"Christian," The Only Name.
Zion's Advocate, Vol. 43, No. 6, June 1904.
Some unknown friend sent us two sheets of a religious paper called "Herald of Gospel Liberty." It contains a marked article headed "Christian the only name." The sender wrote the words "Read here" at the head of the article, and at the bottom of the first column, he wrote, "turn over and keep on reading." Well, we did so, partly from curiosity and partly from a desire to gain information. The latter was the chief motive we are sure. After perusing that ably written production, the thought of writing an editorial on the subject therein discussed suggested itself to our mind.It is argued, first, that the followers of Christ ought to have some other name that distinguishes them from those who do not profess to be his followers; that such name ought to express that quality which Jesus Christ came into the world to impart to men; that by quality is meant character; that no word expresses the character resulting from the work of salvation as well as the word Christian; and that it is the only word that does express all the character of a follower of Christ. The conclusion drawn from these premises is that the word Christian is the true name for the followers of Christ.
The true followers of Christ can have no reasonable objections to being called Christians. Whether it be given by friends as a title of honor or by foes as a term of reproach, all the children of God can afford to receive it. But for a denomination to adopt the name "Christian Church" as its distinguishing name, is no proof that its doctrine and practice is according to the teaching of the New Testament. For a church to call itself "The Christian Church" is no evidence that it is one.
The writer of the article in the "Herald of Gospel Liberty" quotes extensively from a paper written by R. H. Holland, of Holland, Va. Mr. Holland, in trying to show that there is something in a name, argues that a rose should be called a rose, though it would smell as sweet by any other name, because no other name would convey to us a just conception of the rose's delicate odor. That is all very true, but it does not argue that anything else than a rose would be a rose and give out its delicate odor if called by the rose's name. The Old Baptist church is apostolic in origin, doctrine, and practice, and there can be nothing wrong in calling it the Christian church, because it is. But to say that a denomination is a Christian church because its founders and members have given it that name, though it has originated since the apostolic day and holds doctrine contrary to the doctrine taught by Christ and his apostles, is absurd. That would be like calling the flower of the dog-fennel (anthemis cotla) a rose, and arguing that the name would give it the beauty and odor of the rose.
The attention of the readers of the "Herald of Gospel Liberty" is called to the place where God's people were first called Christians - Antioch. The writer does not tell us why God's true followers were not called christians before this time and at some other place. If God intended this to be the distinctive name of his followers why did he not cause them to be named that while Christ was on the earth, or at least at Jerusalem when the church was fully placed on exhibition there?
The manner in which the name Christian was given is next considered. Whatever may be said of the manner of giving the name, one fact is self-evident from the reading of Acts 11:16; that is, they did not name themselves Christians. The passage says, "And the disciples were called Christians first at Antioch." The passive verb were called shows beyond cavil that others called them Christians there, and the others were those who were not disciples of Christ. It is certain, therefore, that they were called Christians by their enemies. Churches of modern origin that call themselves "Christian" are not apostolic in the manner of being named. It would be far better for them not to make such great pretensions to name, and adhere to the doctrine of Christ and bear the true fruit of his Spirit. This course would cause others to regard them as Christians, and they would not be compelled to sound out the name by which they crave to be recognized. As it is, their course reminds us of the picture drawn by the boy who was a would-be artist. He drew on the side of his father's barn what he aimed to be the picture of a horse. When it was completed it looked so little like a horse that he feared no one else would take it to be a picture of one, so he wrote in large letters, "THIS IS A HORSE."
The third point stated by Mr. Holland is, "Christian is the only Scriptural, and therefore the only authorized name for the followers of Christ." If this be true, it is a great wonder that writers of the epistolary letters in the New Testament did not address the churches to which they wrote as the "Christian Church." Twenty-one letters were written by men who were inspired to express the will of God to his people. If "Christian Church had been the distinctive name by which he intended his church should be known, unquestionably he would have inspired those writers to address the churches to which they wrote by that name. But not once is that name given to the church in all the New Testament.
Mr. Holland has not the slightest proof, therefore, to sustain his assertion that "Christian is the only Scriptural, and therefore the only authorized name for the followers of Christ." The people of Antioch called the disciples Christians first at Antioch; Agrippa used that term once in addressing Paul; and Peter said that if any man suffered as a Christian let him not be ashamed, which shows the name to be one of derision under which the saints were persecuted by their enemies. No document has been handed down to us, however, giving us the least reason to think that this name Christian was regarded by the apostles as of divine appointment.
Mr. Holland declares that the name "originated in the Divine Mind and came down from heaven." He quotes as supposed proof, Isaiah 62:2, "They shall be called by a new name which the mouth of the Lord shall name," and refers to Acts 11:26 as the fulfillment of that prophecy. That this is a false interpretation of the prophecy is evident from the plain teaching of the 4th verse: "Thou shalt no more be termed Forsaken; neither shall thy land any more be termed Desolate; but thou shalt be called Hephzibah, and thy land Beulah; for the Lord delighteth in thee, and thy land shall be married." Hephzibah is the new name, Hebrew Chephtsiy bahh (Khef-tse-baw); meaning, my delight is in her.
The derivation and signification of the name Christian is next treated by Mr. Holland. He gives the signification of a few denominational names also. He says Baptist simply signifies a baptizer." Then John was a Baptist, Christ's apostles were Baptists, and all the ministers in the primitive age of the church were Baptists. This fact would naturally stamp the name Baptist upon the church of Christ. Two denominations are clamoring over the name "Christian Church." Both are purely American sects. One arose early in the nineteenth century in the New England states, in Ohio, Kentucky, and in fewer numbers in the Southern states. They deny the Scriptural doctrine of personal and unconditional election, effectual calling, and final perseverance of the saints, all of which were held and advocated by the early followers of Christ. They are Arminian in doctrine and deny that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one Divine Being. The other sect whose members make so much noise over the name was founded by Alexander Campbell, in 1827. These two are distinct sects as sectarian as any other sects in the world, yet making great war on sectarianism! They contend that the name Christian is the only name upon which the people of God can be united, yet they are not any more united than many other worldly churches that bear other names! Their cry of "Christian! Christian! Christian!" betrays a weakness similar to that shown by the worshipers of Diana, who answered the argument of Paul by crying "Great is Diana! Great is Diana! Great is Diana of the Ephesians!"
Christ was not the Saviour's name. Jesus was his name, and Christ was his official title. If God had named his followers after him, he would doubtless have called them Jesusites rather than Christians as did the Antiochians. We are willing that all true children of God should be called Christians whether they belong to the Baptist Church, the Methodist Church, the Campbellite Church or any other, but the loud and boasting pretensions made by the two sectarian denominations, that they are "The Christians" merely because they have named themselves that, are ridiculous pretensions.
J. R. D.
Copyright c. 2005. All rights reserved. The Primitive Baptist Library.
