Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 10
June 26, 1958
NUMBER 9, PAGE 8-9b

"Christian Church" Is Not "Still" A Scriptural Term, Since It Never Was!

Luther W. Martin, St. James, Missouri

This article is still another reply to a series of efforts by Bob Haddow of Temple City, California in his vain attempt to prove the expression "Christian church" a SCRIPTURAL term.

I appreciate my opponent's concession to the effect that he is not "defending a sectarian use of the phrase 'Christian church'." But since the expression does not come from Holy Writ, then its origin is of necessity MANMADE, and IS thus, SECTARIAN!

Friend Haddow and I agree that "Any English words or group of words which express the same ideas as those intended by the writers of the New Testament in their Greek, are scriptural." Thus, all he needs to do is find JUST ONCE in Scripture where Christianos (Christian), is used and applied to ANYTHING other than an individual child of God!!

In keeping the record straight, I need to correct my quotation from Thayer's Lexicon, in which I used the word "paraphrasis". I should have given it as "periphrasis". In order to clarify any misconception that may arise, I shall give definitions for BOTH words. In either case, that may arise, I shall give definitions for BOTH words. In either case, they do not help Mr. Haddow's Preferred church-name!!

"PERIPHRASIS — circumlocution, round-about way, evasion." Page 586, Kyriakides Greek-English Dictionary.

"PARAPHRASIS — paraphrase, free translation." Page 562, Ibid.

Now . . . Friend Haddow can take either one of these words, and apply it to his attempted claim that the title "Christian church" can be found in Galatians 1:22, as some individual translators have loosely rendered it.

The Unabridged Dictionary renders "periphrasis" as follows:

"PERIPHRASIS — a method of speech lacking conciseness; round-about or superlative language; circumlocution, etc."

Hence, since the word Thayer used was 'periphrasis' . . . does Friend Haddow wish to admit that the title "Christian church" is the result of a method of speech that lacks conciseness? Or, in order to try to justify such a title, is he going to charge that INSPIRATION lacked conciseness ? Which ever horn of the dilemma he takes, will not be pleasant!

Since Friend Haddow does not know about the word 'paraphrasis', we shall also accommodate him in that respect, although we have already given the Greek-English Dictionary's definition of the word. The two words 'PERI-phrasis' and 'PARA-phrasis' differ only in the prefix used. 'PERI' means around, about, or encircling, while 'PARA' means alongside, beside, parallel or by. So, in either case, Mr. Haddow's pet title is not assisted in the least.

Term `Christian Church' Causes Division!

Yes, by the use of such a title, Friend Haddow contributes to the division existing in the religious world. He admitted in his first article that 'church of Christ' is a scriptural term; yet he attempts to uphold the use of that which engenders controversy and division.

Mr. Haddow states that "The term 'Christian church' abounds in the writings of the early Restoration movement." Now.... what does this statement prove?? Were the 'early Restorationists' inspired?? In fact, this scribe denies that all the 'restoring' has been accomplished!! It will not have been until men like Haddow and others go 'back to the Bible' for their speech and terminology.

The Word 'Christian' Is Translated Only From 'Christians'

See Acts 11:26; Acts 26:28; and I Peter 4:16. It is found three times in the Greek New Testament. Thus, SCRIPTURAL language restricts Christians to that use-age, IF their usage is to remain SCRIPTURAL!!

Of course, in our modern world, with its constantly changing language, one can find the word 'Christian' used as an adjective, rather than as a noun, as it was exclusively used in the New Testament. Such words as 'Christendom', 'Christianity', 'Christmas', and 'Christianism' and others are to be found . . . BUT THEY ARE NOT SCRIPTURAL TERMS! Friend Haddow . . . why use UN-scriptural terms to describe or name something when SCRIPTURAL TERMS are available??

"Thou shalt be called by a new name ..." Isa. 62:2

"And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and kings thy glory: and one shall call thee by a new name, which the Lord shall name." (Isa. 62:2.)

The Gentiles first had the opportunity to embrace and accept the righteousness of God, at the household of Cornelius. The first group of disciples known to have contained Gentiles who had become children of God, was the church at Antioch. In connection with this congregation at Antioch . . . with its first Gentile converts . . . Luke wrote: "the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." (Acts 11:26.) THIS WAS THE NEW NAME as promised in the Old Testament. The Greek word 'Christianos' was used here . . . it was said by INSPIRATION, to be a NAME! An elementary school child will tell us, when asked, that a "NOUN IS A NAME." Need more be said??

The 'Meaning' Is Not The Same!

Friend Haddow's basic argument for using the term 'Christian church', is that it 'means the same' as the SCRIPTURAL expression 'church of Christ'. Now if Haddow really believed that assertion, why is he making his vain attempt at upholding this second name? But the fact remains that the meaning is NOT the same! The expression "church of Christ" means 'of or belonging to Christ.' While the expression 'Christian church' can mean 'belonging to Christians'... leaving a possible wrong impression. Friend Haddow . . . again I ask you . . . . WHY use that which can be MISunderstood, when you can use a Scriptural term that would permit NO MISunderstanding??

As I had been going through Friend Haddow's latest treatise, and commenting, perhaps I need to call attention to a little matter that I found in his last paragraph. In it he denies that 'Christian church' is his "preferred church name as Brother Martin falsely asserts." He further concedes that he has no "preferred church name". This being the case we are made to wonder just why Mr. Haddow would put forth so much effort in trying to uphold a name for which he actually has no scriptural foundation ...other than 'free renderings', etc., unless he DOES have a preferred 'church name'.

We will agree, that the scriptures use such expressions as 'church of God', 'churches of Christ', 'churches of God', 'the church', 'church of the firstborn' and so forth. We agree also that to single out any one of these expressions to the exclusion of the others becomes sectarian in usage. We cannot, however, accept loose renderings and 'free translation' and arrive at some 'church name' not actually set forth in Holy Writ ... Friend Haddow to the contrary, notwithstanding.