Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

I am not an expert in Mormon theology. I rely on a number of studies published by brethren for insight and information. However, like most of you, I have had several sessions with Mormon “elders.” Each confrontation is different, as no two prospects are alike, but let me share with you some approaches I have attempted with the Mormons.

These actions are designed (1) to convert the lost soul; (2) to teach the truth that makes men free; (3) to shake the Mormon from his pedestal of confidence and assurance, to keep him off balance. (Allow Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses to dictate the lesson and you will be in reverse, trying to throw punches while falling backward. Mormons are used to being in control; they are used to setting the course; they are used to meeting people they can confuse, rattle and tie up in knots; hence, they are poised, confident. This air of assurance and domination must be snatched from them. Do not permit them to dictate the flow of the study.); (4) to cause the Mormon to doubt, to be puzzled, to question his system, his faith. (He may not admit it openly. He may verbally express his unwavering faith in Mormonism, but inwardly he should be wondering, questioning.)

Beginning The Assault

At the outset, I state my faith in the Bible and assert the same for them. Generally, at the start, they nod agreement. Yes, the Bible is God’s word; yes, they believe it. (After a period of discussion, they will often back away from faith in the Bible as the word of God, but initially, at the beginning, they usually agree that the Bible is the truth of God.)

Quickly, then, I may shift gears and comment concerning their “Elder” name tage. I tell them that I know they cannot be elders in the New Testament church and proceed to examine the qualifications for elders. This leaves most Mormon elders with empty looks on their faces. As you sit down to study, ask them about their families. “What’s your wife’s name?” “How many children do you have?” They will smile and acknowledge, “I’m not married.” With a serious look, you may reply, “Really? Well, that is strange because elders in the Lord’s church have to be married men with faithful children.” Cite the appropriate passages (1 Tim. 3:2-5; Tit. 1:6), and you have most young Mormons off balance and out of control of the situation.

So, study the elder question and press them about it. Be firm, be fair, be kind, but let them know that their elder status is not in harmony with the Bible and is contrary to truth.

A Temporary Aside

Often when pressed, Mormons resort to saying that they believe the Bible “insofar as it is correctly translated.” They usually do not say that until their doctrine is in a pinch, so when they do, you have them up a tree or in a corner (or both) on something. That is the time to keep them hemmed up, to exert more pressure.

In connection with their hedging on the reliability of the Bible, they argue that “the great apostasy” prophesied by the apostles (Acts 20:28-32; 1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Thess. 3; 2 Pet. 2:1,2) perverted the truth and the church and that God has restored it through Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. Now, you have them. When it is convenient, they will cite Bible passages which allegedly sustain their view, i.e., “the great apostasy,” the Book of Mormon prophesied of in Ezekiel 37, etc. Ask them if they expect you to read from the Bible and believe a great apostasy was to come. “Yes,” they say. Ask them how they know it is correctly translated. How can we depend on Ezekiel 37? Assume that it prophetically reveals the coming of the Book of Mormon. It does not, but if it did, perhaps it is a mistranslation. How do they know? They are being arbitrary and capricious. When it suits them, the Bible is valid. One can read and know the truth when it seems to say what they believe, but if it does not fit their doctrines, then it is not reliable, not correctly translated. Simply show them their inconsistent, prejudiced view of Scripture.

My Favorite Approach

I tell the Mormons to imagine that we (they and I) are trying to convert a Jew. The Jew says he believes in God’s spokesman, Moses (Num. 12:6-8). The Jew says he believes in God’s covenant with Israel (Deut. 5:2,3). The Jew tells us he is in God’s kingdom, Israel (Exod. 19:6). The Jew seeks forgiveness and fellowship in the Levitical priesthood (Num. 18). He says there is no lawgiver, save Moses. He says there is no covenant, except the Old Testament. He says there is no nation of God besides Israel. He says there is no priesthood but that of Aaron.

At this juncture, I tell the Mormons how we are going to convert these Jews. We are going to assure the Jew that we appreciate his faith in Jehovah. We, too, believe in Moses as God’s prophet, in the Old Testament as God’s word, in Israel as God’s nation, and in Aaron as God’s High Priest, but we are going to show the Jew:

(1) Moses prophesied of another lawgiver, prophet, spokesman (Deut. 18:15-18). God said one would come after Moses whom the people should hear. For sake of argument, Jesus may or may not be that one, but at least the Jew knows someone must come after Moses (cf. Acts 3:22,23). God said so.

(2) The Old Testament says it will be superceded by another covenant unlike itself (Jer. 31:31-34). God said he would make another covenant with Israel unto which they would be bound. For sake of argument, the New Testament may or may not be that covenant, but at least the Jew knows there is to be another covenant unlike the one he is now under (cf. Heb. 8:8-13; 10:15-17).

(3) Prophets in Israel, God’s kingdom, spoke of another kingdom (Isa.2:2-4; Dan. 2:44; Zech. 9:9,10). God said he would set up a kingdom unlike the physical, political theocracy of Israel. For sake of argument, the spiritual house, the church , may or may not be that kingdom, but at least the Jews know there is to be another kingdom different from the one in which he has citizenship.

(4) The Old Testament speaks of another priest after the order of Melchizedec, not after the order of Aaron (Psa. 110:4). God said he would establish another priesthood which would necessitate a change of the law (Heb. 7:11-14). For sake of argument, Jesus may or may not be that High Priest (cf. Heb. 3:1), but while the order of Aaron existed, God spoke of another (Zech. 6-12,13).

While developing this line of argument, be as clear and precise as possible. The Mormons will follow it and agree with it. I am careful to enlist them (verbally as I proceed) in its construction. Then I spring the trap (cf. the approach Jesus used in Matthew 21:28-46. He led them along as he taught, then convicted them. Nathan did the same to David – 2 Sam. 12). I tell the Mormons that they need to do for me what we did for the Jew. They need to take the Bible and show me that there is to be another revelation. “Before you do, though,” I caution them, “remember what the Bible says about the New Testament system:”

First, Christ is not to be supplanted or replaced (as Moses was) in government, power, dominion or authority (Matt. 28:1820; Lk. 1:32,33; Jas. 4:12; 1 Cor. 15:24-28). His word is final, complete (Jude 3; Jn. 12:48; 2 Tim. 3:16,17; Gal. 1:8,9).

Second, the New Testament is complete, final, authoritative. It is “the everlasting covenant” (Heb. 13:20). The Old or First Testament speaks of the Second or New Testament, but where does the Bible speak of a third or later covenant? For the New Testament to be suspended, Christ’s sacrifice, mediation and intercession would have to be terminated or abrogated, but this can never be done because he ever liveth to make intercession and his sacrifice is forever valid (Heb. 7:22-28; 9:24-28; 10:11-14).

Third, the kingdom of God, as prophesied, cannot be destroyed and shall not be moved or shaken (Dan. 2:44; Lk. 1:32,33; Heb. 12:28; 1 Cor. 15:24-28). True, a great apostasy did occur, and “some” not all, departed from the faith (1 Tim. 4:1), but this did not affect the kingdom of God (cf. Lk. 8:11; Matt. 13:19; 1 Pet. 1:23-25).

Fourth, the priesthood of Christ is not to be removed for another because. (a) it is 6 6not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life” (Heb. 7:16); (b) “For He testifieth thou art a priest forever” (Heb. 7:17,21); (c) “this man, because he continueth ever hath an unchangeable priesthood” (Heb. 7:24).

These four facts of the New Testament are the true, not the figure; they are the substance, not the shadow; they are final, sufficient, complete, not provisional; they are permanent, not temporary.

Now with those immutable, fixed, inviolable statements of truth before us, ask the Mormons for an answer; ask them for proof for something else. (If they attempt a response, remind them of the reliability of the Bible – it is correctly translated!) Remind them again of the certain, everlasting, final nature of the New Testament. Somehow, they must overthrow the fixed, set, everlasting facets of the New Testament as we overthrew the temporary system of the Jew. That is their task. Hold them to it.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 9, pp. 272-273
May 5, 1988

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Question: Please explain 1 Corinthians 2:10,11.

Reply: The passage to be considered reads: “But unto us God revealed them through the Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea the deep things of God. For who among men knoweth the things of a min, save the Spirit of the man, which is in him? Even so the things of God none knoweth, save the Spirit of God.”

In chapter one, Paul had contrasted human wisdom and divine wisdom (1:18-30) and he continues to make this contrast in chapter two. The Greek doted on philosophy, looking with great pride upon such philosophers as Socrates, Aristotle and Plato. Paul had already pointed out that human wisdom was foolish and would be destroyed (1:19-21). He reminds his brethren at Corinth, “And I, brethren, when I came unto you, came not with excellency of speech, or of wisdom, proclaiming unto you the testimony of God” (2:1). Paul did not come to Corinth with eloquence, such as characterized the Greek orators; nor did he employ human wisdom. His speech was rather “in demonstration of the Spirit and power” (v. 4). His words demonstrated the power of the Holy Spirit, not the power of man. The wisdom which the apostles spoke was not of this world (human wisdom, v. 6). Then he says in verse 7, “but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, even the wisdom that hath been hidden.” The gospel is God’s wisdom and it is provided for man’s salvation. Heretofore it had not been revealed; therefore, it was a mystery. Even the prophets of the Old Testament had prophesied of things about salvation which they themselves did not understand (1 Pet. 1:10, 11).

It was a mystery. A mystery was not something that could not be explained or understood, but something unrevealed and unknown. It became known when it was revealed. Paul’s use of the word “mystery” is also seen in other passages (Rom. 16:25,26; Eph. 3:1-3; Col. 1:24-29). The blessings of this salvation, which in times past, had been hidden are mentioned in verse 9: “but as it is written, Things which eye saw not, and ear heard not, and which entered not into the heart of man, whatsoever things God prepared for them that love him.” These things had been a mystery. Some have used this verse to describe the glories of heaven. Preachers have preached sermons on heaven, using this verse to describe the glories of heaven that await man. Paul is not giving a description of heaven here, therefore to so use this verse to misapply it. The verse refers to the blessings of salvation which come through our Lord Jesus Christ. They had not been revealed to man in times past, so man did now know what was awaiting him. Now they have been revealed. How were they revealed? Paul tells us in verse 10. “But unto us God revealed them through the Spirit.” The King James Version says “by his Spirit” but there is no Greek pronoun in the text for “his.” Since revelation was the function of the Holy Spirit, it is obvious that “the Spirit” is the Holy Spirit. Jesus promised the apostles that the Holy Spirit would teach them and guide them into all truth (Jn. 14:26; 16:13). Thus the Holy Spirit revealed the mind of God, that which before had been a mystery. How was the Holy Spirit able to make such a revelation? Paul answers: “for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea the deep things of God.” God revealed the salvation of man through the agency of the Holy Spirit.

To help us better understand what he has been saying in verse 10, Paul gives an illustration in verse 11. “For who among men knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the things of God none knoweth, save the Spirit of God.” Simply, who can know the thoughts of a man’s mind unless the man himself reveals them? Paul is not saying that man’s spirit is the same as God’s Spirit. The point is: just as God’s Spirit alone knows what is in him, so a man’s spirit alone knows what is in him. God has revealed to us through the Spirit what in time past had been a mystery. It is the wisdom of God for man’s salvation. We can be thankful to God that we have divine revelation whereby we can learn what we must do to be saved and live eternally with him in heaven.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 10, p. 295
May 19, 1988

By Donald P. Ames

I doubt seriously if I have ever read anything more audacious and ridiculous than the recently announced plans by the Harding St. Church of Christ here in Indianapolis to launch a world-wide solicitation program to begin building a new “Christian” college. To really appreciate just how ridiculous this whole thing is, one would have to be familiar with the city of Indianapolis. Here is a small congregation (being generous, we will say 3040 members), meeting in a rather simple house that has been converted into a church building, located in the black section of the city (this is not said as a racial slur – the church where I preach is about 60 percent black and composed of fine Christians – but rather to point out a fact: many of them do not have the financial means, nor the large membership necessary, as may be found in other higher income sections of the city) that is not even in the higher incomes; that congregation has suddenly decided to launch a world-wide campaign to raise about $12 million to build a college! Why, some hardly even knew anything about them I Surely no one would take them seriously! On the other hand, how many would respond without even bothering to learn the facts?

Oversight

A near as I have been able to determine, there are not is even any elders serving over the Harding St. church. Leslie R. Jackson, “Assistant Minister,” sent out his letters of appeal after having received “permission and/or consent” from James H. Lawrence, Minister. When I went by the building, no one was there, but the neighbors pointed to Mr. Lawrence’s name on the sign and said, “The man who runs the church just left about five minutes ago.” Since he also felt he had to give his “permission and or consent” for the assistant minister” (not so listed on the sign – and why 2 of them are needed for such a small congregation in a city like Indianapolis that has plenty of other churches and is hardly a mission field escapes me) to launch the campaign, then the idea he “runs the church” seems to indeed have some credibility (no one has yet accused me of “running” the Emerson Ave. church, even though I preach there regularly). I wonder, would he also be the one who would “run” the college and oversee the collection, keeping and spending of the funds? If not, why was his “permission” needed to begin with?

But, the appeal also requested all who received the letter (which was apparently sent out to many churches – addressed to the Church of Christ, Emerson, c/o Minister) “to become an Associate Board Member.” That way, if a regular board member should die or resign, they might decide to select you from the “associates” in his stead. If not, they at least have been able to use your name and influence for the time being. And who selected the original board? Also, we might ask, “Why have a board?” The letter begins: “We, the Harding Street Church of Christ, will be soliciting donations (contributions) worldwide.” Now, is the board going to be running the church, or the church running the board? If the latter, then why the “associate board members” who aren’t even part of Harding Street? Will one of the requirements to serve on the board be to place membership with the Harding St. church? Is Harding St. the board?

Purpose

The launching of a world-wide solicitation program will be for “the sole purpose of rebuilding the church and building a new Christian College. Our main objective is to serve the people by strengthening the church, leadership, and motivating people to seek for higher educational levels. We also hope to create and generate jobs for the unemployed.” Whew! Did I just read one “sole purpose” there or about half a dozen? And, are they interested in serving the Lord or the people? I had always thought that the way to build the church was by preaching the gospel of Christ and creating respect for the authority of God’s word. If you had to “rebuild” the church, that sounds like there has been a drifting or a split. But then maybe we have a different definition of “rebuilding.” I note in the other letters submitted that part of that $12 million will be used to build a new church building for $225,000 (for 30-40 people?)! That would at least be a partial compensation if the whole project fell flat on its face! Kind of an easy way to get a nice new, spacious building too. I mean, since there aren’t any other churches in the city for all these students to worship with, funds would have to include a new building. But then, when they “do all the work,” perhaps they feel that justifies such a building to replace the house they have had to settle for presently. We’ll not count the other churches either.

Establishing a college is not the way to build up the church and its leadership. That must come from congregations committed to the word of God and respect for its authority. Until that is present, all the colleges one may wish to build will merely push the liberal attitudes further away from the word of God. In fact, it is not the work of the college to build up the church – that is the work of the church. If we must rely on the college, then we have admitted Christ did not give us an adequate institution to do his work (we need to look again at 2 Tim. 2:2 and Heb. 5:12-14). Colleges are to provide a liberal education to young people, to help raise their educational level, and that is not the work of the church! Now where is there anything even a country cousin to intimating that the church has the right and authority to launch a “world-wide campaign” to build a “new Christian College”? Since when is secular education the function of churches and church finances (read 1 Tim. 3:15; 2 Jn. 9)? Can you imagine Peter preaching “Repent, and be baptized, and be sure to study your math for test in the morning”? Or Paul being told to arise and be baptized and loosen up his throwing arm for the football game next week? Are we to teach Math tables – or for men to come to the Lord’s table? Do they want to build up the church? Then let’s begin by establishing some respect for the word of God as our authority in all we do and teach! Will they produce the passages that authorize such an undertaking as building a college? Or the passages that authorize a church to solicit funds for someone else to build it? Or the passage that even permits one church to take on a project (scriptural or unscriptural) far in excess of its capabilities and then to launch a world-wide begging campaign to finance it? I predict their efforts to “build up the church” are nothing more than rhetoric and they will not offer such authority at all! I further predict their efforts to “build up the church” will only lead further and further down the paths of liberalism and a drift away from the word of God – hence a “tearing down” instead!

And since when is it the function of the church to “motivate people to seek for higher educational levels”? Unfortunately, in far too many instances, this has often led to a departure from the faith by those who got carried away with their own importance rather than dependency on God and his saving grace. Even recognizing this need not be the case, is it the work of the church to “motivate” people to go for Ph.D’s? Does it matter which field they select? Should we stop with a B.A., M.A. or insist they go all the way to Ph.D? Or, did Christ set up his church to motivate people to turn away from the pleasures and snares of sin and to encourage one another in seeking salvation that we might have a home above (Heb. 10:24-25)? Maybe I haven’t got the “education” necessary to find that motivation for higher educational levels in my Bible. If so, I sincerely hope one of these brethren will “enlighten” me further. Hmmm wonder what motivated people to seek higher secular education before the Lord set up his church?

And, is it also the work of the church to “create and generate jobs for the unemployed”? Wow! If that be so, surely we can beg the funds forever from those “well off areas” of the nation to launch a wide variety of building programs in more financially destitute areas. Let’s see, we could establish and build a new grocery chain, a printing company, schools, hotels, playgrounds, etc. Again, where did the apostles anywhere teach that it was the job of the church to provide employment for the unemployed? Did Paul instruct the churches to create their own tentmanufacturing companies? I thought Jesus came to make us “fishers of men” not founders of fishing and tackle manufacturing firms. Catholicism has nothing on these efforts!

If they are sincere about building up the church, then let them begin by showing their respect and reliance on the word of God. Let them show where there is a “thus saith the Lord.” If they cannot not and/or will not, and continue their project, then their attitude toward building up the church is obvious. “By their fruits, ye shall know them” (Matt. 7:16). 1 fear any “building up” of the church will be by accident, not design!

Spending

I am not an authority on construction, and have no intentions of getting into the field. However, if we are starting with nothing and a congregation of only 30 to 40, 1 also know we need not think we need a full-scale university before we can even begin. $2 Million each for dorms (one for males, one for females), $350,000 for a dining room, $430,000 for a student activity center, $225,000 for a church building, etc. isn’t exactly “chicken feed.” But then, if one is going to dream big, why not dream B-I-G? I mean, we have already decided to launch our begging campaign “world-wide.” Why not go for a whole university in one jump? It certainly ought to help somebody’s unemployment! For a congregation of 30-40 located in the “not too wealthy” section of the city, $2 Million and a world-wide campaign for a $225,000 building and a full college (including a $720,000 gym) is just a beginning to wild dreams! What shall we try next? After all, what has reality got to do with dreams – or authority?

Church Related

Now, lest some one accuse me of being unfair and misrepresenting their intentions, contending the letter was only sent to churches and ministers to reach.possible interested Christians, let me set the facts again before us. (1) The “Harding Street Church of Christ will be soliciting donations.” (2) The appeal was mailed out with the Harding Street Church of Christ as the return address. (3) Leslie R. Jackson’s appeal for the world-wide solicitation program was printed on a letter with “Harding Street Church of Christ” at the top and addressed to “Dear Church of Christ, leadership.” (4) James Lawrence’s letter giving his “permission” for Jackson to launch the campaign was on a letter headed “Harding Street Church of Christ” and identifying Leslie Jackson as “also a minister here at the church” without merit if the tie was not with the church. (5) His letter closed with Psalm 127:1 – “Except the Lord build the house. . . ” (the Lord is not interested in this house!). (6) The plans call for construction of a new church building as part of the college construction expenses. Indeed the college and church are wedded into one body in the minds of these misguided brethren. Which one the Lord actually died for may be in doubt – if not already, in the near future!

Conclusion

I am not opposed to a college education – I have one. I am not opposed to brethren getting together individually and setting up a college wherein Bible is offered as one of the subjects of study – I attended two of them, my oldest son one, and my youngest son plans to. That is not the issue. I am not opposed to less fortunate people having such an opportunity – I’ve helped in several booster clubs. That is not the issue. The bottom line is where did God give the church, as such, the authority to enter the field of secular education, to build a college to raise educational levels, and to begin a world-wide campaign to solicit funds to finance this nearly $2 million venture begun by a few wide-eyed members in a small church located on the back streets of Indianapolis? A campaign? I think the first step needed is a return to the word of God and a study of how to establish authority. “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” (Prov. 1:7).

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 9, pp. 269-270, 281
May 5, 1988

By Carrol Sutton

In The Examiner (Jan., 1986), Dusty Owens wrote an article entitled, “Did God Name His Church?” In that article he quoted from an article by someone who had stated that for the church today to be the New Testament church, “it must have the same name.” Then Owens said: “it is implied that God gave His church a name. What name did He give it? Where is it stated in the Scriptures that God gave a name to His Church?” Owens continued: “The assumption that God named His church is believed by many today without questions. . . ” Later in his article he said: “People have made a denomination out of ‘church of Christ’ by insisting that this is a name given by God to His people. . .”

Owens also said: “Did God intend for that to be the name of His people? I reply emphatically, No! “, and “When you insist that ‘church of Christ’ is ‘the name God gave to His people,’ you make a denomination out of the Lord’s church. . . “

Some of the statements in Owens’ article are ambiguous, but if I understand the article, Owens is teaching that it is sinful to refer to the church as the church of Christ either in a universal or a local sense. To do so, in his mind, would be to make a denomination out of the people of God. If this is not taught in the article, then I missed it completely.

Does the word of God teach that it is sinful to refer to the church (either universal or local) as the church of Christ?

A serious consideration of the following osbservations should help clarify the question, “Did God Name His Church?”

1. Owens did not ask, “Did God Give His Church An Exclusive Proper Name?” If he had raised this question to be answered in the light of God’s Word, I (and probably every preacher I know) would certainly answer in the negative.

2. God did not give the church one specific name to the exclusion of all others. For various names, appellations and/or designations please read 1 Tim. 3:14-15; Eph. 4:12; 1 Cor. 1:2; Col. 1:13; 1 Cor. 11:16; Rom. 16:16 and Rev. 2:1,8,12,18, etc.

The fact that different appellations (an appellation is “a distinguishing mark, or title; appellation”) or names (a name is “a word or combination of words by which a person or thing is regularly known” acc. to Webster’s Clear Type Dictionary, 1976) are used in the New Testament by inspired writers to refer to the church prove that point.

3. When we have nouns used to refer to the church of the New Testament we have names because nouns are names! Nouns may be common or proper, but in either case (or both), they are names!

4. In Genesis 2:19-20 we read: “And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field. . . . ” Question: Did Adam give each one a name? Did he give each one a proper name? Or did he call one fowl an “eagle,” another a “raven,” another a d6swan,” etc.? Did Adam give each beast a proper name or did he call one beast a “camel,” another one a “lion,” etc.? Did Adam give a proper name such as Leo to each and every lion? It would seem to me that Adam gave common, not proper names to all beasts and fowls. Note. Regardless, whatever Adam called them, that was their name – common or proper!

5. Isaiah 61:6 says concerning some: “But ye shall be named the Priests of the Lord: men shall call you the Ministers of our God:. . . ” Note. Here are some names that some would be called. However, each person has a personal name or names. “The Priests of the Lord” and “The Ministers of our God” would obviously be names, although neither would be “the name” to the exclusion of the other.

6. Luke 6:13 says: “And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles.” Note. The twelve were named apostles! Of course, each one had a proper name. Is it sinful for us to use the name “apostles” to refer to the twelve? “Apostles” is a noun, hence a name!

7. The apostle Paul said: “For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the wholefamily in heaven and earth is named” (Eph. 3:14-15).

8. For a person to ask “What name did God give the church” or “What is the name of the church” is about like a oneness Pentecostal asking, “What name did God give His Son?” or “What is the name of the Son?” Note. Various names were given to God’s Son (see Isa. 9:6-7; Matt. 1:23-25; 28:19; Acts 2:38; 10:48; 1 Pet. 4:14; Rev. 19:14-16; etc.). There was no exclusive name given to Him! It is certainly scriptural to use any name, appellation and/or designation that any inspired man used to refer to Christ. Note: Various names have been used by inspired writers to identify or describe the church (see number 2 above). It is certainly proper for us to use any (and all) of the names, appellations and designations given in the Scriptures to refer to the church. The context in each case must determine whether reference is made to the church in a universal sense or to the church in a local sense. No one name should be used to the exclusion of all others! This principle would apply when referring to God’s church or to God’s Son.

9. If one of “the churches of Christ” of Romans 16:16 cannot Scripturally be called “a church of Christ” (or “the church of Christ”) then one of “the children of God” of Galatians 3:26 cannot scripturally be called a “child of God.”

10. I see no reason why we should object to or have any problem with referring to the church by any word or combination of words that is used by inspired writers to refer to the church. Obviously, whatever names (words or combination of words) God gave to identify or describe the church are names that are scriptural.

11. Names such as “churches of Christ” in Romans 16:16 and “churches of God” of 1 Cor. 11:16 along with all others used in the Scriptures were used by inspired men in the first century and we are certainly in good company when we use them. Note. There is no way God’s people can be properly identified without using a name or names! If so, how?

12. We should never attack and condemn a scriptural expression in order to expose and condemn what we believe to be an unscriptural concept or practice. We should expose and condemn the unscriptural concept or practice.

13. I have no objection to brethren using any scriptural expression (call it a name, appellation, designation or what) to identify God’s people. Do you?

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 9, pp. 268, 278
May 5, 1988