Calling Names

WE have some ''softies'' among us today who seem to think it is an almost

unpardonable sin for a preacher or writer to call the names of false teachers

and hypocrites; hut it seems to me we have some mighty good precedents for

this in the New Testament. However, the motive back of the name calling

might enter into it. Our motives should be absolutely pure in every act and

word. If we call names simply to ridicule or get "smart" or something of that

kind, of course that would be sin; but if we are trying to save souls, why not

point out the erroneous teaching and who it is that teaches that? But some will

say that just preaching the truth would be sufficient, and that we should leave

others alone. The preachers and writers of the New Testament days did not

thus act. They preached the truth and then contrasted error with the truth.

John the Baptist was very personal in his preaching. King Herod was

living with another man's wife. He was living in adultery. John knew this. He

knew that it was not lawful for the king to live this way. I suppose John could

have preached on a hundred other things without offending Herod and the

woman with whom he was living. But why preach on other things and refuse

to preach on the very thing the king needed? So John just "approached"' a bad

situation and told the king in plain words. Of course for this plain preaching

he lost his head. Some today would lose their heads if they were to tell some

in "high places" of their sins, and not just hint at them. Sin is sin. and should

be condemned in the severest terms. If we know of members of the church

who are living in open adultery in defiance of the laws of God and the laws

of man, we ought to tell them. We ought to let them know that such characters

cannot enter the kingdom of God. These dirty situations will not right

themselves. It takes the gospel of Christ to do it.Christ called names. Two of the most bigoted sects of his day were the

Pharisees and Sadducees. They were religious hypocrites. Time after time

Jesus told them this, calling their names. Read his scathing denunciation of

them in Matt. 23. Would Jesus have been true to his trust if he had refused to

have so spoken? Did he do wrong in thus calling their names? By doing this,

all knew of whom he spoke. He did not speak in uncertain terms.

On the birthday of the church Peter was preaching to the betrayers and

murderers of God's Son. He told them so. He did not preach a "soft" sermon

on sin and tell them that there were some murderers in the world, and that it

was not becoming to live that way. Listen: "Therefore let all the house of

Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have

crucified, both Lord and Christ.'' (Acts 2:36.) Earlier in the sermon, when he

was "approaching" them, he had said: "Him, delivered by the determinate

counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have

crucified and slain." (Acts 2:23.) That kind of preaching brought results. They

could see that the innocent blood of God's Son was upon their souls; it was

dripping from their hands. What were the results? "Now when they heard this,

they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the

apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?" (Acts 2:37.) What brought

them to a sense of their lost condition? The truth had been preached and the

application made. Peter let them know that he was preaching to them. So

many today preach "pretty" little sermons, and folks go to sleep and do not

know of whom the preacher is preaching. And the preachers seem just a little

timid for fear some might find out!

Simon, the sorcerer, thought he could buy the gift of God with money.

Listen to the inspired preacher: "Thy money perish with thee, because thou

hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. Thou hast

neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God.Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the

thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. For I perceive that thou art in the

gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity." (Acts 8:20-23.) I guess Simon

would not have much trouble understanding where he stood in the sight of

God. Peter boldly preached the truth and made a personal application. From

that kind of preaching Simon would not get the idea that his sin was not so

bad after all. And it brought results! "Then answered Simon, and said, Pray ye

to the Lord for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon

me." (Acts 8:24.) After all, we are trying to get sinners to repent when we

preach to them. This they will never do until they are brought to a realization

of their sinful condition.

And one time Mark got discouraged a little too easily and turned back

when the going became difficult. Paul did not think much of this. So on

another trip he refused to take Mark with them because he had not gone with

them to the work. The contention between Paul and Barnabas over this was

sharp. Mark had done wrong in turning back. Paul rebuked him sharply for

this. God thought enough of this to make it a part of the divine record. Read

it in the latter part of Acts 15.

Peter ate with the Gentiles; but when certain of his Jewish brethren came

on the scene, he separated himself, fearing them which were of the

circumcision. Even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation. Did

Peter do right in this? No, he was to blame, and Paul told him so. And that is

a part of the divine record, recorded in Gal. 2. Paul withstood him to the face.

That is where it should be done, not behind the backs of the ones who should

be withstood to the face.

Paul wrote to the church at Corinth. He had some bad reports concerning

them. Paul told them where he got the report. "For it hath been declared unto

me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there

are contentions among you." (1 Cor. 1:11.) Paul seemed to think it was the

right thing to do to tell where he got his information.Paul talked about some who had made shipwreck. This is the way he

wrote about two of those fellows: ''Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander;

whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme." (1

Tim. 1:20.) My, is not that plain? These brethren had been delivered to Satan

until they would learn not to blaspheme. Paul did not think it would be all

right for them to go elsewhere preaching their pernicious doctrine. They must

be stopped.

"This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from

me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes." (2 Tim. 1:15.) Pretty personal,

do you not think? "For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present

world." (2 Tim. 4:10.) This brother had forsaken the old apostle, and Paul said

so, and gave the reason why Demas had forsaken him. And listen to the

peerless apostle just before he lies down to rest: "Alexander the coppersmith

did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works: of whom be

thou ware also; for he hath greatly withstood our words." (2 Tim. 4:14, 15.)

Almost with his dying breath the apostle was warning Timothy against bad

men and false teachers. Did he do wrong in this? Of course not. He loved the

church. He was jealous over it with a godly jealousy. And so should we be.

We should mark and name them that cause division. (Rom. 16:17.)