Truth Magazine

By Frank Jamerson

In the Great Commission, Jesus taught that a person must believe, repent and be baptized in order to be saved (Matt. 28:1820; Mk. 16:15; Lk. 24:47). When men who believe in salvation by faith only hear these passages, they usually ask, “What about the thief on the cross?” They never consider the chief of sinners. Let us take a look at some facts about both.

First, the thief on the cross did not live under the law of Christ. “For where a testament is, there must of necessity be the death of him that made it. For a testament is of force where there hath been death: for it doth never avail while he that made it liveth” (Heb. 9:16,17). The thief was blessed by Jesus before His testament, or will, went into effect. After the death of Christ, we must conform to the conditions in the testament in order to be blessed.

Second, the thief did not believe in the resurrected Lord. Paul said: ” . . .because if thou shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord, and shalt believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved; for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation” (Rom. 10: 9, 10). The thief did not believe that God had “raised Jesus from the dead,” because He had not! If you can be saved like the thief, you can be saved without believing that God raised Jesus from the dead.

Third, the thief could not be “buried by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:4). Jesus had not died or been raised when the thief was saved. The teaching of Romans 6:3-5 did not apply to the thief. It does to you!

Now, look at the “chief of sinners” (1 Tim. 1:15).

First, he lived under the law of Christ. The first mention we have of Saul is when he was keeping the garments of those who stoned Stephen to death (Acts 7:18). This was after the Lord had arisen from the dead and ascended into heaven. In the ninth chapter of Acts we read of his journey to Damascus, the appearance of the Lord to him, and his conversion. Saul lived under the law of Christ; so do we.

Second, Saul became a believer in the resurrection of Jesus. He wrote the Corinthians: “For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried; and that he hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures; and that he appeared to Cephas; then to the twelve; then he appeared to above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain until now, but some are fallen asleep; then he appeared to James; then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to the child untimely born, he appeared to me also” (1 Cor. 15:3-8). Saul had been a persecutor of Christians, because he did not believe in Jesus, but when the great light shined on him, and he heard the voice of the Lord, he changed his faith! He was not saved on the road to Damascus, but he certainly became a believer in the resurrected Lord at that time (Acts 9:1-6).

Third, Saul, who became the apostle Paul, was baptized into the death of Christ. When Ananias went to him, he said: “And how why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on His name” (Acts 22:16). When Paul wrote the book of Romans, he included himself among those who had been baptized into Christ. “Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?” (Rom. 6:3).

The conversion of Saul shows that he believed in the resurrected Lord, repented of his sins, and was baptized “to wash away” his sins, or into the death of Christ. We cannot be saved like the thief on the cross, for he lived before the law of Christ went into effect, did not believe in the resurrected Lord, and could not be buried by baptism into Christ’s death and raised in the likeness of His resurrection. We can be saved like the chief of sinners if we will be believe in Christ, whom God raised from the dead, repent of our sins, and be baptized into the death of Christ, that we may be raised to walk in newness of life.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 18, p. 567
September 20, 1984

By O.C. Birdwell, Jr.

Before attention is directed to the above subject, some consideration needs to be given to the word “discipline” as it is used in this discussion. In most translations, the word is not found in the New Testament. It must be used, therefore, to describe action taught in the New Testament. This, it seems, is where problems arise. What do we have in mind when we talk about exercising discipline? Numerous definitions are given for the word. Three by Webster are as follows: “(1) To punish or penalize for the sake of discipline; (2) to train or develop by instruction and exercise esp. in self-control; (3) to bring (a group) under control; to impose order upon.”

The common practice of discipline by religious cults seems to be number three, “to bring under control, to impose order upon.” The fear tactics and mass murder of the “Jones cult” of a few years ago illustrate the results of this type discipline. Quite frankly, in this type, this writer wants no part. Yet, it seems, that some have this concept of New Testament discipline. A recent news report stated, in effect, that once one gets into the church of Christ, he cannot get out. This obviously misrepresents the teaching of most, if not all, of the congregations; but I wonder if this is not the impression many leave because of their practice.

A member of the family of God may, of his own free will, join himself to a local church (this is the only way one can join the church [Acts 9:26]). The local church may accept, or reject, such a person. The account in Acts 9 shows both actions. It seems logical that if one may of his free will join himself to a congregation, he may by the same action leave the congregation. One may move to another city. Decision may be made to attend another congregation in the same city. One would have the right to do either. When a Christian leaves one faithful church for another, there should be no stigma attached to him and no resentment toward the congregation where he is accepted. This is often not the practice. Some will never attend another meeting at the receiving church, will be critical of the preacher and/or elders, and speak disparagingly of the one who left. This is a sign of what a good preacher friend was heard to say concerning another subject. “What’s so bad is they accuse us of being cranks, and then prove it on us!” They accuse us of teaching one cannot get out of a local church, and then prove it on some of us.

Is it not also possible for one who loses his faith, or just decides he wants to serve Satan and go to hell, to sever himself, by his own free will, from a congregation? It seems, as we shall show, that the New Testament cases of what we commonly refer to as “church discipline,” deal with those who are a part of the local church and want to so continue.

Our present task is to show how to proceed in administering what we call “church discipline.” In doing this, we will present New Testament accounts of how to deal with the unfaithful and when we see the action in each case, we will see what I mean by “church discipline.” Remember that often how the instructions are carried out is left to the judgment of brethren.

Matthew 18:15-17

“And if thy brother sin against thee, go, show him his fault between thee and him alone.; if he hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he hear thee not, take with thee one or two more, that at the mouth of two witnesses or three every word may be established. And if he refuse to hear them tell it unto the church: and if he refuse to hear the church also, let him be unto thee as the Gentile and the publican.”

Here is sin by one brother against another. Jesus tells the wronged brother to go and show the other his fault. With no success, take one or two more. If he refuses to hear them, “tell it unto the church.” The “church” would have to be the local congregation. There is no way one could tell it to the universal church. Notice that he said “tell it to the church.” He did not say tell the preacher, elders, or a business meeting of the men. Nothing is said about writing the person a letter, writing to other churches, or publishing the action in a religious journal.

If he will not hear the church, let him be unto thee as the Gentile and the publican. I understand this to mean that he is now to be rejected as a part of the congregation, and is no longer to be in fellowship with the saints. If he goes to another congregation without repentance, it is their obligation to check into his background. This passage tells us how to deal with sin by brother against brother. Other passages relate to the false teacher and the immoral person.

Romans 16:17

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them that are causing the divisions and occasions of stumbling, contrary to the doctrine which ye learned: and turn away from them.

“The doctrine which ye learned” would be the teaching received from inspired men like Paul. Those who reject this teaching and cause “divisions and occasions of stumbling” are to be marked and turned away from. A mark is used to identify something or someone. Paul said to mark those who imitate him (Phil 3:17). These would be the righteous and godly who follow after inspired teaching. False teachers, likewise, are to be marked or identified. Not only are they to be identified, but Paul said, “turn away from them.”

This means avoid them. Do not use them as teachers. Do not accept them as faithful brethren into the fellowship of the saints. Any false teacher, anywhere, may be marked, or identified. If he is dispensing false teaching through a national journal or causing divisions and occasions of stumblings in a hush-hush, undercover manner, he should be marked. Brethren need to be informed about the danger. Nothing is said about a personal visit to the false teacher, or about taking one or two more with you. If he is a false teacher, mark him, and avoid him!

1 Corinthians 5:4, 5, 7, 13

“. . .In the name of our Lord Jesus, ye being gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, to deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. . . .Purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump. . . .Put away the wicked man from among yourselves.”

Fornicators, the covetous, idolaters, revilers, drunkards, and extortioners are to be put away from the congregation. The fornicator, in this account, obviously wanted to continue in fellowship with the Corinthian church and at the same time commit his sin. It was not a one-time act of which he had repented, but sin in which he was persisting. The church was failing in that they were puffed up, had not mourned, and had taken no action in the matter. Paul commands that the guilty one be delivered unto Satan, or put away from among them. He was no longer to be accepted as a faithful member of the congregation. This action has a two-fold purpose. The guilty will be encouraged to put away his sin that his spirit may be saved, and the sinful leavening agent will be removed from the church. The action is to be taken when the church is “gathered together.” It seems that there could be a special assembly arranged for this action. There is no doubt left about what is to be done, but the administering of the action by the church, as is the case in the Matthew 18 account, will involve human judgment. Let it be good judgment. There is no reason for visitors and non-members to be present when such action is taken. Neither is there any scriptural reason to broadcast the action to the world or to other congregations.

2 Thessalonians 3:6,7, 14, 15

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly and not after the tradition which they received of us. For yourselves kn o w how ye ought to imitate us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you,. . .And if any man obeyeth not our word by this epistle, note that man, that ye have no company with him, to the end that he may be ashamed. And yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

Command is given that we withdraw ourselves from those who do not walk after the tradition (inspired teaching) delivered by Paul. Such things as refusing to work, being busybodies, and failing to obey Paul’s word by his epistle, are listed as constituting disorderly walk. One who will not obey Paul’s word is to be noted, and there is to be no company with him. This is to the end that he may be ashamed. What we call discipline is here called withdrawing from, noting, and having no company with. No specific administering procedure is given for taking this action. It seems that there would have to be proof of guilt, and then public congregational action and announcement, as was the case in the before mentioned accounts.

There should be a specific charge or charges. I have known of brethren who were withdrawn from with only a charge that they walked disorderly. This is not sufficient. Name the sinful practice, prove the one accused guilty, and if he will not repent, withdraw yourselves from him. This means let him be “as the Gentile and the publican,” or the same as putting him away “from among yourselves.” Have no spiritual fellowship with the person.

Should there be within the congregation a false teacher, immoral person, or one walking disorderly in specified ways, who will not change, or one who has sinned against a brother who will not correct his sin, let him be promptly named to the congregation and, if he still will not correct his ways, let him be immediately regarded as out of fellowship with the church. Should there be those who ask to be no longer a part of the congregation, make a public congregational announcement to that effect. If they go back to the world, or into denominationalism, let everyone do all within their power to teach and convert the sinner from the error of his way (James 5:19). If they go to another faithful church, bid them God’s speed, and wish them well.

My approach to “church discipline” may be, to many, far too simplistic. Possibly so, yet, on the other hand, when we separate human tradition from Bible teaching, what the Bible teaches on the subject is rather easily understood. Also, I fear that some spend too much time discussing and preaching on the kind of discipline under consideration here and much too little time with discipline that involves Bible teaching and instruction which molds, shapes, and guides lives in useful paths of service for God and His Christ.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 19, pp. 582-583
October 4, 1984

By Jady W. Copeland

Possibly one of the chief reasons why effective withdrawal from the ungodly among God’s people has not been done is that brethren have convinced themselves that “it won’t work.” In this article, I refer especially to the final step in church discipline–that of the decision to withdraw from those who will not repent. This is really why we withdraw, in a sense, namely because they fail to come back. But we must not get bogged down in semantics.

I am afraid that the expression in our caption is indicative of an attitude–the attitude that says we are afraid of the consequences, or we are afraid of what the brethren will think (or do), or we will “lose them” if we withdraw. It seems ironic to me that this very fear of the brethren’s disapproval of the action is the very principle on which the effectiveness of withdrawal is based. The success of disciplinary action in any fellowship stems from the basic principle that man, being by nature a social being, desires the approval of his fellows. When he realizes that he does not have that approval, he is inclined to re-think his actions. So, for this same reason, many elders and others are reluctant to withdraw because they fear disapproval from the ones that should be withdrawn from their family. They may even fear disapproval from others in the church not in the family.

But again I am afraid that the refusal to withdraw expressed in the statement “it won’t work” is merely an excuse. We simply don’t like the unpleasant task and rationalize that “it won’t work anyway, so why should we withdraw?” Actually they are already “away” from God, else why would we be withdrawing? But should we not be concerned about disapproval from God? That must be our first concern.

If discipline doesn’t work, it is either the fault of God or man. Surely it is not God’s fault, so that leaves man. If man’s fault, it must be the fault of the person who is withdrawn from or the ones doing the withdrawing. If we are speaking of whether or not it works (meaning restoring them to the faith), it is often the “fault” of the sinner, as some can never be restored (Heb. 6:6). But in this article, we speak of the attitude of brethren who should do the withdrawing. And let me make this point before we go further. If “it doesn’t work” and if the sinner is not reclaimed, we should not be discouraged any more than if we fail to convert every alien we teach. Regardless of the sinner we are trying to reach (whether or not they have been baptized), they are still sinners and need converting. And we will not convert all in either group. In both cases, the Lord told us to teach and exhort them, and we must do it (2 Thess. 3:13). We have no choice in the matter if we ourselves want to be saved. In the words of the bumper sticker I saw (slightly rearranged), “God said it; that settles it; I believe it.”

Two extremes need to be avoided in withdrawal. First, under the excuse of “love and tolerance,” many brethren seldom if ever withdraw from the ungodly. But on the other hand, there are some that are withdrawal-happy. I was once told by a member of a certain congregation that the elders had decided to withdraw from members if they failed to come to three consecutive services (I assume without good cause). As other articles in this issue show, the purpose of church discipline is to save the lost and, while love and forbearance is truly the proper attitude in this process, the same characteristics will demand that withdrawal finally be done. One extreme may cause bitterness and frustration, while the other can allow sin with impunity. Let us not be extreme in either direction.

Why Withdrawing Hasn’t Worked

Brethren will point to many occasions where everything has gone wrong (seemingly) and say, “See, it doesn’t work,” and so they refuse to withdraw. And, of course, it doesn’t always bring the sinner back. But it may be the fault of those withdrawing. Let us suggest a few reasons why it may not, have worked.

(1) No faith in God’s plan. Could not denominational people point to the unpopularity of baptism and say, “See it doesn’t work” so why demand it? It may be compared to the repeal of prohibition when politicians were saying “it won’t work” (prohibition) when we understand drunkenness and other crimes rose sharply when the law was passed in the ’30s. Paul said, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which they received of us” (2 Thess. 3:6). This passage and others show clearly that while it may be unpleasant, it is a command of the Spirit and must be done “in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” which is pretty plain and positive. Yes it will work (meaning bringing some back) just as preaching the gospel to the alien will work in some cases: All will not be converted – in either group, but shall we quit preaching, teaching, exhorting, reproving and rebuking simply because it does not covert all of them? As we say with reference to preaching to the lost, let’s do our part, believing in God’s plan and leave results to Him.

(2) We often begin with the wrong attitude. The second reason it hasn’t done more good is we go about it in the wrong way and with the wrong attitude. As other articles in the paper will show, disciplining begins long before withdrawal. The final step is preceded by long hours of loving, thoughtful and prayerful teaching, reproof and exhortation. A parent does a lot of the same kine of training before be resorts to spanking. He begins with teaching, prodding, correcting and warning. In too many cases, we have let brethren drift for months, even years, with little or nothing being done, and then suddenly we decide to withdraw. We go through the motion of withdrawing without teaching and admonishing and, of course, it doesn’t work. Let us keep in mind the goal of this procedure is the salvation of a soul; not condemnation.

(3) Little fellowship before withdrawal. When we withdraw from a brother, we are to keep no company with him (2 Thess. 3:14: 1 Cor. 5:9). God’s people are a ” family,” but often we don’t seem to have that attitude toward each other. Many go to worship once a week, then go home until the next week, never seeing anyone between times. They never see one another socially, and very little when they come to the building. I have known of brethren living in the same community for years not knowing even where each other lives. And occasionally, you will hear a brother ask who another brother is (at the services) when both are members of the same group. So they have “fellowship” but very little with each other and, therefore, if one is withdrawn from, there is no change, for they never had any association with them to begin with. Hence any value the matter of withdrawing may have is not realized. If they had nothing to do with each other to start with, what good is an announcement going to do?

(4) Only partially done. Another reason it hasn’t done the good it should have done is that all do not withdraw themselves. Withdrawing must be done on an individual basis. One time it is recorded that a public statement should be made (1 Cor. 5:4) but obviously each individual must withdraw himself if the desired good is to be realized. If relatives and close friends continue to associate with the person, it seems to have two effects. First, it encourages the sinner in his sin and, secondly, it often divides the congregation. One group sides with the sinner, saying others are not fair or they are being too harsh. The others side with the elders (or the ones taking the lead) and so you have a divided condition which causes harsh words, insinuations, impugning of motives and ugly attitudes that do the church no good.

It Will Work

Yes, God knows best and He told us to discipline ourselves. When done property, it will accomplish that which God desires. While it is true that the goal of withdrawal is to save the lost person, there are other reasons for doing so. There are other things which God wants accomplished that has to do with the church as well as the sinner. The church is to be kept pure (1 Cor. 5:6-7) and the good influence of brethren maintained (Rom. 16:18). The withdrawal causes others to fear (1 Tim. 5:20). How many have not been caused to examine their life when they heard elders ask brethren to withdraw from an ungodly person? Also if we fail to discipline the ungodly among us we are guilty of partaking of their evil (2 John 4-11). At the very heart of the process is the idea that we show our disapproval of the sin that has been committed and make an honest attempt to save the person from destruction. We withdraw to show the sinner the sinfulness of his sinful ways (2 Thess. 3:14). Even if we never get him to repent, the brother will surely know that we believe him to be living in sin. We have done out part, just as we can take some comfort in the fact that we hae done our best to convert an alien but he has not responded. It is my duty to discipline; it is his to respond and he will have to meet that in the judgment. I don’t want to face God not having done my duty to an erring brother.

I know discipline will work because it is His plan; it is His will. God doesn’t command us to do something that won’t work. If we have faith in His knowledge, and His wisdom, we cannot afford to question His judgment. Sure we must proceed with love, longsuffering and consideration for the condition of the one involved. But we must proceed. It worked with the case of the fornicator in Corinth (1 Cor. 5; 2 Cor. 2 6-8) and it will work with some today. We know it will work because we have seen cases in our lifetime where it has worked and done the good intended. But like bad news that travels farther than good news, maybe we just hear of the many cases where the brother or sister fails to repent.

Yes, brethren, like a loving parent disciplines a child with instruction, helping, reproving and more stern forms of discipline, let us with love and consideration of our own faults fulfill our responsibilities to the erring. God’s plan will work if we work the plan as He directed.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 19, pp. 586-587
October 4, 1984

By Alan Hadfield

With public and official opinion apparently beginning to swing back in favor of capital punishment, the subject is getting quite a bit of attention from all quarters. The letter to Guardian of Truth (8/2/84) implied questions many are asking, “Is capital punishment contrary to the will of God? What should be the Christian’s attitude?” Because it is so emotional an issue, it is often difficult to disregard our feelings and look at it dispassionately.

An Emotional Issue

One has only to see the demonstrations on TV newsreels, and hear the vehement outbursts that accompany every judicial execution, to realize that this is a highly emotional subject, and it is very easy for us to let that cloud our judgement. Everyone is entitled to his own thoughts and feelings–in fact, as human beings we cannot escape them–but of course, they count for nothing in establishing the truth. And it should be remembered, while thinking of the emotions involved, that there are many–especially the family and friends of victims–who feet equally strongly for capital punishment as others do against it. While we can all feel compassion for those who face execution, it is difficult not to feel revulsion at the sadistic brutality that so often marks the murder of children and old people, and to feel that such are among those of whom the Lord said, “they are worthy of death” (Rom. 1:32).

The approach used by opponents varies from emotional, to rational, to biblical. The death penalty is often equated with abortion as a murder; it is declared to be useless, because “it is not a deterrent;” it is condemned as a violation of individual human rights; it is derided as a barbaric relic of the past; one placard seen on a newsreel proclaimed it to be “cruel and unusual punishment” and therefore, presumably, unconstitutional; over and over we hear that it violates the Lord’s commandment, “Thou shalt not kill,” and the New Testament emphasis on mercy and forgiveness.

The Need for Perspective

Let’s get some of these things into perspective. Firstly, it is not in the least equatable with abortion. Abortion is a personal action based on an individual decision, and takes the life of an innocent infant, and as such may be considered murder. Capital punishment is a judicial action, performed within the law by properly constituted authorities after the proper processes to determine guilt, and takes the life of one proved guilty. To term it murder is a gross misuse of the term.

It is claimed that it is not a deterrent, and statistics are produced to show that the death sentence does not lower the murder rate. That may or may not be so, but I would suggest that there is at least one person who is deterred from further murder by execution! And it cannot be denied that without the death sentence, many who are released go out and repeat their crime. Put yourself in the place of the person who has lost a loved one to a released murderer, knowing that the death sentence could have prevented it.

Neither is it “cruel and unusual punishment.” It does not involve torture, or sadism, or the prolongation of suffering. And even if it did, we could still only object to the manner of execution, not to the execution itself. Judicial execution in most countries today is swift, and shows considerably more mercy to the murderer than most murderers show toward their victims.

As to its being a violation of personal human rights, that is about as empty an argument as is possible to present. “Rights” are not inviolable–they can be forfeited, and are forfeited by all law-breakers. The “human rights” argument could be applied to any punishment for any crime, which is manifestly absurd.

“Thou Shalt Not Kill”

Those that put this on a biblical level usually quote God’s command, “Thou shalt not kill,” but in doing so ignore the purpose and subjects of the command. It is a fundamental error to confuse the responsibilities of the individual and of the State. The State can, and must, do many things that the individual may not do. That is why the judicial system, among others, is constituted in the first place. Individually exercised punishment of offences is unacceptable because it is too open to abuse, but the State must take that responsibility or perish.

At the same time that God, through Moses, gave the command “Thou shalt not kill,” He also listed numerous transgressions for which the penalty was to be death. It is not difficult to see how God could forbid the individual from taking a life, acting on his own judgment and exacting personal vengeance, and at the same time require the penalty of death to be imposed after correct judicial process, which would guard against punishing the innocent.

The brother who wrote to Guardian of Truth seemed to think it inconsistent that one should approve the death sentence, yet be unwilling to perform the execution. But that need not be so, I have on occasion had to “put down” sick or injured pets. While it was necessary, I did not enjoy doing it, and would not have done it if I could have found someone else to do it for me. In the case of legal execution, a Christian could approve the principle and leave its performance to one who was not a Christian, without being inconsistent.

The Christian And Capital Punishment

In the course of instructing Christians to be obedient to civil authorities (Rom. 13:1-7), Paul warns us that this is because they are God’s “ministers” to bring His wrath on evil-doers. In v. 4 he warns, “for he (the civil authority) beareth not the sword in vain.” It is significant that he uses the term “sword,” and not “scepter” or some equivalent symbol of authority. The sword is not merely an emblem of authority, but of execution.

In Genesis 9:5-6 God established the principle that the blood (life) of a murder Victim was to be paid for by the blood (life) of his murderer. Later, in giving the Law through Moses, he ordered that such a case be carefully examined, but where found guilty the culprit was to die, and he could not be ransomed (Num. 35:30-31; Ex. 21:12-14). No reprieve!

Vengeance is God’s, and always has been, so the individual may not impose his own vengeance. But in many instances God executes that vengeance through men, and those who perform the execution are not violating the command not to kill. The judicial sword is still borne with God’s approval.

But what of the commands to “forgive your enemies” and “turn the other cheek”? Certainly, the Christian is to be merciful and forgiving, rendering good for evil always (Matt. 5:38-30,44; Rom. 12:19; etc.). But that is for offences against himself! He cannot forgive sins against God, nor crimes against men. God requires those to be paid for, and has appointed the “powers that be” to “execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” I believe it is properly argued that the Christian should have no active part in that work, but we cannot deny the proper authorities their right to it.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 18, pp. 563, 569
September 20, 1984