Truth Magazine

By Cecil Willis

In this, another article upon the subject of miracles, we would like to continue with a comparison of the miracles in the New Testament with those of so-called miracle-workers today. They are of entirely different natures. If one will but recognize what the Bible says about the nature of miracles, then he will not be deceived by the pseudo-miracle-workers of today.

New Testament Miracles Were Undeniable

As we turn to about the nature that the miracles performed by Christ and the were undeniable. When the apostle Peter be present the proofs of Christ’s deity on the Pentecost to a group of unbelieving and murdering Jews, he begins by saying that the miracles that Christ performed were indisputable proofs of His deity. The Jews had a part in the crucifying of Christ and yet Peter said to them, “Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God unto you by mighty works and wonders and signs which God did in the midst of you, even as ye yourselves know; him being delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye did by the hand of lawless men did crucify and slay” (Acts 2:22, 23). Notice that Peter declared that these Jews themselves knew of the miracles which Jesus had performed. Even these who were so profane in heart that they could slay God’s Son could not deny the actuality of Christ’s miracles. Even the most wicked of Christ’s enemies could not deny that Jesus did perform miracles.

Seeing that the New Testament miracles were undeniable, contrast that with the so-called miracles that we are asked to believe. On Pentecost, Peter could declare that these unbelieving Jews knew of Jesus’ miracles; but, today, fake-healers, and pseudo-miracle-workers depend upon testimonials of their own adherents to prove their miracles. It was never necessary for New Testament miracles to be proven by testimonials, for they were of such nature that they were apparent. On the other hand, today’s so-called miracles are questionable.

Not very long ago a fellow came to the church building where I was preaching and had a lot to say about the fact that we denied miracles were worked today. I asked him to point out one modern-day miracle, and he proceeded to do so. He told me that a preacher performed a miracle on a little black boy in Chattanooga, Tennessee. This little boy had lost an eye, and in its stead, he had a glass eye. This man declared publically that the preacher performed a miracle on the glass eye so that the little boy could see out of it. Well, that all sounded pretty good. But quite coincidentally, I happen to be in Chattanooga at the time that this “miracles” was supposed to have been performed. Of course, the man did not know that I was. In fact he was not there himself! He had only heard about it. But I was preaching in a Gospel meeting in that town when this great wonder occurred. The members of the church of Christ there carried a large advertisement in the local newspaper exposing the fraud. After the little boy was supposed to be able to see out of glass eye, the preacher absolutely refused to let a member of the church blindfold the little boy’s good eye. The man who related the story to me, thinking it was the truth, was astonished when I completed the facts for him, but that is exactly what happened. Biblical miracles never depended upon such deception and fraud. Peter could say, “which ye yourselves know”. They were undeniable. But not so with the so-called miracles of today.

New Testament Miracles Were Subject to Empirical Senses

Secondly, let us note that New Testament miracles were such that they could be examined by the empirical senses. They were such that they could be tested by the eyes, ears, touch, taste, etc. We find that Jesus made the dumb to speak. If a man had never spoken, and suddenly began speaking, one could hear what he said, and thus test the miracle. He made the lame to walk and one could see that the healed man could walk. He raised the dead; they could examine the raised man. He turned water into wine and they could test this miracle by taste. But contrast this with the attempted miracles of today. In the first place, they only attempt healing. They never attempt any other kind of miracle that Jesus did.

But, what kind of healings do they attempt to perform? They will heal one of an internal cancer. But did you ever see them heal a man whose face had been eaten off by this terrible disease? Their failure to cure the man would soon be apparent. Hence they do not try it. Or, did you ever see them instantly cure any broken bones? You did not, and will not ever see it. However, they can give testimonials as to people that were cured of indigestions, of stomach disorders, of the smoking habit, or T.B. or some other internal disease. But try to find a single miracle that one can test with the sense of touch, sight, or hearing. You cannot do it! You will not find it!

Some time ago a man came to my home advertising a meeting, and we began discussing the Bible. Eventually the matter of miracles came up. He himself could not work a miracle, but he knew others who could. Finally, I asked him if he had even witnessed a miracle. In his honesty, he admitted that he had not. But he replied that he had talked with people who had. I cite this example just as an, admonition to you. When you hear of miracles’ being performed, try the difficult task of tracing down the person who was healed. Ask for the names and addresses of some of the people who are healed and then find out what they were healed of. It will likely be nervousness, smoking or some disease that is internal. But the miracles that Jesus and the apostles performed were of an entirely different nature. They could be tested with the senses and were undeniable.

New Testament Miracles Were Instantaneous

Another characteristic of New Testament miracles is that these marvelous happenings occurred instantly. They were immediate. I want to cite a few New Testament miracles-please note that they were instantaneous and never partial healings.

Luke 13:10-13: “And he was teaching in one of the synagogues on the Sabbath day. And behold, a woman that had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years; and she was bowed together, and could in no wise lift herself up. And when Jesus saw her, he called her, and said to her, Woman, thou are loosed from thine infirmity. And he laid his hands upon her: and immediately she was made straight, and glorified God.”

Luke 8:43,44: “And a woman having an issue of blood twelve years, who had spent all of her living on physicians, and could not be healed of any, came to him, and touched the border of his garment: and immediately the issue of her blood stanched.”

Matt. 20:29-34: “And as they went out from Jericho, a great multitude followed him. And behold, two blind men sitting by the way side, when they heard that Jesus was passing by, cried out, saying, Lord, have mercy on us, thou son of David. And Jesus stood still, and called them, and said, What will yet that I should do unto you? They say unto him, Lord, that our eyes may be opened. And Jesus, being moved with compassion, touched their eyes; and straightway they received their sight, and followed him.”

John 5:2-9 “And straightway the man was made whole, and took up his bed and walked.”

Acts 3:6-8 “In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk. And he (Peter) took him by the right hand, and raised him up: and immediately his feet and his anklebones received strength. And leaping up, he stood, and began to walk; and he entered with them into the temple, walking, and leaping and praising God.”

When God enabled a man to work a miracle, he enabled him to do it immediately. Some time ago I received a letter from a lady that I have never met, but in it she told me that some fellows who thought that they could work miracles had been several days trying to heal a boy with a broken leg next door to her. Now if they had persistently continued their efforts, they could have pronounced it partially healed-in about eight weeks.

What I am saying is not in the least to doubt the power of God. God worked the miracles we have just read about, but the purpose of miracles exists no longer. While I do not doubt the power of God, I certainly doubt the assumed authority and power of pretentious men who think that they can work miracles.

Several years ago a “healer” came into Tampa, Florida, and a good personal friend of mine took a little boy of his who had the chicken pox to be healed. The “healer” took the little boy and put him in the healing line. When the time for the healing of the boy came, he took the little boy by the shoulders, shouted at him, jerked him around and then pronounced him healed. Yet, the chicken pox were still very apparent. When the great miracle-worker was asked why the spots did not instantly go away, he replied, “Oh, they will leave in two or three days.” How much longer would they have lasted if he had not “healed” the boy? Not any! Such deceit and fraud does not even deserve to wear the name religion.

New Testament Miracles Were Complete

Furthermore, one never reads in the Bible of where one was partially healed. God does not do a half job on His miracles. Yet, we find people testifying that they can see better after they were “healed” than before. But if God healed them at all, they would have as perfect eyesight as any human being.

One lady was rather provoked at my beliefs (unbelief!) about such healers. She called me up and after a conversation with her, she invited me to her house. We had several good discussions. But, she maintained that God had healed her. I asked of what she had been healed, and she promptly replied, “bad eyesight”. Yet at that very instant she was wearing glasses. God does not halfway heal a person. When God does it, He does a complete job. This same lady claimed to be getting direct revelation from God. She was kind enough to make me copies of the “divine” messages. In one of them, God had told her to vote for a republican, even though she was a democrat.

In this lesson on New Testament miracles it has been necessary to contrast the miracles of the Bible with the “miracles” of today. Since most modern “miracleworkers” attempt nothing, or very little except healing, we have mostly discussed “healings”. Next week the topic will be specifically “Miraculous Divine Healing”.

Truth Magazine XXI: 8, pp. 120-122
February 24, 1977

By Voyd N Ballard

Some twenty years ago when institutionalism was again raising it’s ugly head in the church, those that favored the institutions and were determined to push them onto the church, commenced a campaign against faithful preachers and brethren in which they branded us as an “insignificant bunch of antis and legalists who would soon fade out of the picture.”

I lived in Bakersfield, California when the division happened there some fifteen years or so ago. The institutional crowd threw the loyal brethren out of the property at Lincoln and Brown Streets in East Bakersfield after engaging them in a lawsuit over possession of the property. This lawsuit was instigated mainly by a few preachers who favored the institutional orphan homes and the Herald of Truth, and who branded the brethren who opposed these man made institutions as a bunch of “insignificant antis and legalists” that would never amount to anything. I well remember them bringing in Rue Porter to defend these institutions. Rue preached for over an hour one night in an attempt to defend the institutional position. During the whole sermon he used only three or four scriptures, none of which even came close to supporting the institutional cause. (Rue was a good preacher and debater, but no man can find scripture which does not exist to support that which the Lord has not authorized.) I think no man then living knew that better than Rue Porter. So Rue’s speech in the main consisted of telling how small and insignificant these “antis” and “legalist” were. I remember him stating at that time that `not more than five percent of the preachers in the church were opposed to Herald of Truth and the Orphan Homes and that this percent would decrease with time. Rue has long since gone to his reward, but he did live long enough to see time fail to sustain his prediction.

Now, once again we have raised up a group of preachers who not only want to fellowship institutionalism, but every other ism as well. These fellows have embraced the old sectarian doctrine of “faith only” and some of them are mighty close to the doctrine of the “impossibility of apostasy” so once again we are hearing the old song, “I don’t like the way you are opposing us.” “No man can be saved by obedience.” “You are just a legalist” “Man is saved by the grace of God; If the Christian ever gets to Heaven it will be by the grace of God, not by what he has or has not done.”

Well Sir, I for one very frankly confess that I am a legalist! The definition of a “legalist” or “legalism” is “strict adherence to law of prescription.” But, some say, “we are not under law, we are under grace.” That we are under grace, no one denies. However, I am willing to affirm that the grace of God is expressed (or revealed) only in and through the law (gospel) of Christ, and that no man can be made free from sin nor keep free from sin except through his obedience to this law. True, man cannot be saved by his own law. He cannot work out a law or plan of his own and be saved by the works of that plan. “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast” (Eph. 2:8,9).

If man could work out his own plan, he could boast of being saved by his own works, but the Holy Spirit says this we cannot do. However, this passage says we are “saved by grace through faith.” Faith then, is the door by or through which we enter the grace of God. The only faith the Bible knows (approves) is faith that moves man in obedience to the law (gospel) of Christ. “By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear . . . ” (Heb. 11:7). Faith that does not move man to obey God is not the faith spoken of in Eph. 2, or anywhere else in the Bible for that matter. The only other kind of faith spoken of is defined as “dead faith.” This is the faith devils have. I suppose these “faith only” advocates believe there is one God; That is well, but it is not enough! “the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?” (Jas. 2:19,20).

“The grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men.” Titus 2:11. How? Through Christ and his law. However, all men are not in the grace of God. If so, then we have universal salvation! Since the grace of God has appeared (been revealed) to all men, therefore, all men have access to His grace through faith. This faith “cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10:17). In other words it comes by hearing the law or truth of Christ, and the truth (and only the truth) makes man free (John 8:32). Therefore, the faith that saves is the faith that moves man to obey the law of Christ. It is the faith that moves him to turn in repentance of his sins (Acts 17:30,31), Confess Jesus as Lord (Rom. 10:9) and be baptized into Christ for the remission of his sins (Acts 2:38). This baptism puts one into Christ, into the one body (Eph. 4:4), which is the church (Col. 1:18). To be in Christ is to be in the church. All spiritual blessings are in Christ (Eph. 1:3), so outside of Christ there is no salvation. There is not one verse anywhere in the New Testament that says one believes into Christ, Not one! Talk about “faith only” it is not in there, brother! Yes sir, I am a legalist. Faith, repentance, confession and baptism are the terms of salvation set forth by “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus . . . ” (Rom. 8:2). This is the Lord’s law or prescription to the alien sinner, and I am ready to affirm that without obedience to this law no alien sinner can be saved.

No one denies that salvation is by faith, but just remember this, no man in any age was ever said to be justified by God on account of his faith until that faith was expressed in obedience to the will of God. If I am wrong about this let one of these “faith only” boys step forward and cite a case. And I will tell you something else: If you do find anywhere in the Bible (Old or New Testaments) just one single person that was ever said to be justified by God on account of his faith before that faith obeyed God, you will do something that no denominational preacher has ever done, and I have been calling on denominational preachers to produce just such a case for the past forty years! I have issued this challenge to Baptist debaters that had this Calvinistic “faith only” doctrine down to a gnat’s eyebrow long before some of these “faith only” “grace only” boys in the church were dry behind the ears.

These boys get all mixed up on what the grace of God is, how we come into it, and how we stay in it. One of the main reasons they get into such a mess is because they fail to take into consideration that there are three different classes of works mentioned in the Bible. These are:

1. The works of man, which I have discussed above and which Paul was talking about when he said, “not of works, lest any man should boast.” Man cannot be saved by his own works, plan or system. He is saved by God’s plan which is described in Eph. 2 as the grace of God. This whole plan of redemption originated with God, was revealed in the gospel by God, is “the gift of God” and therefore, the grace of God by which man is saved.

2. The works of the law of Moses: This law was never intended to bring man to justification. Men were justified by their obedience to God long before the law was given. This was justification through obedience based upon the promise of the coming “seed” at which time the grace (whole plan of God) would “appear” (be revealed) through Christ. “It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made . . . ” (Gal. 3:19). Therefore, man cannot boast of salvation either by his own works nor by the works of the old law. Neither could save. The promise of salvation was made to and through Christ.

3. The works of Righteousness: “Therefore by the works (deeds) of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God; Being freely justified by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus . . . ” (Rom. 3:20, 24).

This redemption that is in Christ Jesus is justification by the grace of God. But note that it is redemption in Christ Jesus. The grace of God is therefore in Christ Jesus, and nowhere else. The grace that saves is the grace we enter through faith and this is an obedient faith that “delivers us from the power of darkness, and translates us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through the (his) blood, even the forgiveness of sins . . . ” (Col. 1:13,14). Redemption-, even the forgiveness of sins is therefore in Christ, His Body which is the church or Kingdom. The man does not live that can produce a passage of scripture showing any hope of salvation outside the church or kingdom of Christ, and it takes more than “faith only” to put us into that kingdom. It takes the works of righteousness. These include baptism into Jesus Christ (Gal. 3:26,27). “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, (water baptism-who wants to deny it) and renewing of the Holy Spirit” (Titus 2:5).

The law of the spirit of life in Christ not only frees us from the law of sin and death by putting us into covenant relationship with God, Christ and the Holy Spirit in the kingdom or church, but our continued obedience to this law is the only thing that will keep us in this relationship. The man does not live that can prove there is a difference between the gospel of Christ and the doctrine of Christ. Paul preached the gospel of Christ as the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16) to every one that believeth; not just to the alien sinner, but to the saints as well. He told the saints in Rome: “So as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.” This statement was addressed “To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints” (Rom. 1:7). In the 16th chapter at verse 25 he said the Lord was able to establish them “according to my gospel.” But in chapter 6 at verse 17 he said they had “obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.” He affirmed that their obedience to this doctrine resulted in their “Being made free from sin” and “becoming the servants of righteousness.” So these people obeyed the gospel or the doctrine of Christ (one and the same) and their obedience made them “free from sins,” “saints of God” and members of the “one body in Christ” (Rom. 12:5) They were admonished to be legalists. Their eternal salvation depended upon their “strict adherence to the law of Christ” and they were to “mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them” (Rom. 16:18). Any man who thinks he can ignore the law of Christ and still be saved by the grace of God is in for a rude awakening at the judgment. “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he bath both the Father and the Son.” This is the Lord’s “prescription” for being saved and for keeping saved. After all, He is the Great Physician and he has the authority to prescribe (Matt. 28:18,20.) He has certainly prescribed the law of salvation to the alien sinner, and has set forth the conditions by which the sinner comes into the grace of God. He has also prescribed that we continue to obey Him after becoming Christians if we are to remain in this grace. “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men. Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world. . . ” (Titus 2:11, 12).

I am therefore a legalist, for I believe these scriptures which teach me that I must follow the law of Christ.

Truth Magazine XXI: 8, pp. 118-120
February 24, 1977

By Mike Willis

For several months now, I have been intending to write an article pertaining to the name of the Lord’s church. A number of articles have crossed my desk in which the writers have denied that the church has a name. I want our readers to see a sampling of these articles. These quotations are from the pens of young men who are presently preaching for conservative congregations.

“A brother in the Lord recently wrote an article on `The Identity of the Church’ an excerpt of which appears below: . . In this article, this brother states that one Identifying mark of the New Testament church is its designation.’ In stating this my brother undoubtedly Is sincere. I know that he is a man of integrity. However, I disagree with his belief that the Lord’s churches have a name (or several names for that matter). To state that `other names are attached to the church’ (as our brother does) Is to beg the question. I have learned, in discussing this subject with other saints, that most brethren assume that Jesus has given His churches several names and that it is up to each local church to decide which name its wants to go by. I deny that the Lord has given His churches any name whatsoever.”(1)

“Some are no doubt disturbed that we don’t have the `name of the church’ on the bulletin somewhere. But that’s just the point – does the church actually have a `name’? . . . Searching the Scriptures I find no warrant for lifting out any particular designation and elevating it to the status of `namehood.’ All this stuff about the `right name’ is a throwback, not to the first century, but to the Reformation era of Church History when men began to label their assemblies after the doctrines and practices of the theologise they followed. The Items in the New Testament that we call `names’ are nothing more than descriptive terms which identify a particular relationship between God and His people. It would have been s perplexed apostle who would have been asked, `What is the name of the church?'”(2)

“1. I have learned that Churches of Christ are quickly evolving toward denominational status. It is ironic that the `restoration movement’ (which many credit with establishing the `New Testament Church’ in the U.S.) which started as a plea centered in Jesus and a return to the Bible as sole authority has k crystallized into a sectarian consciousness which finds greater security in being in `the right church’ than in being in Christ Jesus. All of this is very subtle and unarticulated perhaps, but ultimately results in the same kind of denominational outlook that those venerated `restorers’ opposed so vigorously. `Our’ preoccupation with names, `identifying marks,’ unwritten creeds, and the like clearly take away the emphasis from Jesus as Head of the church, and the Bible as sole authority.”(3)

In a satirical article entitled, “Diary of a Church Building,” Brother Bruce Edwards, Jr. continued,

“The deacons put up the new neon sign today that lets all the townspeople know `who’ we are. They certainly aren’t a denomination! I hear that echoed within my auditorium often enough. Strange though. All the other church buildings in town have their `sages’ out front too, letting everyone know `who’ they are as well. I sometimes wonder whether those that drive by me think that the church that meets here is any more `distinctive’ than the other ones in town.”(4)

Some ten years ago, Ron Durham present editor of Mission, stated the same position regarding the name of the church as is being presently sated by some among us; he wrote,

“With but an isolated exception or two, we not only `speak the same thing’-we even put the same wording on our stationery and sign boards. This becomes wrong only when the exclusive use of the terns gives a denominational definition to the church . . . . Surely, when congregations of that one body adopt a singular public name exclusive of all others, the first step to denominating the church-in the wrong sense-has bees taken.”(5)

The statement of this position is not the exclusive property of a group of young preachers among us as the following citations from respected men who hold to Bible authority indicates:

“Mature Christians understand that the church does not have a name. It does indeed belong to Christ (Matt. 16:18) and local churches were called churches of Christ (Rom. 16:16). It is also the church of the Lord (Acts 20:281, sari of God (1 Cor. 1:2), is an assembly of firstborn ones (Heb. 12:231, and bears other distinctive marks of Identification. What the church is called simply depends on the relationship In which one views it.”(6)

“Brethren condemn sectarian names which distinguish the denominational bodies and then `denominate’ the church by exalting a descriptive phrase so that it becomes the official (or unofficial) nomenclature for the church. Many seem to be persuaded that the name of God’s people is `The Church of Christ.’ The truth of the matter is, the only name for God’s people is Christian (Acts 11:26).”(7)

With these quotations before us, let us consider whether or not the church has a name or names.

What Is A Name?

Believing that a proposition properly defined is half argued, let me give some attention to the definition of “name.” Beside the word “name.” when used as a noun, Webster listed seven definitions of which the first two are pertinent to our discussion; they are as follows:

“1. a word or phrase by which a person, thing, or class of things is known, called, or spoken to or of; an appellation; a title. ” 2. a word or words expressing some quality considered characteristic or descriptive of a person or thing.”

Most of the confusion relating to our subject centers around the accurate definition of the word “name.” Those who protest that the church has no name assert that phrases such as “church of Christ,” “church of God,” etc. are “descriptive terms” rather than “names.” However, if a person will carefully consider the second definition of “name,” he will see that a “descriptive term” is a “name”! Hence, the confusion is caused by giving to the word “name” the exclusive definition of “proper name” (the name of a particular person, place or thing). This constitutes an unjustified limiting of the definition of the word “name.” Actually any noun is the “name” of a person, place or thing. Hence, if any noun is used to describe God’s people, God’s people are named.

The distinction supposed to exist between a “descriptive term” and a “name” is neither grammatical nor scriptural. (Notice that I did not deny that a distinction exists between a proper name and .a descriptive title.) The descriptive term “son” was called a “name” (onoma) in Heb. 1:4,5. Hence, those who have tried to distinguish. descriptive terms and names have made much ado over nothing. If what they are trying to distinguish are descriptive terms and proper names, then they should say so.

Thus, in the consideration of whether or not the church is named, let us observe that I have no obligation to prove that the church has one, exclusive, proper name in order for it to be considered to be named; it can be “named” by the usage of descriptive terms.

The Word “Church” As A Name

One of the most obvious points to be observed in connection with our subject is that the word “church” itself is a name! The word “church” is persistently applied to groups of Christians; it is a name used by inspired writers to designate a collectivity of Christians. The word “church,” with its attending prepositional phrases (of God, of Christ, etc.), is used in such a way as it might be properly called a “name.” For example, when Paul wrote his letter to the Corinthians, he addressed it to “the church of God which is at Corinth” (1 Cor. 1:2). In the city of Corinth, there were a number of religious collectivities such as the synagogue of the Jews, the Temple of Aphrodite, and others. The appellative “church of God” designated to whom the letter was addressed; it was a “name” which distinguished the recipients of the letter from all other people in Corinth.

Again in 1 Cor. 10:32, Paul wrote, “Give no offence either to Jews or Greeks or the church of God.” No one would deny that “Jews” and “Greeks” are “names” of classes of people. However, “church of God” is placed beside these words in a parallel construction; if “Jews” and “Greeks” can be properly designated as names, then so can the phrase “church of God.” The word “church” designated a group of people just as certainly as did “Jews” and “Greeks.” It named them. And, by today’s rules of grammars, it could probably be called a proper name. The word church itself is a name! Those who protest that the church does not have a name must face up to the fact that the word “church” is a name!

Abuses of the Name

For as long as I can remember, brethren have been teaching about abuses associated with the name of the church. Preachers have been informing members that there is no one exclusive name by which the church is called. Yet, we should not allow abuses of an item to cause us to reject it, if it is scriptural in itself. The fact that the Mormons call their young men “elders” does not stop us from calling those men who fill the qualifications of 1 Tim. 3 “elders.” The fact that the world uses the word “church” in an unscriptural sense has not yet caused anyone to throw it out of his vocabulary. Hence, I do not believe that just because the world views us in a certain way because we uniformly use the term “church of Christ” is justification for ceasing to use that term anymore than their misconceptions concerning baptism should cause us to quit using the term “baptism.” Rather, it simply means that we must teach the world the proper meaning of these words. The fact that several are rising to protest the scriptural usage of a scriptural phrase is no reason to abandon its usage. The right to choose what goes on the sign in front of the building, the stationery, advertisements, etc. belongs to the local church. So long as it chooses a Bible name, no man has the right to criticize them. To do so is to legislate where God has not legislated.

While we are discussing abuses related to names, perhaps we should consider the virtues of wearing a multiplicity of names. Will the world judge us to be less denominational if we wear a variety of names? I think not! The Christian Churches have already tried that experiment. Their groups are called “Disciples of Christ,” “Christian Church,” and “Church of Christ.” Yet, who would assert that the wearing of this variety of names has kept them from being considered a denomination in the eyes of the general public? The alternative of each congregation wearing a different name has absolutely no advantage over a uniform name; it would not prevent the tendency of the world, or of some ignorant brethren, to consider the church a denomination.

Does insisting upon the church wearing “the right name” take away from Christ as Brother Bruce Edwards, Jr. has charged. He said, ” ‘Our’ preoccupation with names, ‘identifying marks,’ unwritten creeds, and the like clearly take away the emphasis from Jesus as Head of the church (note his usage of “church” as a name for God’s people-MW) and the Bible as sole authority.” Is this so? I think not! The insistence upon a scriptural name emphasizes that Jesus’ word must govern even the choice of the name in front of the building. How can one preach the necessity of having a Bible name without exalting the authority of Christ which rests in His word? Bruce’s charge is not proven; it is an unfounded assertion, nothing more!

Consistency

Although there are several who are writing extensively on the subject of the name of the church in which they are saying that the church has no name, everyone of the churches for which these men preach still identify themselves as a “church of Christ.” It seems to me that these men should at least clean up their own backyard before they set out to reform the brotherhood. If the wearing of a name is wrong, should not these men begin their work by persuading the congregation with which they work to straighten up? Should not they lead the way by showing us what we can scripturally use in advertising our meetings, location and time of services, and on our publications without being guilty of latching on to one name to the exclusion of all others? Brother Bruce Edwards made such an attempt on his bulletin for a short period of time, although I notice that for some reason he has already reverted to using the word “church” instead of “Christians.” Bruce, is there any scriptural difference in saying, “Published by the church that meets at . . . .” and “Published by the church of Christ that meets at . . . .”? Would we be better off to follow your example? If all of us did as you do would we be just as guilty of making “church” an official name? Those who are making much ado about the name issue need to face up to the fact that they have not yet suggested a reasonable, workable alternative which will avoid the pitfalls which presently exist with reference to a uniform name!

Conclusion

In conclusion, let me state that I can see nothing unscriptural or anti-scriptural in the churches wearing a uniform name. However, we must be careful to teach that this is not the only, exclusive name given to God’ people. We must teach the members that the prop name is not the only identifying mark of the Lord church and that is not more, or less, important then an other identifying mark. I think that the fact that ever preacher with whom I have ever had any acquaintanc has been doing that for years is worthy of notice. Hence, some are making much ado about nothing. I at wondering why such a fuss is being made.

Although I cannot be a judge of the motives of the men who are writing about the name of the church, I can judge the fruits of their works. A small, struggling church in the South came under the influence of one who makes a big to-do over the name. As a result, the sign in front of the building was changed from “Church of Christ” to “Christ’s Church.” (Notice how much more scriptural is the latter than the former!) Shortly thereafter, some liberal brethren and members of a local Christian Church joined hands to begin a church; they called it “Christ’s Church.” Needless to say the small struggling church had to change its sign again. (Wonder what the people in their neighborhood thought of the indecision about what to call themselves?) The preacher who pushed the change in names continued to harangue about the sectarianism and traditionalism in the church of Christ to such an extent that tension between the congregation and other local congregations were created. The young preacher who was so vehement over the name has become more and more disillusioned because he cannot arouse brethren from their “lethargy” and “traditionalism” with reference to the name. He

recently visited the services of a Pentecostal group and commented something to this effect: “I got more good out of this than anywhere I’ve been.” Needless to say the family and friends of this young man are much concerned about his spiritual future.

The creating of needless confusion over matters of judgment is sinful. This is the fruit of the labors of those the who are making much ado about the name. Unless these men are willing to teach that our current practice will send men to Hell, they need to shut up. Why create needless confusion over matters of judgment?

Truth Magazine XXI: 8, pp. 115-118
February 24, 1977

By Larry Ray Hafley

Several articles of late have spoken of commitment to Christ. No informed Christian denies the need, but while contending for commitment to Christ, some decry “church of Christ theology in the process of conversion.” It is charged that “Neo-Phariseeism” is “in the church of Christ today.” If these allegations be true, they are indeed abominations to be abhorred. Whence cometh this series of complaints? Are they valid? If there is Phariseeism and ecclesiastical gospelism, it must be stopped. However, let none confuse urgings to the New Testament order with creedal, institutional salvation.

We are told that “commitment is to a Person,” not to a series of conditions to be obeyed. That is only partly correct. We ought to commit ourselves unto Christ (2 Tim. 1:12; 1 Pet. 4:19). Our commitment initially comes through obedience to a series of conditions (Heb. 5:8, 9; Matt. 7:21; Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38). Last year, in debate with a Primitive Baptist, I affirmed, “The Scriptures teach that Christ died for all the sinful race of Adam and that He offers the remission of alien sins to all alike through the gospel conditions of faith, repentance, confession, and baptism.” Is there a genuine, New Testament Christian who could not make, the same affirmation? Yes, commitment is unto Christ, but that commitment is not made until we are obedient “unto a series of conditions” that have been prescribed in the word of God.

Further, we are reminded that the early, evincing evangelists preached “commitment to a Person,” that they did not emphasize the church as a “legally identifiable body.” In Acts 8:5, Philip “preached Christ unto them.” What did it mean to preach Christ? It meant that he preached “the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 8:12). I wonder if the things concerning the kingdom of God had anything to do with the church? I wonder if the things concerning the name of Jesus Christ had anything to do with repentance and baptism (Lk. 24:47; Acts 2:38)? The Thessalonians in like manner were called by the gospel in order to obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 These. 2:14). They were turned by the word of God; that is, they were converted from idols to serve the living and true God, as opposed to the dead and false idols they formerly served (1 These. 1:9; 2:13). In truth, that is commitment to a person. Note, also, however, that they were “called . . . . unto his kingdom and glory.” They were called unto the church, the realm of the redeemed (1 These. 2:12). This is the very same thing as being “called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord” (1 Cor. 1:9). When men are called to the kingdom and glory of Christ, they are called to Christ. So, please spare me these sermons about “commitment to a Person,” rather than to the Church. The church is His body (Col. 1:24). When one is called unto it, he is called unto and into Christ.

In Acts 11:19, “a great number believed and turned to the Lord.” In Acts 18:8, the very same thing occurred, except this time it is said, “many of the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were baptized.” Those two statements are synonymous, interchangeable-they say the same thing in essence. When Barnabas saw the believers, it is said that “he saw the grace of God.” That is, he saw the effects of God’s grace. A host had been converted. They had “believed and turned to the Lord.” We may call that “commitment to a Person.” But they had, upon hearing the gospel, believed and been baptized. It is the same thing. Do not lecture to me about distinctions without a difference.

Philip preached Christ to the Ethiopian treasurer. That would qualify as preaching “commitment to a Person,” I suppose. I prefer to call it what Luke called it. At any rate, after hearing comment concerning “commitment to a Person,” the treasurer wanted to be baptized. Once again, commitment to a Person involves and includes commands to be obeyed (Acts 8:35, 36). If there is a gospel preacher who does not believe this, he ought to be committed.

Truth Magazine XXI: 8, p. 114
February 24, 1977