds.

The missionary society, and the spirit which fathered it, spawned other changes including the use of mechanical music in the worship. Feelings ran high -- and all the way from "stomp out the opposition" to "better to practice error than 'cause trouble in the church'." (Of course these weak middle-of-the-roaders finally went into the liberal camp.)

At this time the well-known preacher T. R. Burnett wrote in the Gospel Advocate (May 9, 1895) the following:

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

"This budget becomes more and more convinced every day that it will become necessary to establish churches of the apostolic order in every town in the state where the so-called "Christian Church" now holds sway. The lawless determination of the society and organ people to rule or ruin every church with which they have connection, and either put in the unscriptural things, or put out the brethren who oppose them, makes this plainly evident.

The loyal brethren need not waste any valuable time waiting for a reformation, for there is none in prospect. Ephraim is joined to his idols, and he would rather have his society and music idol than any kind of Christian union known to the Bible.

Brethren, proceed to re-establish the ancient order of things, just as if there was never a church of Christ in your town. Gather all the brethren together who love Bible order better than modern fads and foolishness, and start the work and worship of the church in the old apostolic way.

Do not go to law over church property. It is better to suffer wrong than to do wrong. Build a cheap and comfortable chapel, and improve it when you get able. It is better to have one dozen true disciples in a cheap house than a thousand apostate pretenders in a palace; who love modern innovations better than Bible truth. The battles of this reformation have yet to be fought."

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

It simply amazes me that churches of Christ today -- many of whom came to their present state by following the advice of Burnett or others like him -- could be so utterly blind to the historical repeat which is taking place. Of course we are several generations removed from the earlier issue and I can understand that those who will not read church history are unaware that such things ever happened. But to refuse to investigate-- to dissolve fellowship rather than have Bible study of the issues -- this is incredible. For sure -- it separates man-pleasing sectarians from the faithful few who love the Lord.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.III No.II Pg.7

March 1966

Queries And Answers

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

There seems to be some fundamental fault in "limited benevolence" since Christ taught us to love our enemies; and Gal. 6:10 clearly teaches us to "do good unto all men". Please comment on this subject. MP

Reply:

There certainly is a fundamental fault in "limited benevolence" -- the terms are contradictory as applied to Christianity.

"Benevolence" means, basically, to "wish well" -- and describes attitude (To be particular with our wording, "beneficence" is the act or gift that benevolence produces.).

Christian "love" (agape) is unselfish, all-embracing, loving even the unlovely. With such love we love all sinners -- even those we can not call "brother" or fellowship in Christ. We love our enemies -- even those with whom we can not, for other reasons, "walk, stand, or sit." (Psm.1:1) We love, and are anxious to forgive all those who sin against us -- although God still expects them to repent and ask forgiveness before He reinstates them in His fellowship. (Lk. 17:3-4)

Some serious reflection should show us that advocates of the social gospel, which puts the organized church in the general welfare business -- building homes for unwed mothers, and fishing camps for under-privileged children -- have abused and misused God's "law of love." They have also THAT LAW, by making it appear that those who respect God's word, using the resources of the local church only as divinely authorized, have no love for humanity.

Paul wrote, "If any would not work, neither should he eat." (2 Thes.3:6-) Did Paul mean they were not to love such a one?. No! But he regulated the outflow of assistance. Paul also said the church should not be charged with the care of those widows who were the responsibilities of others. (1 Tim.5:16) Does this mean not love them? Of course not!

Our "benevolence" is unlimited. As Christians we are concerned for "all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith." (Gal. 6:10) God's regulations concerning the work of the church never contradicts this law of "unlimited love." Although the organized church, from her treasury, is authorized to perform certain limited acts of beneficence only -- for, after all, the function of the local church is predominately spiritual -- Christians, as individuals, are clearly taught to extend material help to saint and sinner alike (Matt. 5:43-f. and like passages as cited above.)

Those who advocate church support of human institutions "doing good" would do well to reflect on the size of the door they are opening. The schools, hospitals, camps, and all come into the church budget via this gate. Or maybe they don't "love" the schools -- and who is kidding whom?

Some love us so much they will ignore this article and go right on telling others that we don't believe in feeding starving orphans. Oh well, love is a fickle thing, I hear.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.III No.II Pg.8

March 1966

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

For many years the most fearless defender of congregational independence; the most active opponent of institutionalism in the church, was a man whose initials are Foy E. Wallace. (I learned this name trick from him.)

The early Gospel Guardian, Bible Banner, and his personal TORCH, were filled with plain talk. When criticized for being so plain and direct, bro. Wallace said he didn't intend for someone else to have to make his applications for him. And he had a point, he certainly had a point!!

For application is one thing "we ain't got much of." Apparently some people are not too much bothered by TRUTH -- as long as it is couched in general terms, or wrapped in principles. "Thou art the man" is the part that raises their blood pressure.

Lots of thieves believe in "honesty" -- they just refuse to believe that income tax cheating is stealing. And principles, we like to think, are what we live by. In reality, many church members refuse to apply the principles they know to the things they practice; or, perhaps more likely, they fail to understand the principles they freely mouth. How else may we explain sermons on "Congregational Independence" by men who encourage a "brotherhood of churches" project; or "All-Sufficiency of the Church" by preachers who support benevolent and missionary societies? Or readers who get upset when PLAIN TALK pins down a specific case of ungodliness -- after calmly reading many articles on the principle involved.

We strongly believe in dealing with Bible principles, and seeking to explain WHY a thing is right or wrong. We like to "get to the bottom" of the problems before us -- but if we fail to make some simple applications of God's truths we fear the point will pass beneath many readers. Jesus, the master teacher, never forgot the "top-water" majority -- for which we are personally thankful.]

So -- PLAIN TALK will continue to develop Bible subjects with all the depth, and appeal to basic truth, of which this writer is capable. And we shall continue to make specific applications when clarity demands this. We are most complimented when you know what we are talking about -- whether you like it or not. When you can't see the point, we may be too deep for you, or -- gulp -- too muddy.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.III No.III Pg.1

April 1966

"Creed-Bound" Minds

Robert F. Turner

By some strange travesty those who cry loudest for liberty are often the ones who mean liberty for their opinions only; and "non-sectarian" preachers have a way of becoming the most "creed-bound" of all. The absence of an official written "discipline" is no guarantee of an "open pulpit".

What is a "creed"? The word comes from the Latin "credo" which means, "I believe" Many creeds of today retain the form of the so-called Apostles' Creed, each article beginning with "I believe -- ". They are concise statements of belief, or doctrine, which identify the "position" of the maker.

Perhaps the first creeds were formulated in an effort to combat what was believed to be error -- to state with clarity some matter that was being questioned -- or simply an unashamed affirmation of principles upon which certain ones stood. Today our brethren write little creeds in tract form, to show what "we believe"; or as clauses in deeds to church property, to keep a church building in the hands of men who gave the same "I believe" as the original owners (This seldom works, because of the failure to apply yesterday's principles to tomorrow's problems.). Are such "creeds" wrong? Not necessarily! After all, "we do believe" certain things, whether we write them or not. But should we claim to state that which must be believed, anything less than God's word is too little, anything more than God's word is too much, and anything different from God's word is condemned by this fact. A Christian's "creed" may be stated as his confession that Jesus Christ is Lord -- which recognizes the Son of God as having "all authority," and accepts everything taught in His covenant. We believe, accept, and practice -- recognizing as a basis of fellowship with Christ and Christians -- only those things which may be proven to be "by His authority".

The error of "man-written creeds" (as we call them) is (1) man's presumption to shorten, lengthen, alter, or better arrange God's revelation of truth; and (2) the setting up and acceptance of some man's "I believe" as a standard of right and wrong.

"Creed-bound" minds are minds tied to one's own or some other's "I believe" -- no longer free to approach God's word objectively, to be changed by this unchanging divine standard.

Creeds and sectarianism have moved hand in hand through history. Certain "beliefs" are accepted as "orthodox," and become the standards for determining "fellowship". Tradition, majority rule, big churches, papers, preachers, and such like take the place of God's word -- and all who object must be marked and ostracized. These seem to think Rom.16:17 reads, "mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine of our party and traditions". This is sectarianism, whether in or out of the church, and it will send souls to hell.

But someone asks, "Should we not 'believe' something; and should we not have firm convictions, wanting others to accept what we believe to be the truth?". We should indeed! And, we may state, even write, what we believe about a matter without being a creed maker, or "creed-bound". The difference lies in one's attitude toward his beliefs. Have they become his standard, or is he still willing to "prove" them by God's word?? Do we become angry if someone questions our "beliefs"? Are we unwilling to discuss them in the light of God's truth? Do we refuse to consider any conclusion other than our own? Are we fair with ourselves in answering the questions of this paragraph? There is One who knows my heart -- and yours??

Speaking Of Creeds In Deeds...

In 1939 the deed to church property in Henderson, Tex. read: "- no innovations, such as mechanical instruments of music in the worship, Church shows, festivals, suppers, or human societies, such as are not authorized by the New Testament shall be tolerated in the church building.."

In 1959 (just twenty years later) when a much more liberal element had developed in Henderson (making it necessary for conservative brethren to go their separate way) the liberals built a new building, and wrote this into the new deed:

"no..church shows, festivals, suppers, or human societies, such as are not authorized by a well defined and clear-shown majority of the Churches of Christ in Texas, shall be tolerated in the church building.."

Underscoring is mine, but the difference is that of truth and the new "Church of Christ" sectarianism.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.III No.III Pg.3

April 1966

A "Good" Conscience

Robert F. Turner

Some engines are built to run at a certain speed; and to maintain a constant rate of speed a mechanical gadget, called a "governor," is used. When properly installed and adjusted the governor will retard the engine if it tends to "run away", or it will speed up the engine if it labors.

If the governor is improperly set it will, of course, cause the machine to run incorrectly and perhaps ruin it. But in such a case we could not blame the governor- which performed exactly as it was set to perform. We must determine who improperly adjusted the governor, and lay blame there. The governor is not the standard of right and wrong; it is simply a sort of mechanical police force, that acts according to predetermined rules.

Now if you can understand the difference in this mechanical gadget and the "authority" by which it is set; you can understand the difference in man's conscience, and the standard of truth by which it must be "set" if it is to "prick" us at the right time. Thousands of people rely on "follow you conscience" -- and never give a thought to the adjustment of their conscience, nor to the rule book by which that adjustment may be checked.

When Paul "verily thought" with himself that he ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth (Acts.26:9-) he acted -- "in all good conscience before God" (23:1, 24:16). It didn't hurt his conscience to persecute Christians, because his conscience was so adjusted. But his honesty did not justify his actions. His Jewish background: his upbringing, and education, had shaped his thinking -- even as our background shapes our thinking. He was "honest with himself" (had a good conscience) but was honestly mistaken. If having a clean conscience is all that is necessary to go to heaven there was no need for Christ to die, no need for the Bible, no need for anything commanded by God. Think that over, and try to "be honest with yourself". LOTS OF FOLK ARE HYPOCRITICAL WHEN TALKING A GOOD CONSCIENCE.

When Paul learned the truth about Christ he had to act accordingly -- to keep a good conscience. Conscience is not truth, but a governor which urges us to act according to our conception of truth. As children, our parents taught us as best they could, and our childhood environment molded our conceptions of right and wrong -- even affecting deep-seated moral tendencies. But God's revealed truth is our standard (Jn.17:17; 2 Tim.3:16-). As adults accountable to God, we must now think for ourselves and "adjust" our conscience by an honest appeal to God's standard of truth.

The conscience itself is not the standard for anything; its important task is to goad us into action that accords with our very best and most honest knowledge. It is a governor, a piece of moral mechanism that comes as standard equipment on every intelligent human being. Treat it rightly, and it will serve you well; but sear it (1 Tim.4:1-) or use it as excuse to ignore God's message (the Bible) and you'll "believe a lie" and be damned (Read 2 Thes.2:10-14).

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.III No.III Pg.4

April 1966

"Dear Mom, I Think Of You-"

Robert F. Turner

A Christian "honors" his parents. This is so obviously "right" that the Apostle Paul appeals to children on an axiomatic basis (Eph.6:1). Would any person in his right mind think to deny the truthfulness of it?

Yet, in every age, men have sinned by ignoring their obligation to their parents. Gentile pagans, not under a codified law as were the Jews, could know "by nature" that "this is right" and were adjudged sinners when they were "disobedient to parents" (Rom.1:30,2:14-). Paul wrote to Timothy, "If any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel" (1 Tim.5:8).

The "first commandment with promise" was "honor thy father and mother;" (Ex.20:12 Eph.6:2) and while this promise was physical in nature, there can be no doubt that many will miss heaven because their narrow selfish hearts shut out feeble and needy parents. It is a shame compounded by the willingness to lose this precious relationship in the "General welfare" category, and "let the government do it -- after all, we pay taxes".

"Honor" is translated from a word meaning "to make heavy" hence, a valuing, a price paid or received. It signifies "to hold dear" "an object of value" There are times when the word seems to point directly to financial support (1 Tim.5:17) -- and "honorarium" we might say -- and always, the "honoring" of parents includes the exercise of concern, and a willingness to supply their needs. We shelter and protect those we "hold dear". Paul indicates that an infidel does this much for "his own," so we can not say that all who care for their parents are Christians. But how "in the Name of Jesus Christ" (and I write this reverently) can we call a man or woman a Christian, who will not honor his parents?

It hurts me to the core to know of church members who live in good homes, drive fine cars, pulling expensive boats, whose parents are in need of attention they never get. Sometimes I visit these senior citizens. If I ask about the son or daughter a wrinkled, palsied head drops and I am told, "No, John -- or Mary -- haven't been here for some time". And then, ever the parent in defense of the child, "But they are very busy you know. John has such a responsible position -- and he really doesn't have much time -- -!!"

I feel like telling John that his beautiful home needs remodeling. Not air-conditioning, or a new den-room; but an additional bedroom and bath for his aged mother. A place she can call her own -- apart, and yet a part of the family she suffered to start.

True, some aged people need care we may be unable to give in our house; but we can accept the responsibility. We can write something more than the "bills we have to pay" to explain why we will not send them assistance. If "Corban" for God was hypocritical, (MAR.7:6-13) what of "Corban" for the country club, unneeded clothes, etc.?

Aged people are often "difficult"; not unlike your tantrums as a child. Will "our Father" honor your excuses?

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.III No.III Pg.5

April 1966

Could The Church Be Wrong?

Robert F. Turner

Could "the church" be wrong? Is it possible that a portion---or even all of the members of a congregation (including their elders) could be in error with respect to doctrine and/or practice? Could several congregations be wrong Could a majority of congregations be wrong?

One of the most basic fallacies of Roman Catholicism is its conception of the "infallible" church. But some one says, "The church of the New Testament could not be wrong!" WHICH ONE will you use as your example? The one at Corinth? Ephesus? Laodicea? But you say "I'm referring to the 'whole' church, the body of Christ." And I remind you that this organism, this relation of individuals to Christ, does not exist as a functional organization. The characteristics of the perfect church must be gleaned piece by piece from the divine records. By command, example, and necessary inference we learn what Christ would have us be and do as a local church. The divine purpose and intent alone is without fault. In all functional churches---and here the N.T. allows us to speak only of individual congregations---the human element is present, and we are forbidden to use such a church as a pattern. (2 Cor.10:12-)

The new testament, the covenant or law of Christ, is that which was set up on the first Pentecost after the resurrection (Isa. 2;1-2; Joel 2:; Acts 2:) and the body of people who accepted this law, and by a practice of its instructions brought into being the Jerusalem congregation, were the product---not the makers of a divine standard. The same principle continues to this good day, and both the First and Twentieth Century churches could and do err. (See Rev. 2:; 3:) In every century, in every generation, each church must prove its right to the name "church of Christ" by showing identity with the divinely approved church characteristics found in the New Testament. We must pay more than lip-service to this principle. When we begin to think a thing is right because a "Church of Christ"---or a majority of the "Churches of Christ"---or ALL of the "Churches of Christ" do or teach it, we have bcome sectarian in our conception of the church, and need to revise our thinking.

God's word is the pattern by which a true church must be cut. Did you ever cut 2x 4s to frame a wall, or pickets for a fence? If you obtained a pattern, cut the first by that pattern, then threw the pattern aside and cut the second by the first---and so on---you learned the fallacy of identity by succession. Any slight difference in the second was passed to the third---and the slight difference of the third was added to the error of the first, and passed on. To cut a true wall, or fence, we must measure each cut by the original pattern. This is no less true with reference to the church.

A crying need of our time is a firm resolve to determine right by an appeal to God's truth, rather than to "a well defined and clear-shown majority of the Churches of Christ in Texas." Cancellations will be received with as much grace as we can muster.