|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Mar 17, 2006 2:32:16 GMT -5
This was a recent email I recieved from someone, regarding name calling in preaching:
"I have also seen the sign you guys came up with and don’t agree with calling sinners names, even if they are earned. There is not one example from the New Testament of Gospel preaching where the apostles ever called anyone a name. Not one. The technique that you have endorsed is wrong, it’s unbiblical. However, I know that you don’t do that all of the time. If you study the Word in context, you will see it for yourself. Please do so.
If you do study the Gospel proclamations in the Gospels and Acts and see that this is indeed the case, humble yourself before God and publicly admit that you were wrong about those techniques." End Quote
Here is my response. What are your thoughts? Can you think of any more scriptures?
Jesus called a women a dog. Jesus called a person a fox. Jesus called someone a son of the devil, brood of vipers, snakes, swine, white washed tombs, fools, blind guides, one of you is a devil, hypocrites, etc etc. If these aren't names then what is? The Apostle Paul called a sorcerer a son of the devil. Paul gave a whole list of names in 1 Corinthians 6:9, fornicators, adulterers, idolaters, homosexuals, sodomites, extortioners, etc etc. James called people names when he said ," Cleanse your hands you sinners, and purify your hearts you double minded." "You stiff-necked, and uncircumcised in heart and ears" Acts 7:57 is another example of name calling, directly to sinners. This was Stephen, and he was stoned. Name calling, next to holiness, is one of the easiest biblical truths to defend. It's all over scripture. I can't repent, and refuse to repent of something I see very clearly to be biblical. I don't see how you could say name-calling is not biblical. These are all scriptures off the top of my head. One does not have to think very long upon the New Testament before a great deal of names starts coming to mind. Of coafrse there are many more names if I went through the Old Testament, but the New Testament is sufficient in providing biblical backing for biblical name calling. All the names listed on our sign are biblical names, minus two "sport-freaks and porn-freaks". All the other names can be found directly in the New Testament.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Mar 17, 2006 9:09:19 GMT -5
I think you can only call someone a "name" when you know it is true. I think where a person can err is calling someone a name without any grounds to do so. If someone is a drunkard, call the drunkard to repent.
Here is the verse you referenced to about Paul. It's pretty spicey to say the least...
Act 13:9 Then Saul, (who also [is called] Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him,
Act 13:10 And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, [thou] child of the devil, [thou] enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?
I read an article about this once... If I find it I will post a link.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Mar 17, 2006 9:49:12 GMT -5
I found this quote on another site. The Calling Out and Naming of Sin. We believe that a preacher cannot preach against sin without naming it and calling it for what it is. In like reason, a preacher’s rebuke of sin is worthless on its face, when he cannot personally address the sinners that committed it. To rebuke sin and not the sinner is the generalized ministration of cowards, who for want of fear, preach against things and not people, against actions and not actors, who preach against the committing of sin, but cannot preach to the person committing it. Accordingly, it is the belief of the Fellowship and its members that true Bible preaching cannot be done without naming the sin as well as the sinner, and will stand to the scriptures in support of its members before the saints, and the courts of justice (see Matthew 23:13-17, 23-33/ James 4:4/ Acts 8:20-23/ 13:9, 10/ 14:14, 15/16:18/ 17:22/ 23:3/ 1 Kings 21:17-24/ 2 Chronicles 19:1,2/).
What do you guys think?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Mar 17, 2006 12:23:02 GMT -5
Yes, you can only call someone by the biblical term if they have confessed to it. I have never heard personally someone call out random names to people, but if someone ever did it would be wrong.
Leonard Ravenhill mentions this in a compilation called "Who Touched The Ark". It's one of my favorite compilations.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Mar 17, 2006 14:24:10 GMT -5
I think where the name calling can go wrong is where there is over-generalization...the preacher calls the whole crowd certain names. A preacher can't do this is good conscience since he doesn't know the whole crowd of people. If someone manifests that they are involved in a certain sin, then I don't see any problem with calling them a name. However, I don't think name calling is needed. I don't think I need to call someone a whoremonger to tell them that they are going to hell because they are acting permiscuous. I don't need to call someone a drunkard to show them that the way they are living and acting is going to send them to hell. Jesus did call people names, but if you look at the people that he called names (for the most part), they were the religious hypocrites. These are the people that all open air preachers know need the strongest rebuke. They are the ones who call themselves "christians" when they obviously aren't Christians. I also want to point out that Jesus and the disciples didn't always call names. The adultress who was thrown at the feet of Jesus wasn't called names by Jesus. The woman at the well wasn't called names by Jesus. Paul didn't call names when he was preaching in Acts 21:37-22:21. Paul didn't call names when he was preaching to Felix in Acts 24 or to Agrippa in Acts 26. I think it really all depends upon the crowd. Just because Paul lists off in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 those people who will not inherit the Kingdom of God, doesn't mean we should go out and call people those names. I don't find much record at all of Paul doing this besides the sorcerer. Plus, remember that Paul is writing to a church in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10...to a people who call themselves Christians. It is a warning to those who already know the truth and consider themselves Christians. It is a warning that those who live in such a way either are not truly saved or will lose their salvation (depending on the way you view it). In everything we must walk in step with the Spirit and do all things in love. I am convinced that some people call names because they are self-righteous and enjoy condemning people. A great example would be that "amazing grace" video that Miles posted about in the Video section of the message board. We must love our neighbors as ourself...that is the second greatest commandment. A friend of mine shared this quote:
Stumbled across this from Samuel Brengle, a Salvation Army writer. It's a good reminder of how we ought to preach the Law and judgment... "God's law cannot be broken with impunity. 'The soul that sinneth, it shall die.' We can no more avoid the judgment of God's violated law than we can avoid casting a shadow when we stand in the light of the sun, or than we can avoid being burned if we thrust our hand into the fire. Judgment follows wrongdoing as night follows day. "This truth should be preached and declared continually and everywhere. It should not be preached harshly, as though we were glad of it; nor thoughtlessly, as though we had learned it as a parrot might learn it; nor lightly, as though it were of no importance; but it should be preached soberly, earnestly, tearfully, intelligently, as a solemn, certain, awful fact to be reckoned with in everything we think and say and do." Brengle, Samuel Love-Slaves pages 81-82
Also, check this out:
"Beloved, your harshest word from the pulpit of God must throb with love or God will rebuke you...your cruelest word from your lips in the pulpit of God must so throb with love, with God's love, so that every single person that you're preaching to will become conscious, utterly, 'No man has ever loved my soul like this preacher.' That's how we preach judgment or God will judge us." --Keith Daniel in "Jonah--The Man, The Message, The Movement"
The question isn't whether or not we think we love the sinners we're preaching to. The question is do they know whether or not we love them? If we love them with the love of Christ, it would be impossible for them to be ignorant of it, regardless of whether or not they repent and believe the Gospel.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Mar 17, 2006 16:25:24 GMT -5
I think it is ok if someone confesses lying, stealing, blasphemy,adultery, then letting them know that they are a "lying, theiving, blasphemous adulterer at heart" is good, so long as you speak the truth in love.
Hard words are to be given with soft hearts.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Mar 17, 2006 16:28:11 GMT -5
Anyone who has every went through that with someone like Ray Comfort does has seen people look utterly shocked when you tell them that. I think it makes it personal, so the sinner doesn't act like his sin is seperate from him. God will not send their sin to hell, well if he does, the sinner is going with it.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Mar 17, 2006 17:32:37 GMT -5
I believe it is often necessary to call names. You can talk all day about someone sinning somewhere and no one is really brought to conviction. When you make it personal (call names), people immediately try to excuse or defend their sin. The person must know you mean them. You cannot separate the sin from the sinner. Jesus came to "call sinners unto repentance." (Matthew 9:13).
It is wrong to make the assumption that because someone calls names that their heart is not right. Proverbs 27:5 "Open rebuke is better than secret love".
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Mar 17, 2006 17:36:20 GMT -5
Amen Micah
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Mar 17, 2006 18:45:37 GMT -5
I am definitely not saying that because someone calls names that their heart isn't right...but their method is possibly wrong. Just because someone doesn't call a sinner names doesn't mean that they have separated that person from their sins...
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Mar 18, 2006 0:03:33 GMT -5
Wrong based on what? It is not wrong based on the bible. People could use it wrongly.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Mar 18, 2006 16:32:57 GMT -5
I thought of Elijah mocking the prophets of Baal, he isnt really name calling, but close.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Mar 18, 2006 20:12:19 GMT -5
I think the point that I am trying to make is that calling names isn't a universal admonition and that it must be done in love for the person who you are calling names. It is obvious from the Bible that people weren't always called names when preached to or witnessed to. And the ones who were called names by Jesus, John the Baptist, Paul, etc. were almost always people who thought they were God's children but really were not. Those are the ones who need to be spoken to most harshly. Just because we see something done in the Bible a couple of times doesn't mean we do it every time. For those who are for doing this every time, can you please show me a command to do this or show me that it was done every time?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Mar 18, 2006 22:07:59 GMT -5
Kerrigan,
Do you ever, or almost always, use the good test?
And when you do, do you say "lying, theiving, blasphemous, adulterer at heart"?
How often do you say that, if you ever do?
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Mar 18, 2006 22:48:24 GMT -5
Kerrigan, Do you ever, or almost always, use the good test? And when you do, do you say "lying, theiving, blasphemous, adulterer at heart"? How often do you say that, if you ever do? I use the "good test" pretty frequently I would say. I would say that is the right way of "name calling." In the "good test" you are causing someone to examine themselves though...so there is no room for them to say that you are "judging" them. Basically, they call themself the name and you are just in agreement. As I have said, there is a right way to do it. But to just go to a crowd and start calling names and over-generalizing is the wrong way to do it. I hope no one is getting defensive, because I don't really see too much disagreement here. I am just clarifying on what I have seen some preachers do and that I disagree with from what I see in the Bible. I haven't seen or heard for myself that anyone on this message board has done this...
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Mar 18, 2006 23:44:30 GMT -5
I too think we are in agreement regarding biblical name calling.
But, I did want to challenge this one point:
What biblical grounds does this stand upon? And, the ultimate conclusion would be that if the crowd doesn't feel love, then you don't really love them.
The greatest act of love the world has ever encountered was Christ dying on the cross. Greater love has no man then this, then to lay down his life for his friends. However, when Christ was in the very act of the most loving deed the world has ever seen, how did the world respond? Did they say, "Oh, look at how much he loves us?" No, they mocked him and said, "if you saved others, come down and save yourself."
The problem with your statement is that it is built upon the assumption that the world would recognize love when they see it. However I completely disagree with that assumption in which that statement is built upon. The world cannot even define love. They say that homosexuals have a romatic love one for another, rather then a fleshly lust. The world did not recognize the love of Christ on the cross and often times will not recognize the loving act of preaching.
Even the Prophet Jeremiah warned the Nation of Israel with tears but what did they say? "Oh look at how much he loves our Nation?" No! They called him a traitor of the Nation and had him imprisoned.
What if you REALLY love them, but they don't recognize it because they don't know what love looks like, then do you not preach? Would you tell the ones who don't see the love to leave? So you could preach to the ones who do recognize the love.
Love is action, not a feeling. The crowd might not feel loved, but the action and the motive of the preacher is love.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Mar 18, 2006 23:58:04 GMT -5
RevK,
When Paul was preaching and people opposed and blasphemed, contradicted and blasphemed, started riots, stoned Paul, etc. I do not at all get the impression that the thing that struck them was how much Paul loved them.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Mar 19, 2006 0:08:53 GMT -5
In theory it sounds great, but in reality I don't think it's realistic.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Mar 19, 2006 0:27:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Mar 19, 2006 0:33:35 GMT -5
Actually Jesse, that was something someone else said...but that was a pretty good rebuttal. Maybe they won't always know it...I definitely agree without a shadow of a doubt that love is action and not feeling. I really just want to be careful to do things in a loving way, because otherwise I am just a clanging cymbol or resounding gong. We just need to be careful when we call names because I have seen some people go over the top. I will take a listen to Ravenhill.
|
|
|
Post by Miles Lewis on Mar 19, 2006 2:12:25 GMT -5
The open air team says "AMEN".
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Mar 23, 2006 22:39:58 GMT -5
I recently purchased "Holy Huberts" autobiography:
In addition to his faithful proclamation of God's message, there was one other characteristic which made "Holy Hubert" stand out among the people trying to influence the youth on and aroud the Berkeley campus: Hubert really loves these people. To see and hear him in action is to know it. Though he calls them "dirty rotten sinners," the people here acknowledge that "Holy Hubert really cares."
-From the Foreword
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Mar 23, 2006 23:04:34 GMT -5
Yes because he was there everyday. They beat him up and he kept coming back. I am not sure they would get that same impression if he was only there a day or two. I have also ready comments from people that thought Holy Hubert was hateful.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 4, 2006 16:07:16 GMT -5
I continue to hear this thought that "if you really love people, they will know you love them." I don't see this in the bible at all.
I can relate more to what Paul said:
"And I will very gladly spend and be spent for you; though the more abundantly I love you, the less I be loved." 2 Corinthians 11:15
|
|
|
Post by HDmatt on Apr 26, 2006 22:04:27 GMT -5
What about if the name calling is involving another Christian? an example would be attacking ministers and preachers............
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 26, 2006 22:11:05 GMT -5
You mean like calling a preacher a "soft boy sissy, cream puff pie preacher, pulpit ornament two times on sunday"?
I love it.
Remember, it was the pharisees that Jesus called "Sons of the devil" and "blind guides" and "fools" and "hypocrites" and "generation of vipers".
|
|
|
Post by HDmatt on Apr 26, 2006 22:40:28 GMT -5
You mean like calling a preacher a "soft boy sissy, cream puff pie preacher, pulpit ornament two times on sunday"? That Jesse is hilarious haha, well back to business lol I actually meant the part where ppl even on this site use a name while talking heresy, or false teacher without ever well knowing them, I don't know, well thats why I asked eh?
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Apr 27, 2006 15:28:47 GMT -5
Any preacher who doesn't soundly preach is a coward and a con-man...ministers who teach false doctrine (like benny Hindrance) SHOULD be pointed out and called Biblical names such as "child of the devil", "twice the son of hell" etc etc.
Name calling is OK if it's backed with a foundational basis of truth.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on May 3, 2006 16:02:57 GMT -5
I do have a question about name calling, how do you interpret the following passage?
Titus 1:10-14 (NKJV) 10 For there are many insubordinate, both idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, 11 whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole households, teaching things which they ought not, for the sake of dishonest gain. 12 One of them, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” 13 This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, 14 not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth.
Paul said that what they said was true - therefore rebuke them sharply - how come they needed rebuking? Is it because they were hypocrites ('deceivers')? Or is it because they were idly speaking among one another about this rather than confronting the Cretans?
Aaron.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on May 3, 2006 20:04:43 GMT -5
I don't think Paul was saying their testimony of Cretans was true but that what he was saying about what they say about Cretans is true. As though he was saying, "It's true that they really say this. So rebuke them for it."
|
|