Truth Magazine

By Cecil Willis

Nothing In a Name??

We are living in an age in which people think the name of an organization is unimportant. ,People seem to have been swept off their feet by the adage, “There’s nothing in a name!” Others prefer to quote Shakespeare attempting to prove the name of the church is unimportant, as he says, “a rose called by some other name would smell just as sweet.” But there is something in a name, and in speaking of almost any object besides the church, men readily will admit there is much in a name. Would you be willing for your wife to be called by another’s name? Or are you “narrow-minded” enough to think that since she is your wife, therefore she should wear your name? Is the name one wears really important? In speaking of this example all would admit that the name is important. If the name by which one is called is of no consequence, it should be perfectly all right to call a good American a “Communist,” or a truthful man a “liar,” or an upright citizen a “criminal.” After all, if it be true that, there is nothing in a name, it would make no difference what we are called. We realize there is something in a name.

But when it comes to spiritual matters, there is everything in a name. It is certainly important that we wear the right name. Men have deceived themselves into taking all too lightly the actions of God. When God calls the name of the church through the Apostles, it is a matter of tremendous consequence for a finite creature such as you or me to attempt to change the decree of God. It is an insult to God. It amounts to saying we are not pleased with what God has done, and that we feel we can improve upon it.

There is something in a name. Paul thought there was. He wrote to a church one time, in which people were wearing wrong names, and he reprimanded them for such divisive actions, He says: “For it hath been signified unto me concerning you, my brethren, by them that are of the household of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I mean, that each one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized into the name of Paul?” (1 Cor. 1:11-13). Does this sound as though it makes no difference what name you wear? It certainly does not. Paul is saying it is wrong for you to wear the name of Paul, Peter, or Apollos. He says you should wear the name of Him into whose name you were baptized, and of Him who was crucified for you, which of course, is Jesus the Christ. To wear another’s name would be sin. Yet when a passage is as plain as this, men and women seem to think nothing at all is wrong with them wearing the name of some preacher who is of much less importance than Paul or Peter.

Is there anything in a name? Let us read a passage from the Bible, and you may answer the question for yourself. I know, after considering this reference, you cannot answer the question incorrectly, if you will but consider it carefully. Peter, in speaking of Christ, says: “And in none other is there salvation: for neither is there any other name under heaven, that is given among men, wherein we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). There is salvation in no other name under heaven, than the name of Christ. And yet, people will tell you “There’s nothing in a name.” That just is not so! There is something in a name. There is salvation in a name. There is redemption in the name of Christ, and outside him one cannot be saved.

Names of the Church

The church is called by several names in the New Testament, each of which describes some specific aspect of it. When speaking of the church, we must use Biblical language. Even though there are many different names of the church stated in the Bible, there is but one body, one church. Let us now note some of the different titles by which the church is known.

By far, the most frequent appellation given the church is simply to call it the “church.” In Acts 8:1 we read, “And there arose on that day a great persecution against the church which was in Jerusalem.” The word “church,” in the original language of the New Testament, the Greek, means “a called-out body.” This means that the church consists of people called out of the world, and set apart unto a life of righteousness. In Matt. 16:18, Jesus says “upon this rock I will build my church.” The church, then, belongs to Christ. We reed of another name given the church in 1 Cor. 1:1, 2: “Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth.” The church is here called “the church of God.” This means the church was designed by God. In Acts 20:28, Paul tells the elders of the church at Ephesus to “Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood.” The church is the “church of the Lord.” It belongs to Christ.

Hence, when Paul comes to speak of a plurality of congregations of the Lord, he speaks of “churches of Christ.” In Romans 16:16, Paul says “Salute one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ salute you.” From this passage some have concluded that Paul was speaking of the different denominations within the church of Christ. But this is not so, for Paul condemned anything that resembled denominationalism in 1 Cor. 1, from which we just read. Further, in New Testament times there were no denominations. He was speaking of different congregations belonging to Christ. We may speak of the several thousand different congregations of the Lord in this country as “churches of Christ,” for they are just that; they belong to Christ. He purchased them with his blood. We find the church called the “body of Christ” (Eph. 4:12), “the church of the living God” (1 Tim. 3:15), the “one body” (Eph. 4:4; 1 Cor. 12:13), the “church of the firstborn” (Heb. 12:23), the “kingdom” (Matt. 16:18), and many other such names. When members of the Lord’s church come to speak of the church, they will speak of it in Bible language. They will call the church by a Bible name. The church is a Bible organization, and we should use a Bible name for it. A church not having a Bible name is not the Bible church.

It is apparent that men are not content to use Bible language in speaking of the church when you walk down the street and look at the names printed upon church buildings in any city. Look at some of these names, and then try to find them in your Bible. These names given by men are wrong because they are divisive in character, given to designate peculiar parties, sectarian in purpose and effect, separating some professed believers from others by some peculiar name, and therefore are antagonistic to the prayer of Christ recorded in John 17. These humanly devised names are condemned in the New Testament, as we read a moment ago from 1 Cor. 1. They give honor to some person, such as an outstanding preacher, or exalt some ordinance or form of government, thus diverting honor which duly belongs to Christ. These human names act as stumbling blocks to sinners, confuse honest truth seekers, and create the false impression that God has many churches, and that just any of them are all right.

Names of the Members of the Church

So far we have noticed the names by which the church is known in the New Testament. Now let us notice some of the different names by which the members of the church are known in the New Testament. It likely will be impossible for us to make special notation of all the names given, for our space is limited. (1) “Disciples” is one name given. “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them” (Acts 20:7). It should be observed that the word “disciples” is not the name of the church. It is the name given for those who make up the church. (2) “Saints.” Disciples of the Lord were also called “saints” in the Bible. Most people think of a “saint” as one who has been dead several years; at least long enough for all to have forgotten his sins. But “saints” were living Christians. Paul writes to the “saints” of the church in the city of Rome (Rom. 1:7). He wrote to living people. Some people take the word “saint,” and try to name a church after it. This also is to misuse the name given. (3) “Brethren. ” In relation to each other the saints were called “brethren.” They were all members of the family of God. Paul so names disciples of Christ, when he- says that Christ “appeared to above five hundred brethren at once” (1 Cor. 15:6). We have denominations today that get their name from the word “brethren,” which likewise is a misuse of the word. (4) “Christian” is another name given to the individuals who make up the church. In Acts 11:26, we read “the disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.” Paul almost persuaded Agrippa “to be a Christian” (Acts 26:28). Peter says “If any man suffer as , a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in this name” (1 Pet. 4:16). This term is always applied to members of the church; never is it given as a name for the church itself. So let us realize that the names given for the individuals who make up the church are not to be given as names for the church.

Neither the church, nor the members of the church have any one name; several are given for each in the Bible. But let us be sure that we are not presumptuous, in assuming a name for ourselves foreign to the Bible. The church is “the church of God,” “the church of the Lord,” “the body of Christ,” the “one body,” “the church of the firstborn,” and many other names. Several congregations are “churches of Christ.” Christians are “disciples,” “brethren,” “saints,” “priests,” “sons of God,” “children of God,” “heirs of God.” We must remember that it is important that we wear the names given by God, for God did not give us names or commandments that are unimportant. Let us not assume that where God has spoken, man can either obey or disobey, and yet have God’s approval.

We must wear the name of Christ for the church is the bride of Christ (Eph. 5:22-33; 2 Cor. 11:2); the church is God’s family, and thus should wear His name; whatever we do must be done in the name of Christ (Col. 3:17); it is only in his name that unity can ever be attained; and Paul says at the name of Christ every knee must bow (Phil. 2:9-11). The name of the church is of supreme importance. There is something in a name. “And in none other is there salvation: for neither is there any other name under heaven, that is given among brethren, where we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). Salvation is in the name of Christ! “The Churches of Christ Salute You” (Rom. 16:16).

Truth Magazine XIX: 12, pp. 179-181
January 30, 1975

By Luther Blackmon

Sometimes I have suspicioned that we call names out of spite and vindictiveness. Whoever does that advertises his littleness. But the person who says that we should never call names advertises his -ignorance of the true spirit of the New Testament writers. Of course, Luke could have said, “There were a couple in Jerusalem, a man and his wife, who sold some property and misrepresented the amount they gave, and for this the Lord killed them!” But for some reason, he told us exactly who they were. And Peter said, “Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost . . . . ” I think I know some preachers who are too nice to use the word “lie.” That is, unless something is told on them personally. One preacher just said that he had no place in his vocabulary for the word “liar.” All I can say is that his vocabulary is not big enough, and is too sweet.

Pet6r said, “Judas by transgression fell that he might go to his own place.” (Acts 1:25). Peter indicated that he had some doubt about Judas going to heaven. “What a terrible thing to say. He was judging the poor fellow.” I read an article once which made a feeble attempt to place Judas in a better light than that which is generally cast upon him. However, I doubt that even his champion hopes to meet him “over there.”

Paul tells us that “Elymas” was a “child of the devil,” an “enemy of all righteousness.” He told Elymas that. Can’t you just imagine how mortified some of the sophisticated upper crust would react to that kind of preaching today. I shouldn’t wonder if Paul would get “fired” right off.

John Mark turned back from the work and went not with Paul and Barnabas. Later Paul and Barnabas had such a disagreement over Mark that they split up. Luke says the contention between them was “sharp.” I have known many who said they would not for anything let their “unsaved” friends read a paper in which brethren are having “sharp contention.” Wonder if they tear out this chapter in Acts? (Acts 15:39). Later on, Paul speaks very favorably of Mark. He redeemed himself, and Paul held no grudges. (2 Tim. 4:11).

Apollos preached an imperfect Gospel in Ephesus, “knowing only the baptism of John.” Aquila and Priscilla taught him better and he continued his work. Was it necessary to put this in the divine record? Evidently the Holy Spirit thought so. (Acts 18:24-26).

Paul said that Peter acted the part of a hypocrite “when he was come to Antioch.” Peter was human and made human mistakes and some of them are recorded for all succeeding generations to read. This one is found in Gal. 2:11-13. The word “dissimulation” means hypocrisy.

Paul said, “Demas has forsaken me, having loved this present world.” He said Hymenaeus and Alexander had made “shipwreck of the faith,” that Hymenaeus and Philetus had “erred . . . teaching that the resurrection had passed already.”

There are times when gospel preachers ought to be like the old dentist. A young dentist moved to town, and put up a sign that read: “Teeth extracted without pain.” The old dentist put up one that read: “Teeth extracted regardless of pain.” Sometimes it is necessary to name the sinner as well as the sins. It hurts, but it should.

Truth Magazine XIX: 12, p. 178
January 30, 1975

By Donald P. Ames

Sometime ago, in the Newport Daily Independent, the announcement appeared that the Newport Presbyterian Church had appointed two women to the position of “ruling elders.” In view of the fact elders are to rule over the congregation (Heb. 13:7, I Tim. 5:17, 1 Pet. 5:2-3) and women are not to “exercise authority over man” (1 Tim. 2:12), I am curious how they were ever considered for such a position. I am even more curious how they fulfilled the qualification of being the “husband of one wife” (1 Tim. 3:2, Titus 1:6). I do not believe they can be justified by the Word of God! But neither can the Presbyterian Church!

Truth Magazine XIX: 11, p. 174
January 23, 1975

 

By Daniel H. King

In his Editorial comments respecting “Herald of Truth’s New Film Series” in the May 21, 1974 issue of the Firm Foundation, editor Reuel Lemmons joined the ever-increasing ranks of those critical of “hard,” “caustic,” and “negative” preaching. The wind is blowing across the brotherhood in just the right direction to disallow his remarks from causing overmuch friction at the present time. I must, however, beg a fresh hearing on the subject. And, I think that such is justifiable in light of the watered-down, mills-toast preaching that is being encouraged by these highhanded brethren who are so swift to condemn past generations of stout and loyal preachers and their labors. I am no traditionalist by any means, but I am of the firm conviction that in most cases these men did the best that their time and talent: would allow. Their efforts built up the walls of Jerusalem and strengthened., its fortifications, all the while swinging its gates wide and outward to the lost. Who can deny that their “hard preaching” brought the church to the point at which it is today (and me thinks that no mean place, whatever editor Lemmons’ view)? Actually, I think the problem runs much deeper than what lies on the surface. Having left the New Testament behind from the standpoint of furnishing us with everything required for our faith and practice, it now becomes necessary for these brethren to set themselves apart from their Restoration forebears and their simple and quaint ways. Though on occasion for the sake of a feigned legitimacy, allusion is made to the past; a recognition of the dichotomy is beginning to make itself felt.

Note the following paragraph from brother Lemmon’s Editorial:

“There will always be a divided opinion over how strong radio and television preaching should be. Those who have never done any of it, and those who have been thrown off the air because of caustic preaching, are sure the bark should fly. We thoroughly disagree. We have alienated our share of potential saints with ‘hard’ preaching, as any who know us will testify. Most brotherhood ‘hard preaching’ is for local consumption anyway, and to give the preacher a chance to show how ‘sound’ he is. The leaders of the Restoration, and the apostles themselves, did not want to alienate people; they wanted to draw them. And radio and television stations do not want their audiences alienated either. Somewhere along the line we have reversed that idea. An alienating negativism has isolated us until we are almost completely preaching to ourselves. We heartily favor a different approach to an audience that can turn you off with a flip of the dial.”

We would be negligent were we to fail to emphasize that tact and diplomacy are characteristics to be desired in the proclamation of the truth. Indeed, Jesus instructed the disciples, “Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents and harmless as doves” (Matt. 10:16); and Paul admonished, “Let your speech be ‘always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer each one” (Col. 4:6); while Peter instructed, “Sanctify in your hearts Christ as Lord: being ready always to give answer to every man that asketh you a reason concerning the hope that is in you, yet with meekness and fear” (1 Pet. 3:15). No one has a dispute with the teaching of these passages. Their lesson is evident: wisdom and tactfulness in our communications should typify all Christians, whether preachers or otherwise. And, since preachers are in the business of communicating the Word of God, they should especially heed these inspired words of advice.

On the other hand, there are those among us who are excusing and even promoting “soft preaching” by the perversion of such instructions. How one can be even in the least enlightened as to the preaching of Jesus, Peter, Stephen, Paul, etc., and yet opt for anything but “great plainness of speech” in the proclamation of the Gospel of Christ, I must confess to being at a loss to know. Take a look at a few examples: Peter and John in the beginning of the Gospel spake “with all boldness” (Acts 4:13), and in the face of adversity it was their prayer that- they should continue ‘such (Acts 4:29), which thing they did (Acts 4:31), and it resulted in the number of the disciples being multiplied (Acts 6:1). Paul affirmed that as the result of our hope “we use great plainness of speech” (2 Cor. 3:12), and himself confessed to the employment of the same respecting the wayward Corinthians (2 Cor. 7:4).

But Brother Lemmons informs us that, “We have alienated our share of potential saints with ‘hard’ preaching, as any who know us will testify.” What a ridiculous remark! It sounds more like what would issue from the pen of one of the “young rebels” with whom I have been associated in the past rather than something written by the editor of a reputable religious journal. Does not Brother Lemmons realize that the opposite of “hard” is “soft”? If he considers “hard” preaching so contemptible, then the only conclusion that we are left to draw is that lie is espousing that a new day of “soft” preaching should dawn. And if you have gotten around much lately I am sure that you do not have to be told that although editor Lemmons is only now awakening, it is already high noon for many liberal preachers! Having heard a few of these liberal brethren preach within the last few years, I have come away at times wondering what the point of the message was–and sadly, realizing that I could have heard a Baptist or Methodist preacher preach the same sermon without altering a single word and perhaps even do a better job of it at that!

Those who make their way down the isle at the end of such a service can only be described as “joiners.” They “join the Church of Christ” because they prefer it to the church to which they had previously belonged. They heard nothing particularly distinctive to aid them in making a distinction between the Lord’s church and a human denomination. (And, distinctive preaching will always be labeled “hard” by the world and by brethren who have enough of the world in them to hinder them from seeing it in its true context). Therefore, their reason for membership is not conviction but personal preference. “Hard” preaching would have bred either conviction or contempt. Conviction would have led to true conversion, the end to which we should be striving in our preaching, but the contempt incited by the plainly expressed message would have caused alienation. That we will readily admit. On the other hand, that is not a sufficient reason to “soften” either the message itself or the plainness of its delivery. In fact, understanding the nature of the Word of God, it should be the more reason the continuing in the same vein.

These brethren, though, in their search for bigness in this enterprise as well as in their other promotions deem it the wisest to sacrifice this side of the message rather than “alienate” anyone. Jesus Himself could have salvaged His large following in Capernaum, had He only “softened” His offending words (Jn. 6:59-66), but He dared not. The Lord recognized that the Word convicts the world of sin as well as of righteousness (Jno. 16:8) and that some love the darkness of sin more than the revealing light of truth (Jn. 3:19-21). Yet, for fear that someone will turn us off, Brother Lemmons counsels: “We heartily favor a different approach to an audience that can turn you off with a flip of the dial.” He goes on in his next paragraph:

“We get personal satisfaction out of the announcement that this new series will be more plain and pointed; that it will stress the plan of salvation, the binding nature of the scriptures and the importance and nature of the church. That announcement will please all us brethren. But we sincerely doubt that it will build a larger listening audience. And a listening audience is what we are going to all this trouble and expense to build. It doesn’t make good sense, really, to do what we, down deep in our hearts, know will lessen the number who are listening.”

There we have it! If men are offended by the truth about the plan of salvation, the binding nature of the scriptures, and the importance and nature of the church, then just do not tell them. Herald of Truth is not a scriptural arrangement in the first place, but every principle of sound biblical interpretation demonstrates to Brother Lemmons his fallacy, and there is really no excuse for this loathsome willingness to compromise the truth. His is the attitude that motivated the teachers whom Paul warned Timothy against: “Preach the word, be urgent in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but having itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers after their own lusts; and will turn away their ears from the truth. . . ” (2 Tim. 4:2-4). The force of editor Lemmons’ position is that if people will not listen to the truth, then we should give them what they will hear. He expresses the sentiment of the false prophets of old as well as the thought of heretics down through the ages, but his words fly in the face of Paul’s gallant confidence, “Wherefore I testify unto you this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. For I shrank not from declaring unto you the whole counsel of God.” For fear of “alienating potential saints,” and being “turned off,” Brother Lemmons suggests a “different approach” which amounts to “soft preaching”! Is there really any wonder that not a single passage of scripture was offered in defence of this “different approach”? The reason is all too obvious: the Book was shelved when Herald of Truth was created, and now the dusty old Volume could only serve as a hindrance to its progress.

Much of the preaching of the liberals had already gone “soft” previous to the Editorial in the Firm Foundation, but I am certain that the article will not help the situation any. Being realistic (not prophetic), I suspect that if Herald of Truth programs do not immediately conform-to his advice, they will probably do so in the very near future. And, with a large portion of the brotherhood conditioned by such thinking, there will not even be a ripple on the pond.

Truth Magazine XIX: 11, pp. 172-174
January 23, 1975