Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 1
January 5, 1950
NUMBER 34, PAGE 4

The Preacher's Vocabulary

C. M. Stubblefield, Newark, Texas

When Jesus sent the twelve out on their first preaching tour he said to them, in part, "beware of men, for they will deliver you up to councils; and in their synagogues will they scourge you. But when they deliver you up be not anxious how or what ye shall speak. For it is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you." (Matt. 10:16-20.) On the first Pentecost after Christ's resurrection, "they all began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance" (Acts 2:4.) And Paul affirmed that his preaching "was not in words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth" (1 Cor. 2:14.)

As I see it, these passages indicate that the Holy Spirit not only gave those men the truths they were to proclaim, but also the very words by which to do so. From which it follows, I believe, that when the Bible was written, it not only contained the Spirit's full and complete message to man, but that it contained that message in the very words the Spirit chose for that purpose.

But the vocabulary of the present-day preacher contains words pertaining to religion the Spirit did not use in writing the Bible. Some of these were in existence at that time, no doubt; but others have been invented since. And so I ask this question: When trying to preach the gospel, should we employ only those words we find in the Bible, so far as humanly possible, or are we at liberty to use any and all others which, in our judgment, will certainly convey the truth? This may appear trivial to some, but it has engaged the minds of some great men of the past. Alexander Campbell was discussing this matter in his book, Christianity Restored, when he said:

"We choose to speak of Bible things by Bible words because we are always suspicious that if a word is not in the Bible the idea it represents is not in there; and always confident that the things taught by God are better taught in the words, and under the names which the Spirit chose and appropriated than by those which man's wisdom teaches."

That sentence deserves the thoughtful, prayerful consideration of all Christians, and especially of those who would preach or otherwise teach the way of life and salvation. Of course, the bare fact that a given word is not in the Bible does not prove, necessarily, that the idea it represents is not in there, but it is just and reasonable ground, I believe, for suspicion that such is the case. The Holy Spirit knew what he wanted to tell, and how best to tell it. I do not believe that we are able to improve on his method of expression.

Unlike Brother Campbell, sectarian preachers do not "choose to speak of Bible things by Bible words." On the contrary, they feel themselves perfectly free to use any and all terms which, in their opinion, will clearly teach what they believe to be the truth. When they conceive an idea, if they have no words by which to express it they invent some that will, and think themselves justified in so doing. In this manner they have built for themselves a vocabulary perfectly adapted to the task of spreading denominationalism throughout the earth, and also of maintaining the peculiar doctrines of each sect. And this is why rigid Calvinism and elastic Methodism enjoy peace and prosperity in the same community.

Denominations do not succeed, mark you, because of the Scriptures their adherents quote, nor even from their peculiar interpretations of the Scriptures. They grow, rather, from a constant, persistent use of words and names not found in the Bible. Had it not been for this practice not one of them would have been born; if men could be induced to forsake it, they would all die within a decade.

Thomas Campbell said: "We speak where the Bible speaks, and are silent where the Bible is silent." And what did he mean by that? Did he mean, merely, that he and his few associates taught only what they sincerely believed to be the truth? Not at all. Instead, he meant that what they spoke was spoken in the language of the Bible. They insisted that there are plenty of names in the Bible by which to designate all the objects that are in there; and that there are plenty of words in the Bible with which to convey all the thoughts and ideas that are in there. They believed and taught "that in order to a full restoration of the ancient order of things, there must be a pure speech restored."

But what do we mean by this beautiful aphorism when we quote it and apply it to ourselves? Do we mean that, like all sectarians, we preach what we sincerely believe to be the truth? Or do we mean that, unlike sectarians, what we speak is spoken in the language of the Bible? Hearing us preach, or reading what we write, thoughtful persons cannot but conclude that the former is the case. And here, with what sincerity I can command, let me utter a word of warning. Sectarians have a style of speech with which they spread and support denominationalism. If we employ their terms will we not unwittingly do the same? It is not enough that we shall decry denominationalism, we must be careful lest we give help and comfort by using non-scriptural terms.

For instance: At the conclusion of a sermon delivered in my presence not long ago a well-educated and highly esteemed brother exhorted sinners to "get into God's soul-saving institution, the church of Christ." But all the scholars, all the officers, and all the preachers in the Catholic Church believe and teach that God's church is a "soul-saving institution." This, I say, is a chief item in their faith, and our brother gave them help and comfort in propagating it, thus building what he would much like to destroy. But how did he fall into such an error? I answer: He did not "choose to speak of Bible things by Bible words." Instead, he borrowed from sectarians their meaningful and oft-used term, "institution." No sectarian establishment can long exist without the constant use of this word. But it isn't in the Bible. The Holy Spirit used the word "church" more than a hundred times in writing that sacred book, doubtless imparting all the information he thought men would ever need concerning it, without using the word "institution" a single, solitary time. Search it through from beginning to end and see for yourself that this is true.

"The word of God is living, and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and quick to discern the thoughts and intents of the heart." (Heb. 4:12.) But this isn't said; mark you, of man's words, nor even of his comments on God's.