Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

We have witnessed the biblical testimony to the deity of Christ from the prophets and the birth narrative. In this article, I shall continue to present evidences of Jesus’ deity.

The Prologue to John’s Gospel

Parallel to the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke is the introductory statement of John’s gospel. The statements we consider are these:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. . . . And the word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth . . . . No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son (God, NASB), which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him (Jn. 1:14,14,18).

The prologue makes these affirmations about Jesus.

1. The pre-existence of Jesus. The Jesus of John’s gospel existed prior to his coming to the earth. Indeed, when one goes back to the beginning of time, the Word already was. The Word has eternal existence. He is not a created or derived being.

2. The shared communion with the Father. Not only did Jesus exist prior to his coming to the earth, he also “was with God,” intimating the closest communion between him and the Father. The preposition “with” distinguishes the Word from the Father. From all eternity the Word has been with God as a fellow (Zech. 13:7), enjoying communion with him.

3. The deity of Jesus. The third affirmation is that the “Word was God.” Though the Word is distinguishable from the Father, he is also God.

4. The Word is Creator, not a creature. A vast chasm distinguishes the Word from the creation. He is the Creator of every thing that has been made, distinguishing himself from creation. Hence, the Word is no created being.

5. “In him was life. ” A characteristic of God is that “the Father has life in himself” (Jn. 5:26). The Word also has life in himself (1:3). He is the life (11:25; 14:6), the eternal life (I Jn. 5:20). He does his miracles from his own inherent power, not by a power given to him from the Holy Spirit, as did the prophets and the apostles.

6. The Word became flesh. No less than the Word himself became flesh. Deity took upon himself a human body. His glory shined through the veil of his body for John said, “And we beheld his glory, the glory as the only begotten of the Father.” Benjamin Warfield commented on these verses as follows:

That in becoming flesh the Word did not cease to be what He was before entering upon the new sphere of experiences, the evangelist does not leave, however, to mere suggestion. The glory of the Word was so far from quenched, in his view, by his becoming flesh, that he gives us at once to understand that it was rather as “trailing clouds of glory” that He came . . . . The language is colored by the reminiscences from the Tabernacle, in which the Glory of God, the Shekinah, dwelt. The flesh of Our Lord became, on its assumption by the Word, the Temple of God on earth (cf. Jn. ii. 19), and the glory of the Lord filled the house of the Lord. John tells us expressly that the glory was visible, that it was precisely what was appropriate to the Son of God as such. “And we beheld his glory,” he says; not divined it, or inferred it, but perceived it. It was open to sight, and the actual object of observation. Jesus Christ was obviously more than man; He was obviously God. His actually observed glory, John tells us further, was a “glory as of the only begotten from the Father.” It was unique; nothing like it was ever seen in another (“The Person of Christ,” Biblical Doctrines, p. 193; also available in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, James Orr, General Editor, Vol. IV, pp. 2338-2348).

Such words emphasize that the Jesus of John’s gospel is not merely a man.

7. The Word revealed God to us. The New American Standard Version reflects the variant reading of the better manuscripts in John 1:18 which describe the Word as “the only begotten God … .. The adjective ‘only begotten’ conveys the idea, not of derivation and subordination, but of uniqueness and consubstantiality: Jesus is all that God is, and he alone is this” (Warfield, 194). Because of his eternal association with the Father, the Word can reveal him to us. Though mere man has never seen God at any time, the Word can reveal him to us (hence, he is not a mere man).

The opening of John’s gospel emphasizes the deity of the Word. The Word did not cease to be deity when he became flesh. He retained his glory for it was perceived by man. This is the thrust of John’s testimony:

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifest unto us;) That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you (1 Jn. 1:1-3).

Jesus’ Testimony Concerning Himself

The gospel of John preserves several of Jesus’ sermons and conversations. From these monologues, we can see what Jesus said to others about himself. Study these statements which he made about himself:

1. He is the Light of the world which has been darkened by sin (8:12).

2. He is the Way to heaven (14:6).

3. He is the Truth (14:6).

4. He is the Life (14:6).

5. He is the living Bread come down from heaven (6:35,48). Believers who eat his flesh and blood shall have life (6:54).

6. He is the Water of life which, if a man drinks, he shall never thirst again (4:14).

7. He is the Good Shepherd and all who came before him are thieves and robbers (10:8,11).

8. He is the Vine connection with which is essential for life (15:1,5).

9. He is the one and only approach to the Father in heaven (14:6).

10. He teaches men to pray in his name and professes to have the ability to answer that prayer (14:14).

11. He contrasts himself with his fellowman saying, “Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world” (8:23).

12. He claims to be Lord over death, having the ability to call the physically dead to life (5:28,29). He proclaims himself to be the Resurrection and the Life (11:25).

13. He teaches men to trust in him as they trust in God (14:1). They are to believe in him just as they believe in God (14:1; 6:29,40,47).

14. He taught men to honor him as they honor the Father (5:23). The man who hated Jesus hated the Father (15:23).

15. He claimed to judge the world (5:22) on the standard of the words which he spake (12:48).

16. He claimed to be above all (3:31) and that all things had been given into his hands (3:35).

17. He could see the things which the Father was doing and do them as well (5:19).

18. He asserted that to know him was to know the Father (8:19).

19. He asserted himself to be the “I am” of the Old Testament (8:24,58).

20. He asserted an intimate communion with the Father such that what he spoke was what the Father said to him (8:26,38,40).

21. He affirmed that he and the Fafther are one (8:30; 17:21).

22. He promised to send the Holy Spirit to the apostles (16:7).

No mere man can make such declarations about himself without being guilty of blasphemy. These statements reflect Jesus’ consciousness of his own deity and his demand that men believe that he was God incarnate. These affirmations are what stirred the animosity of the Jews to charge that he was guilty of blasphemy because he made himself equal with God (5:17-18; 10:33). The verdict of blasphemy reached by the Sanhedrin cannot be understood without admitting their belief that Jesus was making the claim that he was God.

Take these affirmations one by one and substitute in the place of Jesus the New Testament saint who most completely represents what a Christian should be to your mind. Take for example, the apostle Paul. Could Paul claim for himself the things which Jesus claimed for himself? Could Paul say, “I am the bread of life,” “he that hath seen me has seen the Father,” “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh to the Father but by me,” “I and the Father are one,” “before Abraham was, I am,” etc.? To attribute such statements to mere man would not merely strain the affirmations, but would be blasphemy. Why are they not blasphemy when made by Jesus? Because he is the incarnate God!

H.P. Liddon, in his classic work, The Divinity of Our Lord, sees the Lord affirming his deity in his claim to rule the souls of man. He presents this argument for the deity of Jesus:

He commands, He does not invite, discipleship. To Philip, to the sons of Zebedee, to the rich young man, He says simply, ‘Follow Me.’ . . . His message is to be received upon pain of eternal loss, so in receiving it, men are to give themselves up to Him simply and unreservedly. No rival claim, however strong, no natural affection, however legitimate and sacred, may interpose between Himself and the soul of His follower. ‘He that loveth father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me’; ‘If any man come to Me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.’ . . ,

It is impossible to ignore this imperious claim on the part of Jesus to rule the whole soul of man. Other masters may demand a man’s active energies, or his time, or his purse, or this thought, or some large share of his affections. But here is a claim on the whole man, on his very inmost self, on the sanctities of his deepest life. Here is a claim which altogether sets aside the dearest ties of family and kindred, if perchance they interfere with it. Does any who is merely man dare to advance such a claim as this? (pp. 176-178)

The Jesus of John’s gospel manifestly claimed to be God incarnate. If he was merely a man, he was guilty of blasphemy as charged by the Jews and not the perfect, sinless sacrifice for sin which Christians affirm him to be. There is no middle ground: Jesus is either God or a brash sinner!

(Continued next issue.)

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 22, pp. 674, 692-693
November 15, 1990

By Frank Jamerson

The proper attitude toward the silence of God has become a problem with many in interpreting Scripture. Some believe that “silence gives consent,” while others believe that authority gives consent. Which attitude does the Bible teach?

The very nature of revelation answers this question. Paul said, “For who among men knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of the man, which is in him? Even so the things of God none knoweth, save the Spirit of God” (1 Cor. 2:11). He went on to say that the things of God were revealed “not in words which man’s wisdom teacheth; but which the Spirit teacheth; combining spiritual things with spiritual words” (v. 13). Just as a man cannot know what pleases me from silence, he cannot know what pleases God from silence. The very purpose of revelation is to reveal God’s mind. If we could have known it from silence, he could have remained silent!

In a previous article we used the example of the Jerusalem conference to show how the apostles established authority. The doctrine of the Judaizers was a doctrine based upon the silence of the apostles. The conclusions of the discussion was that “we gave no commandment” to those who “went out from us . . . subverting your souls” (Acts 15:24). The Judaizers therefore were teaching “without commandment,” or “speaking where God was silent.” The apostles did not say, “Well, God was silent about circumcising Gentiles, so go ahead and bind that upon God’s people, and we will remain silent.”

According to some of the advocates of “a new hermeneutic,” we should not condemn activities that are not specifically condemned in the Scripture. In the March, 1990 issue of The Examiner, brother Holt said that instrumental music in worship “is neither ‘scripturally allowed’ nor scripturally ‘forbidden.’ The NT Scriptures say absolutely nothing about instrumental music one way or the other.” He went on to say that he had debated the instrumental music issue three times in years past, but had taught his “deductions and human reasoning” when he did so, and said: “It is not easy to prove that something is sinful which is not even mentioned in the Scripture.” (If he had made much a statement when he started the paper four years ago, many of his present disciples would have thrown up their hands in horror at such disrespect for authority, but they have drunk at his well long enough that they can now swallow such false teaching.)

But, let us look further at examples of what our attitude should be toward the silence of Scripture. In Hebrews 1:5-8 the writer makes an argument on the deity of Christ from silence. God never said to an angel, “Thou art my Son,” but he did say that about Jesus. We know then, from revelation that Jesus is the Son of God, and we know from silence that angels are not! Later in the book that same Spirit-guided writer argues from the silence of Scripture that Jesus could not be a priest on earth. He said, “For he of whom these things are said belongeth to another tribe, from which no man hath given attendance at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord hath sprung out of Judah; as to which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priests” (Heb. 7:13,14). His conclusion was, “Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, seeing there are those who offer gifts according to the law” (Heb. 8:4). According to some of the non-Spirited teachers of our day, we would have to say that since Moses said nothing either way about priests from Judah, we cannot know whether or not Jesus could be a priest!

Leaders in the Reformation and Restoration movements were divided over this issue. “Luther said we may do what the Bible does not forbid. Zwingli said what the Bible does not command we may not do, and on that account he gave up all images and crosses in the churches . . . Organs in church also were given up. The Lutherans love to sing around the organ. The Zwinglians, if they sang at all, did so without any instrument” (via The Thunderous Silence of God, by Joe Neil Clayton, p. 70). In 1809, Thomas Campbell concluded a sermon with the statement, “Where the Bible speaks, we speak; where the Bible is silent, we are silent” (via Search for the Ancient Order, Vol. 1, Earl West, p. 47). This became a slogan for many without understanding its meaning. The statement of the apostle Peter, “If any man speak, let him speak according to the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11), necessarily implies that if the word of God has not spoken, we should not speak. Some restoration leaders continued to speak the slogan while introducing missionary societies in the work of the church and instrumental music in worship, and the modernistic Disciples of Christ denomination is the fruit of that attitude.

The Bible teaches us that “faith comes by hearing” God’s word (Rom. 10:17). When men act upon the silence of Scripture, they are not acting by faith. Secular history shows us the fruit of this disrespect for authority. Those who substitute sprinkling for baptism, water for the fruit of the vine in the Lord’s supper, add instrumental music to worship, etc. can say “the Bible says nothing about those things either way,” but the Bible does teach us that when you “have no such commandment,” you should not act. It further says, “Whosoever goeth onward and abideth not in the teaching of Christ, hath not God: he that abideth in the teaching, the same hath both the Father and the Son” (2 Jn. 9).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 21, p. 650
November 1, 1990

By Kevin Maxey

Who ever heard of such a contradiction in terms! Imagine the nonexistent mad rush for such a sale. “Non-revealing, modest, loose fitting, godly swimsuits – get yours today! ” Society has set a trend, a trend incited by man’s lustful desires and sensual passions. This insatiable appetite has incredibly influenced the fashions and styles of the day. Our populace has become “attired” in tight-fitting, revealing, and enticing immodest apparel – if you can call it apparel at all.

Problems of the world are always bound to creep into the church, as has happened with this issue. Is it right for the Christian to wear the dress of the world? Can he or she swim in mixed company wearing the modern swimsuits of our day? Can he or she wear revealing clothes, shorts, tank-tops, mini-skirts and the like? As with any issue, we must turn to the Bible for our answer. What does God say about immodest apparel?

This is not a matter that can be avoided. The sincere Christian is commanded to “study to show thyseff approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15). How can we approve all things” (1 Thess. 5:21) without an honest contemplation of the Scriptures?

Before we begin addressing the subject at hand, we must be reminded of fundamental Christian responsibilities that apply to any situation. “Let all things be done unto edifying” (1 Cor. 14:26). Our actions are to build up, strengthen, and encourage, not weaken and entice. “Do all to the glory of God” (1 Cor. 10:31). Our purpose is to serve and glorify God, and do nothing to bring reproach upon his name. Also, it is sinful to assist or cause another to fall. Let “no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way” (Rom. 14:13). Let us keep these obligations to God and others in mind as we continue this study.

Throughout the Bible, God teaches simply and forcefully that lust is sinful. Lust is “a longing especially for what is forbidden, desire, to set the heart upon, passion as if breathing hard, excitement of the mind” (Strong’s). This point is emphasized through distinct commands and clear descriptions of this passion’s destructiveness.

God’s charges are numerous concerning the sin of lust. “Whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt. 5:28). Jesus equates the severity of even the thought of sin with that of adultery. Paul demands Timothy to ‘~flee also youthful lusts” (2 Tim. 2:22). Peter likewise commands the Christians to “abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul” (1 Pet. 2:11). We are to be “denying ungodliness and worldly lusts” (Tit. 2:12). “Make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill it lusts” (Rom. 13:14). Are you giving opportunity for these lusts to be fulfilled? God commands us to escape “the corruption that is in the world through lust” (2 Pet. 1:4). Lasciviousness is a work of the flesh and “those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal. 5:19-21). If you are participating in such lusts you are in sin!

Why are there commands against these lusts of the flesh? Lusts allure one to commit sinful acts. Many fall “having eyes full of adultery and that cannot cease from sin ” (2 Pet. 2:14). Fulfilling such lusts and pleasures only leads to disobedience (Tit. 3:3). Lust has a dangerous end because “when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full grown, brings forth death” (Jas. 1:15). Lust causes men to commit that which is shameful (Rom. 1:27). False teachers lead people to believe error because “they allure through the lusts of the flesh” (2 Pet. 2:18). The abounding perils of lust are obvious. God clearly condemns lust as shameful and the Christian must have no part in it -no part!

Our next point of observation is self-evident. Immodest dress arouses lust. Gawking bikini-watchers have swarmed to beaches for years. Why? Definitely not to participate in some oceanographic study? It is a study – a study to satisfy their lusts. A survey was conducted asking this very question. Why do people go to the beach? Sixty-nine percent of the men asked replied that the primary reason they went to the beach was to watch the opposite sex (Psychology Today, Dec. 1982, p. 10). One thing is for sure, they were not going to examine girls in modest apparel. They were going to passionately stare at the revealing, seductive, and sensual outfits of the indecent female. And forty percent of the women went to the beach to be seen. What happened to “fleeing” from youthful lusts (2 Tim. 2:22)? How can one honestly “make no provision for the flesh” (Rom. 13:14) when seven out of ten men are at the beach for the sole purpose of stimulating such fleshly lusts? This example undoubtedly proves that immodest dress arouses lust.

The Bible affirms this to be true as well. Remember the downfall of David and Bathsheba? What was it that fueled David’s lust and consequent sin? “He saw a woman bathing, and the woman was very beautiful to behold” (2 Sam. 11:2). It was not Bathsheba’s modesty that sparked David’s craving! Here we find a situation where the lack of sufficient clothing excited lust. David and Bathsheba both placed themselves in situations they should not have been. Sin was the result. Can you honestly say that you need not flee from similar conditions where insufficient clothing is prevalent? Other examples include that of the harlot. Why is the woman adorned in the “attire of a harlot” (Prov. 7:10) condemned? Was it because of her modesty? Why is the attire of the harlot immodest? Because it incites the pleasures of lust! Are you parading about in such alluring attire? Why also is it that a man is commanded to “not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness” (Lev. 18:19)? The viewing of one’s uncovered state promotes lust which only leads to fornication. In fact, “uncover her nakedness” is a euphemism referring to fornication. God continually teaches that immodest dress arouses lust. It is a fact!

Since lust is sinful, and immodest dress arouses lusts, then the only conclusion is that immodest dress is sinful. The Bible commands us to be modest. “Women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefastness and sobriety” (1 Tim. 2:9). Nakedness is shameful. “Be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed” (Rev. 3:18). The world has lost its sense of shame due to immodesty. Have you? Uncovering private nakedness is sin (Exod. 20:26; Lev. 18:19). Being one of chaste and upright conduct requires modest adornment (1 Pet. 3:1-6). Can you picture the godly woman, Mary, seductively donning a bikini? Moral chastity rejects such a thought!

God declares that nakedness is wrong, but what exactly constitutes nakedness? When God spoke of the uncovering of one’s nakedness it was to “make bare the leg, uncover the thigh ” (Isa. 47:2-3). For one’s thigh to be uncovered constituted nakedness in the eyes of the Lord. The priests were commanded to wear “linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach” (Exod. 28:42). God describes uncovered loins and thighs as nakedness! Adam and Eve’s aprons did not constitute being “clothed.” In God’s eyes they still needed to be “clothed.” “God made for Adam and for his wife coats of skins, and clothed them” (Gen. 3:7,21). Therefore, how do swimsuits, mini-skirts, and skimpy shorts rate according to God’s definition of nakedness? Since nakedness is condemned and uncovered loins and thighs constitute nakedness, the wearing of clothes that reveal such parts is sinful.

We have looked at what God says about immodest dress. Lust is sinful. Immodest dress arouses lust. Therefore, immodest dress is sinful. Can we sincerely say we are escaping from such condemned lusts by adorning ourselves in the immodest apparel of the world? Will we truly promote godliness by flocking to the beach rather than fleeing from it? Do we honestly believe we are edifying another when we assist him in his lust and sin? “Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God” (Rom. 6:13). Let us refuse to present our bodies as tools unto sin, and “abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul” (1 Pet. 2:11). If you ever find that sale for “non-revealing, modest, loose fitting, godly swimsuits,” let me know.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 21, pp. 643-644
November 1, 1990

By Ron Halbrook

One of the steps taken by the elders to strengthen the church here in 1985 was an effort to reach the weak and erring before they fell away from Christ completely. When some new deacons were appointed, the specific assignments made to various deacons were discussed and reviewed, and a new task was divided among them all. A peg board was already in use to keep tabs on attendance patterns; at each service, every members pulls his peg and drops it in a box, and a deacon records each member’s attendance on a chart in a notebook. The members’ names were divided among the deacons as a new step, so that each deacon is responsible to check on anyone on his list who is absent. An announcement was made and the lists were posted matching the deacons with the other families in the church. Additional members are added to the lists as they joined themselves to the disciples here (Acts 9:26). If a person knows in advance he will be absent, he can call the appropriate deacon.

When a problem or pattern of absence appears, not only does the deacon try to help and encourage the person involved but also the matter is discussed in the regular meeting of elders and deacons. As a result, counsel is shared on how to best approach the matter and visits are made in an effort to resolve the problem and to help the person grow.

The deacons perform a wide range of tasks, many of them involving physical aspects of the work, but the fact is that there is an interplay between physical and spiritual aspects of the Lord’s work (study Acts 6:1-7). Deacons are selected on the basis of qualifications which reflect spiritual maturity (1 Tim. 3:8-13; Acts 6:1-7). Their office and work cannot encroach upon that of the eldership, but wise elders will find the skills and counsel of deacons to be a great asset in every aspect of the Lord’s work. This does not mean that deacons are “junior elders,” sharing the oversight and rule. Deacons are servants and helpers who minister under the oversight of elders. Elders need the help of such godly men to make their own leadership more effective.

Communication was vital to the effort to identify problems and strengthen the weak. The whole church had to understand the importance of this goal. In addition to public statements, teaching, and admonition, a letter was sent to each family seeking their help and prayers. The elders asked that the letter admit their own neglect in some aspects of dealing with the weak in the past. They wanted everyone to know that they were setting higher goals for themselves in the role of overseers, as well as for the whole church.

The result of communication with and through the evangelist, with and through the deacons, and with each family in the church was that everyone knew exactly what the goals were, what the plan of action was, and what was expected of everyone. The whole church began to pull together and the elders have continued to do a more effective job in helping the weak. This does not mean that we have no more weak Christians among us. It does mean that we are trying more earnestly to help them grow and to reach them before they fall away completely.

The letter which the elders sent as one phase of communications higher goals in this area of their work is published below.

Letter from the Elders to Every Member of the Church Here at West Columbia

Dear brother and sisters in Christ,

As elders, overseers, and shepherds, we bear two heavy responsibilities according to Hebrew 13:17. “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.”

First, we must “watch for your souls.” That means to watch with love and care for the well-being of each soul here. We watch for signs of growth and progress so that we may encourage you to continue in that direction. We also watch for signs of weakness and wavering so that we may help you to change your direction for the better. Every effort is for your profit and for your gain spiritually.

Second, we are responsible to give an account of our efforts to Christ himself. There will be great joy when we tell the story of the progress of those who are growing. We will have grief and sorrow when we must tell of those who wavered and then fell away. On that Last Great Day, we cannot profit you any longer.

We are constantly looking for ways to profit and help you more. As you know from your home life and other relationships, some acts of love are difficult and painful to perform, but they must be performed if the bonds of love are to grow. This letter speaks of some difficult and painful duties of love, but it will bear fruit for the good of us all if we can be united in doing what God teaches us to do. We ask for your prayers, your moral support, and your help in every possible way.

As elders we confess our neglect in following to completion God’s plan to strengthen the weak and to restore the fallen. There is the need for greater diligence in following every step of God’s plan, including the final withdrawal of fellowship. With God’s help and your help, we want to be better leaders in this area.

One of the danger signs in a Christian’s life is a lukewarm attitude toward the duty of assembling with the saints each time they meet (Heb. 10:25; Rev. 3:15-16). Such things as old age, sickness, and job requirements are not sinful; we do not have them in mind. But willful absence is sinful. Willful absence sears the conscience (1 Tim. 4:2), sets the wrong example (Matt. 18:6), and leads to other kinds of unfaithfulness (Gal. 5:19-21). After much exhortation and warning, the church must “withdraw from every brother that walketh disorderly” (1 Thess. 5:14; 2 Thess. 3:6).

We want to do a better job and encourage everyone to help us in calling, visiting, teaching, admonishing, and rebuking those who are willfully absent. When we see a Christian missing from our assembly, let us inquire where they are and contact them to see if they need our help in any way. Please expect someone to contact you when you are absent. You can help by getting the word to one of the elders or deacons if you get sick or when you know in advance you cannot be here. Any time you learn that a person is absent only a few times or is habitually absent, please help us to be more effective in reaching that person.

Some of you can help us by being more careful to pull your peg on the attendance board. With the appointment of new deacons shortly, we will divide the names or our members among the deacons so they can help us to stay in better touch with you about your attendance.

When a person obeys the gospel, he is asking Christ and the people of God to follow God’s plan completely if he begins to stumble or if he falls away. We fail in our duty to God and to our erring brother if we fail to do everything the Bible teaches in an effort to reach the erring. The church must continue in the relationship, fellowship, and process of working with these people until the point of a final withdrawal of fellowship. Final withdrawal is designed to bring the erring to repentance (1 Cor. 5:5), to assure the removal of the leaven of sin from the church (1 Cor. 5:6-7), and to cause others to fear (1 Tim. 5:20). Final withdrawal is a part of God’s plan and must not be neglected.

The church at West Columbia continues to have a great potential for good in the service of the Lord. Let us unite in love and patience toward the weak and the erring. Let us work closely with them as long as they show any desire to grow and to correct their lives. If there are spiritual problems in Your life and you are willing to talk with us, please contact us and we will get together with you. If you have any suggestions on this matter, let us know. May all of us unite in following every step of God’s plan regarding those who stumble or fall away. We ask the prayers and the help of every deacon, of all our teachers, of the evangelist, and of each member of the church.

With our love and care for each of you,

Signed Elders

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 21, pp. 648-649
November 1, 1990