Truth Magazine

By Robert F. Turner

Soon after the beginning of the Lord’s church the concept of church was subjected to change. Instead of being considered a people of God, there was a growing tendency to consider the church an institution of God not simply instituted (as was marriage), but a universal body politic. Perhaps it is impossible to say whether the change in concept produced changes in government, or changes in government produced changes in concept, but it is clear that a misconception of church officers developed hand in hand with apostasy in government, structure and concept making a Judaism type “priesthood” in what was supposed to be the “New Testament” church.

Remember when the mother of James and John brought her sons to Christ and asked that they be allowed to sit in high places in the kingdom (Matt. 20:20f). Christ said to be great in His kingdom one must be a servant. He cited the concept of rule that prevailed among kingdoms of men, and said “not so shall it be among you.” There is no hierarchy in Christ’s church. All are priests, figuratively speaking (1 Pet. 2:5), under Christ our High Priest (Heb. 7). Our Lord repeatedly warned the apostles about desiring “high places” and forgetting that “one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren” (Matt. 23:8). In Christ’s view of matters, there was only one step in the ladder of authority. He occupied the top of the ladder, and apostles, prophets, elders, deacons, preachers, and those some call “laymen” — all occupied the common position of “brethren.”

This is not to say every one has the same function. For a while, certain ones were “power-equipped” for roles essential to “the perfecting of the saints, unto the work of ministering, unto the building up of the body of Christ” (Eph. 4:llff). But the special gifts that made these roles possible were not permanent, nor did this represent a hierarchal order of authority. In I Corinthians 12 the list includes “miracles, gifts of healing, helps, governments, and divers kinds of tongues. ” Those who had such gifts are likened unto members of a physical body-“and those parts of the body, which we think to be less honorable, upon these we bestow more abundant honor” (v. 23). Each member of the body has an “office,” in the sense of the dictionary example: “They (the eyes) resign their office and their light.” Here, “office” is not a power position of authority over other members. It refers to function, in a body made up of parts equally necessary to the whole. (Remember “. . . all ye are brethren.”)

In early restoration literature, and from some current writers, we are told the Apostles were “officers” in the Universal church. Our brethren usually insist they had no successors, but continued in that role through their writings. Continued in the figurative role of ambassadors with the King’s message, yes; but were they ever “officials” of a universal church organization? This is vitally pertinent to the basic question regarding church concepts. It is the “take off” point for Roman Catholicism, and for all other “historic church” concepts-resulting in international, national, or denominational church organizations. Paul said his “authority” was for “building you up” (2 Cor. 10:8), and claimed to do no more than deliver truth (2 Cor. 4:7, 5:18f). The apostles bound and loosed what had already been bound and loosed in heaven: as is apparent in the future perfect passive periphrastic tense of Matthew 16:19. If grammar is distasteful to you, consider the fact that they were forbidden to teach until they could speak as the Spirit gave them utterance (Lk, 24:49), which means the message originated in heaven, not in the minds or from the “office” of the Apostles.

We may reason, the apostles were “officials,” but they had no legislative authority, i.e., they could not make laws. Could their decisions be ignored or disobeyed with impunity, or were their directives to be regarded as divine law? I believe we can say they were either legislators; or, they had an “office” in the sense of function, viz., that of inspired message bearers, and the directives originated with God. James seems to settle the question by writing that there is one legislative, executive, and judicial authority, and that is God. (Read carefully Jas. 2:10-12; 4:11-12.) This does not erase the need for ambassadors, experienced advisors, and qualified leaders in the early church. But they asked for following only on the basis of inspiration and their example of Christ following (1 Cor. 11:1).

If the apostles were not “officials” of the church-if they had no legislative authority in and of themselves, it should be clear that uninspired elders do not occupy such a position. 1 Timothy 3:1 (KJV) does say, “If a man desire the office of a bishop . . . ” but there is no separate word here for “office.” A literal translation is, “If anyone oversight aspires to . . . ” and this refers to the “work” of overseeing. The KJV continues, very aptly, “he desireth a good work. ” It is not a “position” (office in that sense) that is under consideration, but a “function” or “work” that should be desired. The bishops are neither lawmakers nor “dignitaries” in a hierarchy, but mu t follow laws of God, and urge others to do the same (Tit. 1:9-11). The same reasoning eliminates evangelists and deacons from an “official” preeminence of position in a local church. The whole church (assembled or otherwise) follows divine instructions, and neither makes nor validates those laws.

But Hebrews 13:7 reads, “Obey them that have the rule over you. . . .” Four different Greek words are translated “rule” and three are applied to elders. Here the word for “rule” (hegeomat) means “lead” and signifies one who is out in front as a guide or military leader. It is not amiss to say elders have the “office” (function) of leading. Then, in 1 Thessalonians 5:12 we are told the elders are “over you in the Lord.” Here the word (proistemi) means “stand before” and indicates they have the “office” (work) of directing, managing, conducting. Elders are to “shepherd” the flock (1 Pet. 5:2), and that word (poimaino) is also translated “rule.” The office of the elder is to feed and protect the flock. But the fourth word translated “rule” (archo) means “preeminent, first” and is never applied to elders. Jesus uses the noun form of this word to speak of “rulers of the nations” and says, “not so shall it be among you” (Matt. 20:25f).

Godly elders have a heavy load to bear and are worthy of our respect. We should submit to their judgment and work as a team under their guidance. They are not “officials” in the political sense of the word, but nonetheless workers with God, who need our support and assistance.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 12, pp. 358-359
June 20, 1985

By Mike Willis

The Guardian of Truth is happy to announce that brother Robert F. Turner has agreed to contribute articles to this paper on a regular basis. Brother Turner was born in Scottsville, Kentucky on 3 November 1916. He was married to Vivian Allison on 12 December 1936. They have two children (Barbara Semmelmann and James A.) And three grandchildren.

Brother Turner has been preaching the gospel for fifty years. He has done local work in Illinois, Indiana, Arizona and Texas. In 1962, he moved to Burnet, Texas to begin work with the Oaks-West Church; since then, he has made Burnet his home. In 1968, brother Turner resigned from the local work at Burnet and began to work full-time in gospel meetings, holding 20-35 meetings each year. In January 1979, he “retired.” For the next four years, he taught the fall semester at Florida College and then held 10-12 meetings each year in addition to that. He is presently living in Burnet and conducting 10-12 meetings each year.

Brother Turner is best known to many of our readers for his work in Plain Talk. For twenty years he edited and wrote this 8-page paper which had a circulation as high as 8,000. His unique style of writing has been attractive to many readers all over the United States. We think our readers will enjoy his articles and we feel privileged to have them as a welcome addition to Guardian of Truth. Brother Turner will be writing a regular column, one which will appear 18-22 times each year. You can expect to read his material on page 6 or 7, depending on the layout. I know that you will look forward to reading from him and will benefit from his years of study.

Both brother Turner and I want our readers to know that there has been no compromise of convictions in our agreement to work together. We met together and discussed specifically some of the areas we thought that there was disagreement. We rejoice in the fact that we found no disagreement of substance between us. Brother Turner has been misrepresented by those who would imply that he believe a Christian may sin with impunity. He believe all sin, whether committed ignorantly, inadvertently, or presumptuously, is contrary to God’s will, and forgiveness is promised only upon conditions set forth in God’s word. We both believe that grace for the Christian is continuously available but conditionally received. The Christian who is involved in the practice of sin must cease the practice of his sin in order to stand justified in the sight of God.

Though there is no doubt that each of us would express some thing differently, we are aware of no significant different in doctrine or application. Brother Turner’s name has been linked erroneously with some other writers who have made very loose statements regarding “continuous cleansing.” Last year, I perceived that some brethren among us were ready to cut themselves off from men who disagreed on “continuous cleaning” but who had no difference in practice or in application of scriptural concept. Consequently, in an editorial dated 1 March 1984, I expressed that I had no desire to cut myself off from those who disagreed on this subject but whose practice was the same. In that editorial, I mentioned several men with whom I perceived disagreement and from whom I did not want to be cut off. Among those I mentioned was brother Turner. Unfortunately as I can now see in retrospect, this wrongly implied that brother Turner’s beliefs are identical to some others who have taken positions on continuous cleansing with which both brother Turner and I are in disagreement. My statement also implied that there was a difference in my convictions and brother Turner’s on the subject of continuous cleansing. Though some have assumed and asserted a difference exists, so far as he and I can tell, there is no significant difference between us on this subject. Though my main purpose was to express my desire for continued fellowship with him and others, I recognize that my statement implied that brother Turner took a position which he denounces. I regret that my statement misrepresented his convictions and apologize for it.

Brother Turner has a free hand to write on any subject he pleases in Guardian of Truth. Based on his past work in other periodicals and bulletins, we look forward to his contributions to our own work.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 12, pp. 358, 377
June 20, 1985

By Kenneth E. Thomas

No married man may reach his full potential for service to God and man without the proper kind of woman to encourage and share his trials, tribulations and victories. Many men have been made great men just because of the woman chosen for a lifelong companion and helpmate. Other men have been held back and lived a life of mediocrity and some complete failure both as to this world and in the one to come because of marrying a woman of the wrong disposition and attitude.

During the Jewish exile period, Nehemiah laments the sad conditions of his people and lays some of the blame on the wives they had chosen.

In those days also saw I Jews that had married wives of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab: And their children could not speak in the Jews’ language, but according to the language of each people. And I contended with them, and smote certain of them, and plucked off their hair, and made them swear by God, saying, Ye shall not give your daughters unto their sons, nor take their daughters unto your sons, or for yourselves. Did not Solomon king of Israel sin by these things? Yet among many nations was there no king like him, who was beloved of his God, and God made him king over all Israel: nevertheless even him did outlandish (foreign) women cause him to sin (Neh. 13:23-26).

What Bible student isn’t familiar with king Ahab of Israel who, on top of walking in the steps of wicked king Jeroboam, added insult to injury by marrying Jezebel the daughter of an idol worshiper of the Zidonians? He was influenced to build a house for the false god Baal in Samaria. (See 1 Kgs. 16-31-33.) In 1 Kings 21 we are treated to an example of just how wicked Jezebel, wife of king Ahab, really was. Ahab tried to buy a vineyard from Naboth. Since the vineyard was his inheritance, Naboth was not disposed to part with it, even if the king did want ft. The king pouted, would not took at anyone and refused to eat. When his wife Jezebel found out what his problem was, she conspired a way to have Naboth put to death for, of all things, blaspheming the true God (whom she did not even believe in), knowing the law of God that the penalty was death by stoning. The charge was made, the penalty paid by this innocent man, and Ahab got his vineyard as his possession (1 Kgs. 21:1-13). A prophecy was issued against Ahab that the dogs would lick his blood which later literally came true (v. 19). See 2 Chronicles 21:5-6 and 2 Chronicles 22:14 as an example of a son doing evil because of his mother’s influence. John the immerser’s head was cut off at the instructions of a mother who had been burned by John’s preachings against her adulterous marriage to Herod, Philip’s (her real husband’s) brother (Matt. 14:1-9).

It is difficult enough, to say the least, to live as we are enjoined to do and train our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, when both parents are faithful, dedicated Christians. It becomes virtually impossible when there is division or even a lack of commitment to the principles of New Testament religion for this to be accomplished! There are, of course, exceptions to even this general rule. For example, there are cases when one, whose parents are far from being Christians, hears and later obeys the gospel and serves the Lord in faithfulness. Then there are cases when, so far as we can see, both parents are totally dedicated to living as Christ’s word directs, and their children never obey the gospel or go away from everything they were taught as children. But the general rule is, “Train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it” (Prov. 22:6; see also Eph. 6:4).

Too many parents and some who profess to be Christians have a great desire to see their children popular in school and among their peers and will not set their foot down against a number of things commonly practiced in the various school systems of our land. If our children aren’t taught to forego those questionable or actually sinful practices while under our care in grade school or high school, don’t expect them to gain conviction enough later in life to be a peculiar person and try swimming up stream against the tide of popular opinion, practices of society and false religions. It will rarely happen! You see if they are allowed to dress immodestly and to participate in religious holiday activities at school or go to the prom, etc., they are forming the habits and convictions that will likely follow them the rest of their adult lives, again with few, rare exceptions.

Someone said, “Give a boy and a pig everything he wants, and you will have a fat pig and a bad boy.” That’s just about the case, don’t you think? Children hear the preacher as he talks about “taking up the cross,” “giving yourselves to the Lord,” “sacrifice,” and “be not conformed to this world,” and they watch their own parents leave off important spiritual matters and do just about what they want to, when they desire to, with little attention to modesty, sacrifice, and influence! What do you think they think when this is the case? You know! You may not want to admit it, but you know what they think. Also, as far as they are concerned, the preacher is just an “old fogy” who is out of touch with real life and wants to take away all of our fun. The happy, fun-filled fife, my friends young and old, is a life lived wihin the rules of the religion of Christ. It is then that we can, “rejoice in the Lord always, and again I say, rejoice” (Phil. 4:4).

Just imagine how wonderful it would be in eternity to be one like Timothy’s grandmother Lois and mother Eunice, of whom revelation speaks through the apostle Paul in 2 Timothy 1:5, whose faith was such as to influence this son and grandson to obey Christ and become a companion to Paul, one of the greatest men and gospel preachers (except Jesus) ever to walk among men! The man wrote by inspiration the greater portion of the New Testament Scriptures and “labored more abundantly than they all by God’s grace” (1 Cor. 15:10).

Do you as a parent ever attempt to influence your son or daughter to consider giving themselves in a lifetime of service to the Lord’s work as a preacher or the wife of a preacher? How about working to qualify as a deacon or elder or as the wife of either of these? Actually, many mothers have discouraged their children from this noble work simply because too often the pay isn’t nearly what they could make in another line of work. Secondly, they have to be out all hours of the day and night dealing with spiritual problems or teaching the gospel of Christ, and the women have to stay home and keep things in order or many times go along to assist in babysitting, etc. Then since the women of such servants of Christ know that criticisms of their husbands work will always be a factor to contend with, some say, “I’ll never marry a preacher or an elder or a deacon, etc.” And as I said above, many times a mother will tell her daughter what a sorry, sad life such would be and discourage her. Brethren, is it any wonder that we aren’t, setting the world on fire for the Lord? Why, it’s amazing that we do as well as we do I Our greatest enemy isn’t the denominations fighting against us. We are being defeated from within by the very ones who should be holding up the banner of truth against all odds, and in the face of every kind of opposition and persecution!

Besides, we should rejoice that we are counted worthy to suffer and sacrifice for the cause that cost the blood of God’s only Son (Acts 5:41-42). Thank God there are still many godly mothers and grandmothers, faithful elders, deacons, preachers and members.

Here is a poem I composed to all the good mothers.

Good Mothers

Good Mothers, my friends
Are hard to find.
No one ever had one
As good as, mine.

She’s ahead of most,
And of none is she behind.
I’m so happy there are
Mothers almost like mine!

Mothers who are Christians
Have a place to fill;
To guide and keep the house
And with godliness fill.

To be an “help-meet”
To the head of that home.
Be there for the children
Not cause them to roam.

“The hand that rocks the cradle
Rules the world” it’s been told,
That’s how great a woman’s influence
Can have on her fold.

So mothers take warning,
For good or for bad,
What you do or don’t do
Will be seen in that lad.

That lassie will also
Mimic your traits;
They’ll see you, in her
In dozens of ways.

What a joy if you are
The mother Christ wants!
What a horror if you are not,
It will come back to haunt.

God bless you good mothers
On this your special day.
God help all others
To seek out your way!

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 12, pp. 365-366
June 20, 1985

By S. Leonard Tyler

Solomon wrote a long time ago, “Whoso despiseth the word shall be destroyed: but he that feareth the commandment shall be rewarded . . . . Good understanding giveth favor: but the way of transgressors is hard . . . . A wicked messenger falleth into mischief: but a faithful ambassador is health” (Prov. 13:13,15,17).

Most of the difficulties and differences in religion today could be solved or settled by a proper attitude toward the word of the Lord. Solomon could have had more in mind in his statement than just God’s word, but it definitely is included and seems to be the primary thought. To me, it has direct reference to God’s word and commandments. The “honor” must refer to both man and God. To respect the advice of wise men will bring honor from them. The same is true with God. But to despise either is disrespecting and dishonoring toward them. Adam Clark, in his commentary on Proverbs, makes, this observation: “The revelation which God has given to man — ‘shall be destroyed,’ for there is no other way of salvation but that which it points out.” This is a very true observation of God’s word.

The conclusion and consequences are here given of two choices which express two attitudes. “Whoso despiseth the word” and “he that feareth the commandment.” The contrast is absolute. To despise the word is to disrespect, refuse to reverence, or reject its authority. To “fear,” as here used, means to respect, revere, to regard with love and honor, accept. To “despise” the word of God is to refuse it as being from God and/or to reject its message, commandments, or direction.

We are living in an age and society where all established religious truths are looked upon with scorn and distaste. “Orthodoxy” of any kind is considered trite in nature and narrow in application. Those who teach a true commitment and fidelity to any established rule or standard of measurement for a life style are classified as “legalists” or “behind the times,” or seeking to become “judges. ” Yet, the Book of God claims to be from God and to reveal His eternal and divine will for man’s salvation. To reject or “despise” this claim is a blatant refusal to accept God’s revelation.

The attitude most emphasized from Genesis to the close of Revelation is that of absolute trust and unwavering devotion to the will of Go4 which the Bible claims to set forth. To reject the Bible as being inspired, the very word of God, is to reject God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, and every divine principle or revelation set forth. A rejection of God’s will is a rejection of God. This leaves man to his own will, plans, and design for life. However, and what a tragedy it is, such an attitude towards God and His will robs man of every spiritual blessing or aspiration he has. It leaves man a barren, unprofitable, spiritless mortal and robs him of every hope of living after death. He becomes his own God or accepts some other creature’s philosophical theory of man’s evolving from nothing to live and return to nothing. If that is education, wisdom and progress, I don’t want “none” (any) of it. But thanks be to God that is not education, wisdom or progress!

Look at these terms: “feareth the commandment . . . . Good understanding . . . faithful ambassador.” These expressions promise blessings, rewards, favor, and health. These are for the ones who look to God for guidance and direction, and who faithfully accept and adapt them to practice. They keep God’s commandments with love. They understand God’s will and gladly grasp it by faith. They arise with zeal and tell others of God’s way.

We believe that God is alive. Jesus Christ is His only begotten Son who came to this earth, lived, died, was buried, arose from the dead, ascended back to the Father, and then sent the Holy Spirit to reveal and confirm His word so that it could be understood for man’s salvation. We believe it, love it, obey it, and teach it for the salvation of man. All men “whosoever” will hear, believe, and accept it — have life.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 12 p. 353
June 20, 1985