Truth Magazine

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

By Russell Matthews

Introduction:

1. The demoniac of Mark 5:1-5 “had his dwelling among the tombs.” His irrational conduct was the result of his being possessed with a legion of evil spirits.

2. Even today, in a very definite sense, the practice is prevalent. Since the world is dead in sins we would expect it to dwell in tombs. But when the church practices this, it is tragic.

3. The tomb dwellers today are those who are possessed by “the spirit of the world” (1 Cor. 2:12). They ignore the fact that “old things are passing away” and “all things are become new” (2 Cor. 5:17).

(a) They live as though the gospel were not true and that everything is as it was before the suffering and glorification of Jesus. They thus engage in a practical disregard for the whole new order of things and go about life in a “business-as-usual” manner.

(b) Being children of light, they walk as children of darkness. They dwell among the tombs of this repudiated and cursed world, instead of the heavenlies with the living and reigning Christ.

4. In a very clear parabolic sense, each child of God occupies the same position as Lazarus when resurrected from the Tomb (Jn. 11:43-44). Having come forth bound head and foot with grave clothes, the command to “loose him, and let him go,” was given. We must leave the grave clothes behind!

(a) Colossians 2-13; Rom. 6:3-6.

(b) Having put Christ on in baptism (Gal. 3:27), we are assured of a new life (2 Cor. 5:17).

(c) Galatians 2:20 shows that Paul considered himself dead to the old life (Gal. 6:14). He had put away the grave clothes and was living a glorious new life.

(d) We must now live consecrated lives for our Lord and Master (Rom. 12:1; Col. 3:1-2).

5. Nominal Christians who yet associate with the grave clothes of the past bespeak death and sin reigning in their mortal bodies (Rom. 6:12).

(a) The old man of sin bound in grave clothes is the person we used to be (Eph. 2:1-3).

(b) The new man in Christ is the person resurrected to walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:17-18).

Body:

I. The Old Man And His Ruin (Col. 3:5-9).

A. The reality of it (3:5-7). We need to recognize the old man for what he is, repudiate him and drive him out of our lives. It is through the instrumentality of the body that the characteristics of a ruined life are expressed (lust of the flesh, etc., 1 Jn. 2:15-17). A redeemed life is expressed here too (Rom. 12:1-2).

B. The roots of it (3:6). Disobedience to the revealed will of God is the root of all ruination. God is sorely displeased with this.

C. The discernment of it (3:3, 5). We need to know what it is that we are to “mortify” (Gr. nekroo, “put to death”) and that we are dead to sin. Too, we need to understand our personal obligation in this matter (Eph. 2:8; Jas. 2:24; Phil. 2:12).

II. The Old Man’s Grave Clothes (Col. 3:8-9).

A. “But now you also, put off all these” (i.e., put them aside, strip them off).

B. The old man’s grave clothes constitute:

1. The habit of evil caprice: Anger, wrath, etc. (v. 8).

2. The habit of evil words: Filthy communications, etc. (vv. 8-9).

3. The habit of evil ways: Lie not to. . . (v. 9).

(a) An example of point I would be Mordecai’s enemy, Haman, who nursed an evil heart of hatred (Esth. 3:6).

(b) An example of point 2 would be the millions who lie at income tax time.

(c) An example of point 3 would be the Christians who go places they should be avoiding and engage in entertainment that must now be put off.

III. The New Man (Col. 3:11-14). A contrast with the way we use to be:

A. First, think about the creation of the new man (v. 10). The tenses express completeness. All new creatures have a new life.

B. Second, think about the character of the new man (v. 11, a birth in which there is no distinction between Jew and Greek). There is also the abolition of creed (neither circumcision, etc.) and class differences (rich or poor, slave or master, etc.).

C. Think about the robe of the new man (vv. 12-14).

1. Some years ago a preacher was preaching in London’s Hyde Park. A communist heckler kept interrupting him. Pointing to a wretched beggar, he triumphantly exclaimed, “What good is your Christianity? Communism can put a new suit on that man.” The preacher replied, “What good is your communism? Christ can put a new man in that suit.”

2. The Christian’s wardrobe in which we are to be arrayed:

(a) Kindness, etc. (v. 12).

(b) Graciousness (v. 13, forbearing one another, etc.).

(c) Godliness as a topcoat (v. 14).

D. Even the humblest child of God has been given this wardrobe and can now sing:

Jesus, Thy blood and righteousness

My beauty are, my glorious dress;

Midst flaming worlds, in these arrayed,

With joy shall I lift my head.

Conclusion:

You have been raised to walk in newness of life.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 9, pp. 265, 278
May 5, 1988

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Question: Do you think it would be morally wrong, or even poor judgment, for a gospel preacher (or any other member of the church) to enroll in a college that is supported by contributions from churches?

A number of preachers, especially younger ones, have enrolled in graduate programs in various seminaries to work toward their college degrees. Many of these seminaries are operated by denominations, and they, along with some graduate schools, obtain their support from contributions by churches. What is true of benevolent institutions is also true of educational institutions, or any other human institution. The Scriptures do not authorize churches to financially support any of them. They all stand or fall together in this regard. If it is scriptural for churches to support one of them financially, they can so support all of them; or, if it is unscriptural for churches to support one with their money, it is unscriptural for them to so support any.

Reply: Before undertaking anything, we should evaluate it to be sure that it does not violate the Scriptures. We should not wish to do anything that would displease God. The desire to do what is right is evident upon the part of the querist. His sincerity is appreciated and we wish that all would manifest this attitude.

As to the inquiry, enrolling in an educational institution such as a university, seminary or graduate school, which is supported financially by churches, we see nothing wrong with enrolling in it. The simple reason is that it is merely a matter of buying services from that institution. We observed in another article (see Guardian of Truth, Vol. 31, No. 9, p. 261) that individuals, and even churches, may buy services from such organizations as a utility company or buy books from a Baptist bookstore. They, like seminaries, graduate schools, etc. have services to sell. There is a difference, as we pointed out then, in buying their services and donating money to their support. When students enroll in a college that is supported by contributions from churches, they are only buying the services that the college has to sell. This does not make those enrolled for study, any part of the unscriptural practice of church contributions to the school. Those who enroll in these colleges for the purpose of furthering their academic education should be grounded well enough not to be swayed by errors which may be taught in their classrooms. The tragedy which sometimes occurs is that some young people (especially young preachers) have not been able to cope with the liberalism taught in some of these institutions of higher learning. This is a caution that we sound forth to any who contemplate studying in these schools. They should have a sufficient knowledge of the Scriptures to be able to differentiate between truth and error. But there is nothing wrong morally or in judgment, in and of itself, to enroll and study in such schools.

The caution exercised by our querist (he himself, whom we presume to be a young man, is considering taking courses in a school of religion) is commendable. Graduate schools and seminaries have much to offer in many fields of study and do afford opportunities for advanced training. Our advice to any who enroll in them is to take advantage of what they offer that is good, but be careful. Modernism is rampant in many colleges. We are thankful that students at Florida College (a two year college), Tampa, Florida, can sit at the feet of those who believe that the Bible is the word of God and respect its authority. Our three sons graduated from it and we now have two grandchildren enrolled there. We are thankful for such institutions. Two years there will help students to be grounded in the faith, affording an extension and supplement to the teaching they have had at home. If they later enroll in colleges or universities to complete their academic work, they are better able to withstand destructive criticism of the Bible and other forms of infidelity which are so common. Parents should consider this factor, a major one, when the time comes to choose the college for their children to attend. There is more important consideration than the inconvenience of being a great distance from home, or the financial expense. It is not our contention that such schools as Florida College are perfect (and the school itself makes no such claim) but we can be thankful for its fundamental teaching and an environment which is more wholesome than what is found in state schools.

It is good that students have the opportunity to take graduate courses. Regardless of how the graduate school raises its money, the student is buying the coures which are offered and which he needs. This does not mean that he sanctions or is a part of how the school raises its money, even though it may be unscriptural.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 9, p. 261
May 5, 1988

By Ron Halbrook

Many Baptists have been embroiled in a controversy in recent years over the inspiration of the Bible. Some among them are teaching that the Bible is inspired in part, in a way, in a sense – but not fully, completely and entirely. Errors of historical fact, science, geography, and the like are included in the Bible, they say. From that view, they deny the account of Adam and Eve, miracles such as manna from heaven in the record of the Exodus, and the story of Jonah. Jesus defended every one of those events as literally true (Matt. 19:4; Jn. 6:32; Matt. 12:40). Jesus taught that every “jot” and “tittle” of the Old Testament was the inspired Word of God, and that people who reject any part of it are wrong, “not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God” (Matt. 5:17-18; 22:29-32; Jn. 10:34-35).

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). The Bible reflects the character of the One who inspired it – holy, pure, infallible, inerrant, and all-sufficient. We commend all Baptists who uphold this divine principle! They are right on this matter without a shadow of a doubt. But, if they are right on this great principle of truth, then they are wrong for not putting it into practice. If the Bible is the inspired Word and perfect plan of God, we must follow it in all things. To follow another way is to imply that the Bible way is not perfect, not sufficient, and not literally true for all ages of man. Why do Baptists who uphold the Bible as fully inspired reject the Bible pattern of teaching on the following points?

1. God planned, revealed, and authorized the local church as all-sufficient for the worship and work ordained for his people as a church (Eph. 1:22-23; 3:10-11; 4:7-12). Baptists reject that plan of God as perfect, infallible, and sufficient when they create human organizations such as “conventions” which plan and coordinate programs for the local churches to support. Controversy over the Bible’s inspiration has emerged in the Southern Baptist Convention and its related institutions – an organizational structure which by its very existence contradicts the divine origin and perfection of Scripture.

2. God gave each local church a plan to manage all its affairs under the leadership of men designated by three words meaning the same thing: elders (or presbyters), overseers (or bishops) and shepherds (or pastors). Each church had two or more of these leaders (Acts 14:23; 20:17,28; Tit. 1:5). Deacons were ordained as special servants for special jobs (Acts 6:1-7; Phil. 1:1). Strict qualifications were revealed for these two offices – elders who lead, and deacons who serve (I Tim. 3; Tit. 1). The work of a preacher is simply to proclaim God’s Word, a separate ministry from that of elders and deacons (Eph. 4:11; 2 Tim. 4:1-5).

God’s plan is inspired, infallible, and inerrant, but Baptist churches and preachers reject it. “Not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God,” as Jesus said, a Baptist preacher will eliminate God’s plan of a plurality of elders or pastors in the local church, then usurp the name and office of a “pastor” to himself alone, and recognize deacons as a formal “board” with authority God never gave them. Why do people defend the Bible as the God-inspired rule, then refuse to follow it as the final, absolute, and inspired rule?

3. God called people who left sin and obeyed the gospel “believers” and “disciples” to indicate their focus on Christ -and then “Christians” to indicate that they belonged to Christ (Acts 11:26). Christ himself was to be exalted above the names of the men he saved and the doctrines he revealed, so his people were taught to wear his own “worthy name” and not the name of a man or a doctrine (Jas. 2:7; 1 Cor. 1:10-13). Sectarian, divisive names devised by men were strictly forbidden as carnal and sinful. God’s perfect and inspired Word speaks of “Christians” and “churches of Christ,” but men who defend the Word as inspired depart from it in order to embrace the sectarian terminology of “Baptists” and “Baptist churches” (Acts 11:26; Rom. 16:16). If we follow the Bible only as infallible, we will be Christians only in name or identity.

4. God authorized worship “in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord” (Eph. 5:19). All Christians were to participate, “teaching and admonishing one another. . . singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord” (Col. 3:16). God’s plan for our worship was holy, pure, and sufficient as he revealed it in Scripture. He did not reveal mechanical instruments such as harps and horns in the New Testament pattern. Nor did he authorize worship such as harps and horns in the New Testament pattern. Nor did he authorize worship as a spectator sport with the many entertained by the few in a solo, duet, quartet, or orchestral performance. On the one hand Baptists defend the Bible pattern as perfect and true, but on the other hand they depart from God’s pattern of truth by introducing human innovations into New Testament worship. If they are right, they are wrong.

5. The Bible speaks of those who have “fallen from grace” and who “depart from the faith” (Gal. 5:4; 1 Tim. 4:1). We accept God’s Word as eternal truth when we accept his grace. We fall from his grace when we reject and depart from his Word as eternal, infallible, inerrant truth. Baptist preachers misuse passages which speak of faith as a living and active principle in the human heart, and they stress the security for the believer promised in these passages (such as Jn. 10:27-30). Many Baptists teach once-saved-always-saved, once-in-grace-always-in-grace no matter what sins a person might commit. The Bible teaches no such security as that. Security relates to a living faith and “faith without works is dead” (Jas. 2:26). We can leave the realm of genuine faith – “an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God” (Heb. 3:12). The Bible is infallibly true when it warns that we can lose our faith in the faith.

6. The church God planned and revealed was a spiritual fellowship with a spiritual mission – preaching the gospel to save the lost (1 Tim. 3:15). God’s plan for the church’s mission was perfect and final (Jude 3). Many Baptist churches have joined the trend toward social activities, recreation, entertainment, ball teams, parties, suppers, secular education, day-care centers, and gyms. This trend implies that the Bible pattern for the church’s mission is flawed, imperfect, and insufficient. Is God’s plan perfect or not?

7. The conditions of pardon or remission of sins in the New Testament included faith in Christ, repentance of sin, confession of Christ as Lord, and immersion in water (Jn. 3:16; Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Rom. 10:8-10; 1 Pet. 3:21). The New Testament is a perfect revelation of the gospel – we dare not add to it or take from it (Gal. 1:8-9; Rev. 22:18-19). Baptist preachers preach often from John 3:16 on faith but commonly ignore Mark 16:16 (“he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved”), Acts 238 (“repent . . . and be baptized . . . for the remission of sins”), Acts 22.16 (“be baptized, and wash away thy sins”), and 1 Peter 3:21 (“baptism doth also now save us”). Baptist doctrine puts salvation before baptism, but the gospel of Christ clearly puts salvation after baptism. If Baptists are right on the inspiration of the Bible, they are wrong for not preaching the plan of salvation which it reveals.

Baptist churches are right to insist upon the divine inspiration of the Bible, but the Bible does not mention the Baptist Church and many of its doctrines. It is not the church we read about in the Bible – the church of Jesus Christ. We love our Baptist friends and neighbors. We plead with them to act on their faith in the inspired Word by obeying the gospel in its original purity, by forsaking all sectarian names and organizations, and by following the New Testament pattern in all things. If we believe, preach, and practice exactly what is written in the New Testament, we can be the very same church as is revealed in the New Testament.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 9, pp. 266-267
May 5, 1988