by Kevin Rutherford

There is an appropriate time and place for calling the names of those who have done well, and who should be set forth as a good example for us. Sometimes the apostle Paul called such names (Romans 16:3-16). While it is appropriate to call the names of those who have done well, it is also appropriate to call the names of those who should be marked and avoided. Sometimes the apostle Paul called such names (1 Timothy 1:20).

There are appropriate names to call faithful Christians. Peter called them names in 1 Peter 2:9. Just as it is appropriate to refer to the faithful in different ways so it is also appropriate to refer to the unfaithful with different names. I don’t mean rude, childish, or immature names. I do mean names that accurately describe their error. New Testament writers often did this. Those who refused to accept the truth about the nature of Jesus were called "antichrists (1 John 2:18)." There were some teaching error in the churches of Asia called "Nicolaitans (Revelation 2:15)." Paul called those who sought to bind circumcision on Gentile Christians, "they of the circumcision (Titus 1:10)."

Having said these things, let me conclude that it is not wrong to refer to erring brethren and false teachers as "antis," "non-institutional brethren," "liberals," "change-agents," etc. They are all in error, and their names appropriately give some indication of the error they are in.

I will grant you the fact that those names can be used somewhat subjectively. That is why it is often good to specify the false doctrines of those who wear those names. Of course it is also appropriate to refer to them as "erring brethren (James 5:19)," "divisive brethren (Romans 16:17)," or simply, "false teachers (2 Peter 2:1)."