by Epiphany Bible Students

No. 120

My dear Brethren: – Grace and peace through our Beloved Master!

The primary power of God’s real people is THE TRUTH; and their secondary power is God’s Arrangement for the proper use of that Truth – in timely application and “rightly dividing” it. Thus, the counsel to “give attendance to doctrine” (1 Tim. 4:13) is sound advice for every time of the Age. And we believe it is proper obser­vation that a clear and comprehensive understanding of the doctrine of JUSTIFICATION in the faith” (which was once delivered unto the Saints –­ the Star Members) – never stray far from the general Truth structure.

There are two kinds of Justification taught in the Bible – Justification by Faith and Justification by Works. Inasmuch as our present Bible is specifically designed for those of God’s people who “live by faith,” it should be only proper that Justification by Faith should receive preponderance of favor for the past, present and future – until Justification by works gains the ascendancy. And at the outset let us understand clearly that Justification by Faith does not actually make us right – it merely reckons us right. Our understanding that we personally are justified is purely a matter of faith with each of us – “according to thy faith so be it unto thee.” And, once one enters into justification by Faith, his fellows will perceive little outward difference in him; such a faith operates in the heart and mind, without pronounced change in outward physical appearance. Time operates upon our bodies much the same as it does on those not so blessed – in due time the grave makes claim upon all. Just the reverse of this will prove true during the Kingdom reign, when a justification by works will actually make right, and all who attain that justification will no longer need fear the grave. But it is our purpose to treat only passingly of this latter; rather, we shall consider that justifica­tion that applies to all God’s people now and past – that which cometh of faith.

Since the time that “Christ brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel,” Justification by Faith has had two component divisions – a tentative justi­fication, and a vitalized justification. And it is herein that much controversy has arisen among God’s people, some claiming there is no such thing as “tentative justification”; others claiming it not only operates now, but will continue to operate even during the period of Justification by works. It is our opinion that those who deny completely a tentative justification for this Faith Age are thus forced to abandon large sections of that Truth which once made them clean. It forced J. F. Rutherford to discard completely Tabernacle Shadows of the Better Sacrifices, so that the Jehovah’s Witnesses no longer include that book in their course of study. And it is difficult to determine just what interpretation those people now give to Jesus’ words: “I say to you, Till Heaven and earth pass away, one iota or one tip of a letter shall by no means pass from the law, till all be accomplished (fulfilled)”—Matt. 5:18, Dia. Clearly enough, Jesus was thus tell­ing us that the entire Law arrangement – of which the Tabernacle with its ceremonies was a major part – was typical, and that all those types must continue until their antitypes appeared to fulfill them – fill them full to a completion.

In a flimsy attempt to justify his rejection of tentative justification, J. F. Rutherford (That Evil Servant—Matt. 24:48-51) made the false claim that Brother Russell rejected the teaching of tentative justification before he died; but this claim is directly disputed in the foreword of Volume 6, Oct. 1, 1916. There Bro. Russell sets forth tentative justification and vitalized justification as separate and distinct, as he also does in the 1909 Watch Tower, p. 360; the 1910 WT, pp. 12, 13, 93, and 246; the 1911, p. 394; the 1912, p. 152; the 1913, p. 92-94; the 1914, p. 67; the 1915, pp. 103-104 and pp. 292-293; the 1916, p. 281. These citations leave no doubt about Brother Russell’s convictions about the teaching of tentative justification. Many others have joined That Evil Servant in the denial of tentative justification; and, since this teaching is a fundamental part of the Old and New Testaments, we are justified in concluding that those who once accepted it before October 1916, but now deny it, must come under the classification of 2 Thes. 2:10,11 (Dia.): “They admitted not the love of the Truth ... And on this account God will send to them an energy of delusion.” In our Lord’s announcement of the sentence upon the “unprofitable servant” (the Great Company) of Matt. 25:30, He stated that He would be “cast into outer darkness” – the “darkness” meaning in this text, as it also does in 1 Thes. 5:5,6 and other Scriptures, – giving them over to error” (See especially the Berean Comment on 2 Thes. 2:11).

Such people are pointedly described in Psa. 107:10,11, as those “that sit in darkness,” the reason for their darkened vision being because they “rebelled against the words of God.” And to such the tribulation of Isa. 30:1 is certain: “Woe to the rebellious children, that take counsel, but not by me” – such as set up doc­trines of their own foolish reasoning, as they reject the “sound doctrine” given by That Servant, whom the Lord ‘bade ruler over all His goods.” Jesus had told the Disciples, John 15:3: ‘Now are ye clean through the words which I have spoken unto you”; and the conclusion must automatically follow that those who reject “the words – which once made them clean would then self-evidently become unclean – ­they become afflicted with antitypical leprosy – “he shall be defiled; he is ‘unclean’—Lev. 13:46. And this uncleanness will remain with that Class until the full end of the Gospel Age – “until the even” (Lev. 14:46) – as the Parable of the Talents also declares. The cleansing will be accomplished with such in “the great tribulation” of Rev. 7:14, at which time they shall experience “the weeping, and the gnashing of teeth” of Matt. 25:30. And until this cleansing is accomplished, we may reasonably expect such unclean ones to cast out (refuse to fellowship) God’s fully faithful people who resist such rebellion (revolutionism). Let us keep in mind that it is always THE TRUTH that produces the separation between the Fully Faithful and the Measurably Faithful. Thus, in controversy, such as the recent controversy on the Parable of the Talents, the “hail” (the hard convincing Truth) sweeps away “the refuge of lies,” revealing those who have received the Truth in the love of it, and those who receive the punishment of “outer darkness – ERROR and REVOLUTIONISM – LEPROUS UNCLEANNESS. Thus, we should “think it not strange” as we see this separating influence operate to a completion – “until the even.”


While we have great respect for the teachings of Brother Russell, yet we be­lieve that a doctrine so weighty as tentative versus vitalized justification should also be taught in the Bible, and that we should be able to produce a clear “thus saith the Lord” to substantiate our position – and not by one text only, but by at least two or three witnesses. The doctrine of justification, as is true of all major doctrines, is not fully treated in any one place; rather, it is “here a little, there a little.” And it is the failure to consider all that is written on various doctrines that has produced the great falling away since Apostolic times. Therefore, if we find our thoughts disputed by even a single text, we may be sure of one of three things: Either the text is spurious, we have a faulty translation, or we ourselves have the wrong interpretation. “It is impossible for God to lie”; and, since the Bible is the inspired word of God, it likewise cannot lie – cannot contradict itself.

The first “witness” we shall consider in proof is 1 Cor. 7:14 (Dia.): “The unbelieving husband is sanctified in the believing wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother; otherwise, indeed, your children were impure, but now they are holy.” The word “holy” in the text is from the Greek word ‘hagios,’ which means set apart, separate, holy. It is the same word that is translated saints more than sixty times. Clearly enough, a newborn infant could not possibly be a saint, but they receive a reckoned saintly standing because of their saintly parentage; and, since their parents are in the antitypical Tabernacle Court, their children would self-evidently have to be there with them until such time as those children reach an age of accountability and can determine for themselves whether or not they wish to retain their faith justification and continue in the saintly footsteps of their parents.

Recently a booklet came into our possession, in which the writer is very posi­tive that there can be no tentative justification, because, says he, justification must be an instantaneous work. This brother also claims, as did J. F. Rutherford, that Brother Russell changed his mind on tentative justification. This contention is clearly without foundation, as we have already shown; and is simply a ruse in shabby attempt to gain support for his error – an error that will be clearly exposed and refuted in full, as our further comments herein will demonstrate. If he had limited himself to vitalized justification, he would certainly have been right; but such a situation could not possibly apply to an infant that has its holy stand­ing without any mental accord on its own part – theirs is the Grace of God by inheri­tance, and nothing else. And surely no one with the faintest understanding of faith justification would claim that any of such justifications are vitalized. Therefore, 1 Cor. 7:14 indisputably proves a tentative justification; and it is well to note in final summation that we are also clearly faced with two kinds of tentative justi­fication – one acquired by the intelligent desire and cooperation of the recipient, the other by infants acquired through no will or cooperation of their own. Also, it is that justification described in Rom. 5:1 (Dia.): “Having been justified, there­fore, by faith, we have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ; through whom also we have been introduced into this favor in which we stand.” This tentative justi­fication – standing – is our “introduction” to God, which gives us “peace with God,” but does not give us the “peace of God” until we offer ourselves in accord­ance with Rom. 12:1 to do the will of God, which, if accepted by God, then gives to us “the peace of God which passeth (human) understanding.” Only after that do we actually possess a “living” (Zeal-inspiring) faith.

As our second “witness” we consider Romans 4, starting with v. 3 (Dia.): “What says the Scripture? Abraham believed (had faith in) God, and it was accounted (reckoned) to him for righteousness.” Here again, it is clearly stated Abraham’s faith justification did not actually make him right; it merely accounted, or reckoned, him righteous. Thus, v. 7 – “Happy are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered” – no longer held against them because of their faith justification. Certainly no one who was ever in Present Truth would contend that Abraham and David had justification similar to the justification held by those of this Gospel Age who had come into the Body of Christ – vitalizedly, through a real im­putation of Christ’s merit. But note now particularly vs. 10 and II: “How then was it accounted (to Abraham)? When he was in circumcision or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received the symbol of circum­cision, as a seal of the righteousness of that faith which he had while in uncir­cumcision; in order that he might be the father of all uncircumcised believers; that the righteousness may be accounted (reckoned) to them.”

All who were ever schooled in Present Truth are well aware that ancient cir­cumcision was a type of the Gospel-Age consecration, the physical circumcision typing that figurative circumcision of the heart that is made when one offers his heart and will to God in consecration. But St. Paul clearly states that Abraham’s righteousness was accounted, reckoned, to him before circumcision – that he might be the father of all who believe – all who experience a faith justification before they present themselves to God in consecration – before they experience the antitypical circumcision of the heart. St. Paul was truly a great logician, and his reason­ing is so clear and direct in this fourth chapter, that it seems unbelievable that any who were once in Present Truth could cast it aside; and then attempt to be­smirch Brother Russell by saying he had also cast aside these compelling Scriptures.

Following his clear exposition of a tentative reckoning, St. Paul then pro­ceeds to say in Rom. 5:1 that this faith justification arranges our “introduction” to God – not an intimate close family relationship, but merely an introduction, which will enable us to gain real intimacy of soul with our Heavenly Father if we follow his appeal in Rom. 12:1 to “present your bodies a living sacrifice” – in con­secration, which we are now in position to do as a result of our tentative, reckoned, faith justification – to “transform yourselves by the renovation of your mind.”

As our third “witness” we offer what we consider the most compelling proof for tentative justification, the same being the Atonement Day type of the wilderness Tabernacle as given in Leviticus 16. The pattern given to Moses in the Mount was emphatic that all the animals used in that service must be “without blemish” (Lev. 1:3) – no visible flaws of any kind. But we now ask, did those animals have their physical perfection as a result of their presentation to Aaron in sacrifice, or were they offered up that day because they were previously found to be perfect? The answer needs no elaboration: They were already “without blemish” when they were selected from among the children of Israel, and were brought into the Court, before they were tied at the door of the Tabernacle – their being tied there repre­senting the consecration and presentation of those who were about to enter the Holy “in newness of life” through an instantaneous vitalization of that reckoned perfection which was already theirs before consecration. And it is this tentative faith justi­fication, this reckoned perfection, that is our “introduction to God” (Rom. 5:2) – ­enabling us to enter into the Holy – into the Divine sanctum – in vitalized justifi­cation – a condition exclusive to this Gospel Faith Age, and exclusive to those only who are “begotten to newness of life” through a direct imputation of the merit of Jesus.

Reverting to earlier statements in the above paragraph, we also point out that every antitype is pronouncedly greater than its type. Thus, Jesus as the antitype of the Atonement-Day bullock was infinitely greater than was the type, requiring only the one sacrifice of Himself to cleanse from all sin forever all those who come to the Father by Him. And the members of His Body were also far greater than their Atonement-Day type as represented in the Lord’s goat. Therefore, if those animals in the type must be “without blemish” (typically perfect) before presenta­tion at the door of the Tabernacle, how much more must this be true of their Gospel-­Age antitypes? God cannot look upon sin with any degree of allowance, thus could never enter into a “covenant by sacrifice” with fallen beings unless the sin barrier were first removed. Therefore, it should be self-evident that He must first pro­vide a way – an “introduction” – for fallen man to come to Him; and this He has accomplished by arranging for a tentative, a reckoned perfection – a tentative justi­fication by faith.


But no fallen human being could arrange for this “introduction” to God by his own skill or merit; it must come through an intercessor, through one who could give him a reckoned perfection – and this He arranged through Jesus – “that He might be just, and yet be the justifier of him who believeth on Jesus.” (Rom. 3:26) And here again the Tabernacle type gives clear confirmation of this by the linen curtain which surrounded the Tabernacle structure and its surrounding plot of ground. The Divine Presence was portrayed by the Shekinah Light that shone forth from between the Cherubim in the Most Holy of the Tabernacle; and none could ever reach that presence except through Jesus – by first coming through the Gate into the Court; and inside the linen curtain, there to be reckoned perfect, righteous (“the fine linen is the righteousness of saints”—Rev. 19:8), to provide proper “introduction” to God at the first veil, and for progress through life’s pilgrimage through the Holy to the Most Holy, where ‘‘we shall be ever with the Lord.”

Some may ask how such arrangement could be true of Abraham, who lived before the typical Tabernacle was erected at Sinai. We answer, It was reckoned to him, and to all with “the faith of Abraham” from Abel to John the Baptist. ‘‘Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and He saw it, and was glad.” And, while none of the Ancients ever had more than a tentative, a reckoned justification, all that they did have came to them through a reckoned standing inside that linen curtain – which gave them a righteousness they could never attain of themselves, “Mine own right­eousness is as filthy rags.”

With this picture clearly in mind, it should now be apparent to all that the Jolly-Krewson claims of a faith justification in the Camp, outside the linen curtain, which (curtain) represents Christ, must be errant nonsense, regardless of how they classify such people in the coming Kingdom arrangement. The “faith of Abraham” is a faith-age faith. Even when the Mediatorial reign begins, and justification by works becomes operative, Jesus’ words will be as true then as they are now: “No man cometh unto the Father but by me.” There will be no Imputation of His merit then – no more justification by faith (although a certain amount of faith will certainly enter into that arrangement, but not the exacting faith for Restitutionists as for those who must exercise faith when sin is in the ascendancy in this “present evil world”) – but He will be the “everlasting Father” until such time as men have regained the Edenic perfection which will enable them to speak with God, as did Father Adam, without an intercessor,

Let us consider also Brother Johnson’s direct contradiction to the Jolly-­Krewson twosome in E-4:406:

“The Youthful Worthies, from the standpoint of having ‘the faith of Abraham,’ are, of course, like him, of the Household of Faith. They are, however, somewhat different from the tentatively justified who do not now consecrate. The latter during the Epiphany cease altogether to be in the Household of Faith, having used the Grace of God in vain.”

Let us remember that the only thing wrong with those who eventually lose their standing in the Household of Faith in the end of this Age (in the “finished picture of the Epiphany”) is their failure to consecrate. Thus, when they are forced from the Court into the Camp, they are in every way identical in character, if they maintain what they have gained, as they were in the Court – “Truly repentant and believing, but not consecrated” (E-10:209). They are not forced from the Household because of character degeneracy, the only fault against them is their failure to consecrate, which in due time forces them from the Court into the Camp. Yet R. G. Jolly offers a direct contradiction to Brother Johnson’s conclusion when he declares in his Present Truth that his Campers are of the Household of Faith. And let us not forget that the real issue in this instance is a proper understanding of Tenta­tive Justification as taught by Brother Russell and Brother Johnson, but which is now cast aside by R. G. Jolly. “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it!-

After That Servant’s death J. F. Rutherford denied the doctrine of Tentative Justification altogether because it stood in the way of his “new light.” The Epiphany Messenger clearly refuted his “new light,” and established the doctrine of Tentative Justification in the Scriptures so unmistakably that no Epiphany­ enlightened brethren need be deceived now. But shortly after the Epiphany Messenger’s death R. G. Jolly perverted the doctrine of Tentative Justification to accommodate – his “new light” of Epiphany Campers Consecrated. We must remember, too, that R. G. Jolly calls his “new light” (false doctrine) ‘Epiphany’ Campers Consecrated, there­by attempting to palm off his “strange fire”; as faithful Epiphany teaching – and at the same time offering the “strong delusion” that we are now in the Basileia! The Epiphany as a period of time (beginning with World War in 1914 and ending with Jacob’s trouble—See E-4:55, bottom) is the last special period of the Gospel-Age, with which all faithful well-instructed Epiphany-enlightened brethren will agree –­ who still accept Brother Johnson’s teaching on the subject. R. G. Jolly’s perver­sion of Tentative Justification also causes him to set aside the faithful teachings of both Messengers on Youthful Worthies. In Epiphany Volume 4, p. 342, Brother Johnson says that “those faithful consecrators from 1881 until Restitution sets in, for whom there are no crowns available, and hence no spirit-begetting for Gospel-­Age purposes possible, will be the Millennial Associates of the Ancient Worthies in reward and service.”

In R. G. Jolly’s repudiation of this Truth, and in his perversion of Tentative Justification (Azazel means Perverter), he in effect now tells the brethren that the above quotation from the Epiphany Messenger (and the teaching of That Servant, too) IS NOT THE TRUTH, but that his Campers Consecrated are privileged to walk “a narrow way” with the Great Company and Youthful Worthies – without a reward of the heavenly inheritance, or of a Kingdom “Better Resurrection” – in fact he says, there’s no reward at all other than Restitution in the final analysis! They will be closely associated with the Worthies in the Kingdom, he says, and will have opportunity to make great progress up the Highway of Holiness. But do not all the quasi-elect (unconsecrated Class) have that same opportunity? Yes, indeed, his perversion of the doctrine of Tentative justification is causing many to go into error. It has forced him to pervert the doctrine of Youthful Worthies as set out in the above quotation by the Epiphany Messenger, as he now denies the privilege of such Youthful Worthy hope to his converts. Great is the responsibility of such ‘mis’leaders! When one does violence to one feature of the Truth, then he must also do violence to other features in order to support his previous error. We would not be faithful to the Lord, the Truth and the Brethren if we did not faith­fully defend the doctrine of Tentative Justification and attack the errors presented by such Perverters (our former brethren), just as did Brother Johnson have to defend this important doctrine against J. F. Rutherford, et al (his former associates).


It is grievous indeed to note the condition of those who have forsaken the Truth that once made them clean – it is a real ‘spiritual’ oddity, perhaps peculiar to this “evil day.” Some contend they have become “supremely happy” – have obtained a “peace of mind” never before experienced by them after forsaking the Truth that once made them clean. This seems to be pointedly true when they cast away the Truth on Tentative Justification. We mentioned one such instance in our May paper, page 1. Another instance involves several erstwhile Youthful Worthies – at least one of whom had never heard of Present Truth before 1930, one who first became acquainted with Present Truth through the Epiphany Movement – but now casting aside completely the bulk of the Epiphany Truth structure, and now considering themselves in the Body of Christ! And by this experience we ourselves obtain a closer intimacy with St. Paul’s expression in Gal. 3:1: “O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the Truth?”

But by far the most extensive example of all is the group known as the Lay­men’s Home Missionary Movement. Many times, since 1950, the Truth on Tentative Justification has been sorely besmirched by this group in its relation to the Tabernacle Court and to their Campers Consecrated. Yet in those very Conventions in which this was done, quite a few have arisen to testify loudly, “This is the grandest Convention I have ever attended.” And we speak now of those who attended Conventions under Brother Johnson, and some even under Brother Russell. Just think of it, Brethren! We hear such people proclaiming that the Conventions supervised by the last two Principal Men of Micah 5:5 (the Laodicean Star) were not nearly so inspiring and elevating as those now provided and supervised by a self-admitted Crown-loser – Conventions where the truth on Tentative Justification is bandied about by the “unstable and the unlearned” in disgraceful and disturbing manner.

In summation, we would observe that the full import of St. Paul’s words comes to us more forcefully with each passing year, “Because they admitted not the love of the Truth....on this account God will send to them an energy of delusion”—­2 Thes. 2:10,11, Dia. And once more we quote the Berean Comment on these texts – ­“Giving them over to error, which they prefer to the Truth. Great delusions are just before us, and some of these may come closest upon those possessing the most light of Present Truth.” Those in the Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement certainly had more exhaustive proof on Tentative Justification than any other group on earth today; thus, now “strong delusion” has come upon those “possessing the most light of Present Truth.” Their ‘Peace of mind’ at rejecting the Truth is undoubtedly some of the “strong delusion.” And in conclusion let us consider that advancing Truth does not set aside the Truth already established, as some deceivers seem to think; all advancing Truth must be based upon the Truth already established from the Good Word of God.

“It is needful to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith that was once delivered unto the saints” – by the Star Members, especially the last two Star Members (Jude 3). And this we do in harmony also with Jude 23: ‘‘And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire” – from the danger of the second death, Psa. 107,10.

“Let thy work appear unto thy servants, and thy glory unto their children. And let the beauty of the Lord our God be upon us; and establish thou the work of our hands (clean from fleshly-minded acts and teachings); yea, the work of our hands establish thou it.” – Psa. 90:16,17

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim



Dear Brother Hoefle: Christian greetings in our dear Redeemer’s name!

      Enclosed is a contribution to the Lord’s work in which you are so valiantly engaged. May you be abundantly blessed, is the prayer of your sister in Christ ------- (CONNETICUT)

And God’s blessing go with it!


Our dear Brother Hoefle: 2 Pet. 1:2.

It was good of you to send such a comforting message, dated April 5 (the birthday of dear Sister Hoefle). We trust Sr. Hoefle received a card from Us. It was not fully addressed .... the human element came into it and It was sent from the ------- P.O. The Memorial here, April 14, was the usual three.....

It was a blessed season of fellowship, and Bro. ------- reminded us of our consecration vow and to renew it. It is wonderful to unite in this special way of remembering Him who laid down His life in sacrifice – certainly binding stronger than any earthly ties. Psalm 101:6...... The Lord continue to bless you and for the blessing of His people! Our united love from us all to you and all.

Sincerely yourbrethren ------- (ENGLAND)



QUESTION: – Is J. W. Krewson correct in his statement that Christendom generally determines the date of Good Friday as that Friday after the full moon, after the first new moon, following the Vernal Equinox?

ANSWER: – No, he isn’t right about that; in fact, the statement is self-­evident nonsense. If his statement were correct, it would never be possible for Easter to occur in March; it would always have to come in April. one segment of the early apostate church did attempt to establish the rule that it must always be the month of April, but their Idea was generally rejected. The Roman Church and most Protestant Churches use the rule: The first Friday after the first full moon after the Vernal Equinox. Thus, it would be possible for Good Friday to occur just a day or so after the Equinox; and it is not uncommon for Easter to fall within the week following the Equinox. Memory of past Easters will serve the most of us in supporting this conclusion.

Therefore, J. W. Krewson’s statement is totally erroneous, having no support from any record in existence. Yet, this self-admitted “Pastor and Teacher” offers “the immutable rule” on p. 40 of his paper No. 61 for determining the Memorial; and on p. 57, top, of the same paper he has the consummate gall to charge JJH as being the tool of Satan “to teach erroneously on many subjects.” Thus, we now invite him to produce one instance where we have ever uttered such a self­-evidently false statement on any important subject to our readers.

Furthermore, it will be noted on p. 40, where he offers “the immutable rule,” that he says the Truth on the Memorial date is an Epiphany teaching – with which statement we are in full agreement; but let him now hormonize his present state­ment with his former recent statements that the correct Memorial date was a Little ­Flock developing truth.

J. W. Krewson would make an A-1 Jehovah’s Witness – When unanswerable proof establishes any of their “new light” as self-evident nonsense, completely refuted by clear Scripture or secular records, they reverse themselves without flicker of an eyelash, offering other “new light” in place of their erroneous previous “new light.” So also with J. W. Krewson: If, and when, he ever mentions Good Friday again, we may be certain his present error won’t be repeated. Investigation will convince him of the truth of our own statement herein; and that’s the way he’ll put it – just as though that’s always been his teaching on the subject.



Although we do not require any of our brethren to give us a report of their Memorial – the number of participants, and their activity in the Special Effort, we are grateful for the number we have received from Classes and indi­viduals so far. It encourages us to learn of the brethren who are co-laborers with us in the “good fight” of faith.