Abandon Ship!

[Elijah674]

Elijah here: One post reads in part..

'To you it’s an indisputable matter. Yet you find yourself free to abandon a church or ministry. In that you go against Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit of God. In all the things that was said against the seven “churches” of Revelation (churches they are to you), Jesus never once tells them to leave a “church”. Rather, he tells them to overcome within the “church” in which they find themselves. And the words of Jesus Christ trumps the words of a self-proclaimed follower of “real Christianity” any day, wouldn’t you say?'

Elijah here:
Perhaps Matt. 10:5-6 on through verse 15 + the Parable of Matt. 25 that these verses document will help the forum as least?

And Matt. 23:38's DESOLATE HOUSE (OF CHRIST) some think the Born Again one would stay yoked to??? Where we see (in Rev. 3) Laodicea in verse Rev. 3:9 which is the LAST STAGE of the Seven Candelsticks. This last Virgin Church became the Church of satan. And stay in that???????:robot Read Rev. 18:4!!

--Elijah

PS: One best be careful what forbidden ground that you are walking on! Gen. 3:1-4! And she (Eve) was without sin at this time. THINK!! of all of these since then who actually teach for truth that satan told the truth & that it is God that lied! (bottom/line)

 

[cyberjosh]

CyberJosh



Well, I’m not surprised that a Christian would think that way. I just happen to disagree as a former Christian. As a non-Christian what you say wouldn’t amount to a hill of beans to me. But as a former Christian, it concerns me greatly.



I’m surprised at such a closed minded view from you. The terms Christian and Christianity mean what they mean. Try to accept that.



Then you should care what the NT writers said about it. And the difference between what they said about the ekklesia vs. what modern Churches of Christianity are today.



And I would ask the same of you.



FC

Sufficiently vague, on each of the responses. Such that I have nothing that I can really respond to.

Nevertheless, I found the YouTube post quite informative. And it only served to make me more certain of the view that I present. I’m only surprised he didn’t take what he said to its logical conclusion. That those who are in Christ are anointed ones. By virtue of being in Christ and by virtue of the Spirit within that is their seal.

I agree with the last two statements, although I don't see how it really disagrees with what either he or I have said.

Also, as an aside, I haven't been around enough to really tell, but you seem to actually believe Jesus died for our sins and believe in Him for redemption? Or are you an atheist/agnostic? If the former, then do you just disagree with the nomenclature that a believer should use to describe him- or herself? And how important do you think it really is whether one gets the nomenclature right (aside from not being misinformed/misunderstanding) if the core action of believing by faith in the message of the Gospel unto salvation is the same?

God bless,
~Josh

 

[Vince]

Acts 27:38 So when they had eaten enough, they lightened the ship and threw out the wheat into the sea

In the Bible, "bread" is used for both spiritual and physical food, and at times symbolizes either Jesus or the Bible. When the Word of God is thrown overboard, it's time to abandon ship.

Decades ago, Jack Hyles accepted the pastorate of the First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana, and as a strong fundamentalist, he presided over one of the greatest church growths in the history of Christianity. When my wife and I left, we had just finished averaging 40,000 in attendance during the spring, and attendance continued to grow afterwards. Brother Hyles preached frequently, loudly, openly, and blatantly that a major reason that God was blessing the church so much was their uncompromising stand for the Word of God.

But some years later, Hyles announced that he had turned Ruckmanite, and the church would now accept the King James Version, rather than the Bible, as their final authority. And then he presided over one of the greatest failures in the history of Christianity, as the church declined to 6,000 at the time of his death.

When a Christian organization abandons the Word of God, it's time to abandon ship.

 

[Vince]

Acts 27:43 But the centurion, wanting to save Paul, kept them from their purpose, and commanded that those who could swim should jump overboard first and get to land,
44 and the rest, some on boards and some on parts of the ship. And so it was that they all escaped safely to land.

The centurion wasn't a sailor, but he could see that it was time to abandon ship. In fact, he even told the sailors what to do. The behavior of the centurion is difficult to fathom, but there's no denying that he got results. The men could have stayed on the stranded ship while it was breaking up. trying to wait out the storm. But if the ship had collapsed, they would have been dropped into the sea without warning. He MIGHT have felt that the swimmers would get to shore, have a chance to rest, and then wade out into the surf to help the non-swimmers who were clinging to pieces of the ship. But regardless of his reasons, he succeeded in getting everyone safely off the doomed ship.

The centurion had taken good care of Paul. There is no way to know what his spiritual state was. But there is no question that he was a decent man. Incidentally, the Bible nowhere says anything bad about centurions. When decent, competent men see that a venture has failed, it might be a good idea to take them seriously.

 

[Former Christian]

Elijah674

And Matt. 23:38's DESOLATE HOUSE (OF CHRIST) some think the Born Again one would stay yoked to??? Where we see (in Rev. 3) Laodicea in verse Rev. 3:9 which is the LAST STAGE of the Seven Candelsticks. This last Virgin Church became the Church of satan. And stay in that??????? Read Rev. 18:4!!

And go where? In Philadelphia there was only one ekklesia. Not like Christianity today where there may be a church of a different denomination on every street corner. You don’t subscribe to the philosophy, “choose you this day which denomination or local denominational church you will follow†do you? In Christianity it makes no difference what church one jumps into, so long as the church agrees with the one doing the jumping.

Matt 23:38 is a reference to the Jews. As is Rev 3:9 a reference to the Jews within the camp of the Philadelphian ekklesia. Jesus never says to the believers in Philadelphia to leave that ekklesia. On the contrary. He says,

Revelations 3:
11 Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.
12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.
13 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
(KJV)

Overcome, not go find another ekklesia to attend.

How many witnesses for Christ (martyrs) would there have been in the first century if they had only been as smart as the modern Christian, and just up and jumped ship at the first sign of trouble? At the first sign that other believers didn’t quite agree with them?

I still attend the same Christian Church I’ve attended for years, even though I have come to disagree with many of the things it stands for. And rather than put myself into the position of having to Church hop, I am silent about what I believe that isn’t the same as what they believe. I didn’t jump ship. I just finally came to the realization that I believed in Jesus Christ more than I believed in Christianity or any denomination of Christianity that has misappropriated the title. I finally realized that Jesus is the Christ, and neither Christianity nor any denomination of Christianity is the Christ. I finally realized that Jesus is Lord, not any of the leaderships in the denominations of Christianity.

Perhaps the confusion comes from the fact that being a former Christian isn’t a physical matter. It’s a Spiritual matter.

One best be careful what forbidden ground that you are walking on!

You don’t think that Christianity or any of its denominations are forbidden ground do you?

In the view I present, Christianity is only a man-made religion. No more forbidden than attending a public school. Any more, God doesn’t have places that are sacred in their own right, as it was in the OT and with Jerusalem. For those who are in Christ, it is the person that is sacred by virtue of being in Jesus Christ, by virtue of the Christ who is within through the Holy Spirit who is within.

FC

 

[Former Christian]

See next post.

 

[Former Christian]

New Post


Cyberjosh

Your original statement:

Originally Posted by Former Christian
Christianity “the religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, or its beliefs and practices.” (Oxford Dictionary) “A monotheistic system of beliefs and practices based on the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament and emphasizing the role of Jesus as savior; The collective body of Christians throughout the world and history (found predominantly in Europe and the Americas and Australia)”. (WordWeb)

That seems to about cover it. I agree with the definitions of both dictionaries. You’re the one who would redefine Christianity to suit your own meaning, as one who is “accurately representing” Christianity.

You are relying on a modern English dictionary to tell you the meaning of a first century Greek word that is used in inspired Scripture? I don't care what the modern perception of 'Christian' is, I care how it was used originally. Equally I don't care what people think the ekklesia is today (some would say a location that has pews in it), but rather I care what Scripture said about what it is, when it was written 2,000 years ago. Time shouldn't change the truths of scripture, although our perceptions may be molded by our upbringing and the time we were born into.

That much I at least ask for a plea of reasonableness on.

1 Christianity

This was originally posted to Bodine as I remember.

You say you don’t agree with the modern dictionary definition of Christianity. And you say that a modern English dictionary doesn’t accurately define the meaning of a first century Greek word used in inspired Scripture.

Christianity isn’t a first century Greek word. Christian is. The term Christianity is derived from the term Christian. The Oxford Dictionary defines a Christian in this way,

“Of, relating to, or professing Christianity or its teachings” and “a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings”.

The only definition of the Greek word Christianos that I’ve heard of is that it means a follower of the Christ. You can see that the word Christian has come to include more in it’s definition than was in the original Greek word. So I agree with you that the modern Dictionaries aren’t defining the original Greek word. Only what it has historically come to mean through Christianity. Nevertheless, today, in the 21st century, the dictionary meanings of Christian and Christianity is what they mean to the average Christian and non-Christian. Add to that the uniquely “Christian” meaning that these terms are referring to, as the expression of the Body of Christ on earth, and that some claim that their own denomination, or that Christianity as a whole, is that expression today.

The term Christian was originally used by those who didn’t believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ to denote those who did believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ. It was not, I repeat NOT, used in Scripture by those who believed that Jesus was the Christ to refer to themselves. That is clear from the context apart from the interpretive thinking.

The term Christian is only used three times in the NT. And in none of those instances was it used by anyone saying “I am a Christian” or “we are Christians”, or even “you are Christians”. That doesn’t stop Christians from interpreting these references as though they did say that. Biblical interpretation is a common practice in Christianity. The use of the term Christian by those who believed that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ to refer to themselves was not until the third century. At least that’s the earliest reference I’ve heard of. If you know of an earlier extra-biblical reference, please let me know.

Since you disagree with the Dictionary definition of Christianity, and apparently of Christian as well, what is your personal definition of these terms?

2 Ekklesia

You don’t care what people think the ekklesia is today. You only care about what the Scripture says about the ekklesia. In the view I present, the NT says that the ekklesia are local expressions only. That the only name associated with each ekklesia was the name of the city in which they existed. That they were composed of people called out of cities by God to be an expression of His Son Jesus Christ in those cities.

The Churches of Christianity and the ekklesia of the NT are not the same thing. For one thing, the Churches of Christianity are each universal expressions with local churches in the cities named for the Church of which they are a part. The ekklesia are only local expressions. For another, the Churches of Christianity are denominational, each with authoritative human leaderships. The ekklesia had only one leader, the Lord Jesus Christ, and no other Lords. Including Lords that are human and Vicars, that is representatives, of the one Lord Jesus Christ, who is already present through the Holy Spirit. Nor are the ekklesia something that no longer exists because the Churches of Christianity, specifically one of the Churches of Christianity, is the historical development of what the ekklesia was; as Roman Catholicism claims.

What does Scripture say to you regarding the ekklesia? What are their relationships to the Churches in Christianity? Does the Scripture say to you that the ekklesia were simple organizations to be replaced by the more developed Churches of Christianity?

3 “Time shouldn't change the truths of scripture, although our perceptions may be molded by our upbringing and the time we were born into.”

How can I disagree with that, since it’s what I’ve been saying all along? Yet Christianity is made up of a myriad of denominations and individuals that say the truth of Scripture has indeed changed through the diversity of their interpretations of that same Scripture.

In the view I present, Scripture is not just a historical document, to be understood through any kind of man-made method of biblical interpretation. The Scripture is always a document that exists in the present tense to whomever is reading it, in whatever era, with Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit.

If – IF - the bible is just a collection of a bunch of writings written 2000+ years ago, then they should indeed be treated according to what they obviously are. Not as inspired Scripture, but as the writings of men who lived 2000+ years ago. And if just the writings of men, then interpreted to have meaning for 21st century readers. Because 21st century readers are trying to apply to themselves writings that weren’t even written to them in the first place. They were written to the ones the writers were originally writing to. Why should one believe in that kind of bible when there are so many writings written by 21st century writers that are more appropriate and have more real meaning for 21st century readers?

Let me be clear. In the view I present, the bible is NOT a cultural bible. It’s NOT a historical bible. It is inspired Scripture. What it says, it says clearly to anyone who really wants to know what it says. One doesn’t have to have a special degree and do special research to discover the “hidden” meanings of the bible. God didn’t write the bible to a select few. It was written to the same people Jesus preached to. Everyone who’ll hear what the Spirit, and consequently Jesus (Heb 1:2), is saying to the ekklesia. Jesus didn’t stop speaking in the first century. He continues to speak throughout two millennia through the Holy Spirit using the bible as a tool.

The only job of the translator of the Hebrew and Greek, is to accurately translate these writings into the language intended. Not to interpretively translate them; whether the intention is to make the bible more clear, or whether the intention is to convey their own understanding of what the writers wrote.

If the bible is truly inspired, then he wrote it to say the same thing to all who believe no matter what era they live in. And he wrote it clearly. With words that have obvious meanings that are the same to all. Or did God die in the first century? Or is his knowledge limited to only up to the first century? Bible interpreters change the meaning of the bible to conform to their own understanding of what the writers meant. And if interpretation is the only legitimate way to understand the bible, or if as some claim that everyone interprets the bible whether they want to or not, then the bible isn’t inspired Scripture any more than the writings of Aristotle.

That much I at least ask for a plea of reasonableness on.

Christians tend to be interpretive more than they are reasonable. And I at one time wondered if maybe it’s the will of God, like the Calvinists think. It sure makes it easier for non-Christians to refute them. In the view I present, the practice of biblical interpretation is just a human practice that leads to unreasonable views. Certainly views that have nothing at all to do with the Scripture they are interpreting. A human practice expressing the nature of Christianity, not the nature of the Scriptures.

Does that help to alleviate the vagueness problem for you?

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Cyberjosh

What am I?

The view I present is that of a former Christian.

In the view I present there is a difference between a former Christian and a non-Christian. A former Christian doesn’t believe in the religion that calls itself Christianity nor that it or any of its denominations are representative of the writings of bible. But does believe that the bible is inspired Scripture and believes in the reality it describes through the teaching of Jesus Christ who will teach any of his own who is open minded to his teaching and walks by the Holy Spirit, teaching through that same Spirit. A non-Christian believes in neither the religion nor the bible, nor the reality as it is described by either.

Some think that a former Christian is a traitor to the cause of Christ by abandoning the religion that calls itself Christianity and the name associated with it. That view claims that Christianity and the term Christian is the true expression of the Christ and the bible on earth. They don’t realize that only the Roman Catholic Church has the greatest legitimacy to made such a claim. But in the view I present, the RCC has no more legitimacy to make such a claim than a Protestant.

Part of that view is the claim that there are true Christians and false Christians, the difference being determined according to whether or not one agrees with a particular view of a “true†Christian. When actually the only truly false Christian is the one who claims to believe what he does not. A difference in doctrine doesn’t make any Christian a false Christian. But a false Christian is so defined by certain fundamentalist types in Christianity who believe their interpretations are the word of God.

In the view I present, there is only a difference between those who are in Christ and those who are not. A person who isn’t in Christ can be just as much a Christian as one who is. According to the simple definition of the Greek word, that a Christian is a follower of Christ. A follower of Christ doesn’t have to be in Christ. He only has to follow the teachings of Christ with true intent as he understands them.

The difference between a Christian and one who is in Christ isn’t profound. It’s just the difference between the old creation in Adam and the New creation in Christ.

If you don’t know something of the Greek, you will be handicapped. Because of the interpretive tendency in the English bibles to translate prepositions as if they are interchangeable. So you should have an Interlinear available at least so that you can be sure your looking at the right preposition. But if you haven’t the time to do the research and are truly interested in what Scripture has to say on the matter, I’ll be glad to offer some Scripture to give you the general idea.

I agree with the last two statements, although I don't see how it really disagrees with what either he or I have said.

I thought it an excellent piece. I never said it disagreed or agreed with any particular view. Only that it made me more certain of the view I present (it obviously didn’t make you more certain of that view) and that I expected more that didn’t materialize. Try NOT to read between the lines. They’re as blank as they appear.

FC

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I don't believe any person has to stay in a fellowship where they are not fed, whatever the reason that is true. And no one should fellowship with a group of people who they consider not Christian or a part of Christianity. That person should find another house to fellowship in.

 

[WIP]

I don't believe any person has to stay in a fellowship where they are not fed, whatever the reason that is true. And no one should fellowship with a group of people who they consider not Christian or a part of Christianity. That person should find another house to fellowship in.

I wonder. What if we are in denial of truth? What do we gain by finding fellowship that supports our ways then? What we want and what we need are not always one and the same.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I wonder. What if we are in denial of truth? What do we gain by finding fellowship that supports our ways then? What we want and what we need are not always one and the same.

Listen to what you're saying. You're essentially saying to stay where you're at because the harm you're enduring may actually be good for you--the very thing that Vince would agree keeps people in abusive, ungodly churches.

I believe that, as we grow in Christ, we learn about God's will about fellowship and spiritual truth and adapt accordingly. God allows us the freedom to follow or not follow what he teaches us. He is very interested in rebels being isolated by their own rebellion against truth. That means Jehovah's Witnesses (for example) who reject the truth, once they are shown it, should be allowed to be off by themselves, not fighting it out with the real people of God who do know God and follow the truth. Agree?

I'm thinking of Matthew 15 where Christ says "leave them, they are blind guides" and that only blind people can be mislead by another person who does not see. I believe it is entirely God's will and Biblically defensible that those who don't belong to him because of a rejection of truth NOT be allowed to fellowship with the honest and sincere seeker of truth and be allowed to rebel and separate. What bothers me is when rebels stay in the fellowship, usually in quiet disguise with an agenda of hopefully spreading their rebellion. What's worst than that is when the rebellious and proud gather together to oust the pastor.

The ugliest thing one can see is a group of people who try to toss out the pastor. What they should be doing is leaving peacefully and let God decide if the pastor and church is really in error and let him judge accordingly. Why do people think they own the church they attend? The leadership is accountable in that regard. Not the sheep. The sheep have a responsibility to leave and seek God in a fellowship that they think is speaking truth insofar as they can discern that at their stage of growth. If they truly love God and the truth they will make a net movement toward God's will in this regard.

 

[WIP]

Listen to what you're saying. You're essentially saying to stay where you're at because the harm you're enduring may actually be good for you--the very thing that Vince would agree keeps people in abusive, ungodly churches.

It appears you misunderstood me.

What I am saying is this. Should we choose to leave because we don't like what we're hearing even though it may be the truth and go look for fellowship with those who speak what we want to hear? Our desire is for worldly things and what we want to hear is quite likely worldly in nature.

People jump from one church to another looking for that "feel good" fellowship. This is evident in all the miriad of denominations we have. We must be careful about jumping on the whims of doctrine.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

When it's time to go.

"When I settle into a church, I know four things:"

1) There are going to be what I CONSIDER to be errors in theology preached. I may "Come around to agreement", or THEY may come around, or maybe not. It Doesn't matter.

2) There are going to be folks in the church that aren't to my liking. I may learn to like them, or I may not. All I have to do is Love them.

3) The church isn't "Perfect" - not even close, and my joining it didn't make it any better. Oh - and generally the Music is (ugh) contemporary noise.

4) THIS is the church that God wants me in NOW. Case closed.

And so I'll stay in that church until:

I Move away from the area.

God takes me out and moves me to a different church (This has happened a couple of times).

The church "goes under" (This has happened a couple of times too).

And in extreme cases, there's always the "Ice Block" test. It O.K. to sit on a block of Ice - AS LONG AS the Ice is melting under you. When your posterior begins to freeze, it's time to move on.

The AoG that I'm in now is EXACTLY where I'm supposed to be. I don't particularly care for the Church - I Like the pastor, get little or nothing out of the services, Dislike the music, and derive little or no actual "Fellowship" from the congregation beyond the typical "Working relationships" as a member and a Deacon in the church.

BUT it's where I'm SUPPOSED TO BE for some reason right now, and as Rick Warren says - It's NOT about me - it's about being obedient to the calling. SO until there's a "Release" - I'm there to stay.

 

[Webb]

The Greek suggests they were divinely warned to be called Christians.

 

[cyberjosh]

Hi FC, thanks for the response.

New Post


Cyberjosh

Your original statement:



1 Christianity

This was originally posted to Bodine as I remember.

You say you don’t agree with the modern dictionary definition of Christianity. And you say that a modern English dictionary doesn’t accurately define the meaning of a first century Greek word used in inspired Scripture.

Christianity isn’t a first century Greek word. Christian is. The term Christianity is derived from the term Christian. The Oxford Dictionary defines a Christian in this way,

“Of, relating to, or professing Christianity or its teachings” and “a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings”.

The only definition of the Greek word Christianos that I’ve heard of is that it means a follower of the Christ. You can see that the word Christian has come to include more in it’s definition than was in the original Greek word. So I agree with you that the modern Dictionaries aren’t defining the original Greek word. Only what it has historically come to mean through Christianity. Nevertheless, today, in the 21st century, the dictionary meanings of Christian and Christianity is what they mean to the average Christian and non-Christian. Add to that the uniquely “Christian” meaning that these terms are referring to, as the expression of the Body of Christ on earth, and that some claim that their own denomination, or that Christianity as a whole, is that expression today.

Yes, thanks for clearing that up. You are correct that "Christianity" is a modern word derived from Christian (in turn from the Greek), although I was admittedly thinking of the Greek word from which the word "Christian" is clearly taken when I said that: Christianos. So essentially I just didn't want the evaluation of the meaning/usage of the word to be anachronistic, so I thank you for going back and looking at this. In other words I would always prefer to discern the meaning from the primary sources than from a much later source in another language (though no doubt it is directly derived from it), although I may in fact use the latter with the meaning of the former - with adequate knowledge of its etymology/semantic use.

The term Christian was originally used by those who didn’t believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ to denote those who did believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ. It was not, I repeat NOT, used in Scripture by those who believed that Jesus was the Christ to refer to themselves. That is clear from the context apart from the interpretive thinking.

The term Christian is only used three times in the NT. And in none of those instances was it used by anyone saying “I am a Christian” or “we are Christians”, or even “you are Christians”. That doesn’t stop Christians from interpreting these references as though they did say that. Biblical interpretation is a common practice in Christianity. The use of the term Christian by those who believed that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ to refer to themselves was not until the third century. At least that’s the earliest reference I’ve heard of. If you know of an earlier extra-biblical reference, please let me know.

On this point I do not think your case is terribly strong, because at the least it seems neutral in regards to who uses it/how it is used (so that perhaps we can't draw a conclusion either way of whether it was a given or self-designated name - based on the statements in Acts), or at best it in fact was used by believers to denote other believers (which seems strongly to be the case in 1 Peter). Let me explain my reasoning below.

So, as to where you are clearly coming from:

"Agrippa replied to Paul, “In a short time you will persuade me to become a Christian.” And Paul said, “I would wish to God, that whether in a short or long time, not only you, but also all who hear me this day, might become such as I am, except for these chains.” (Acts 26:28-29)

This indeed clearly shows an example, as you refer to, of a pagan using the term as a label for believers in Christ. And perhaps it can be taken many ways. He could be being sarcastic, and using it in a pejorative way, but that is not an absolutely necessary conclusion. If this were in another context the term "Jew" could also fit there just as well (if it were a proselytizing Jew speaking to Agrippa), although Jew can refer to ethnicity as well as the Jewish faith. My point is that the title 'Christian' here could be dispassionate/a technical designation, and I think the emphasis of the sentence is actually on "a short time". In another take/translation of the verse, according to my John MacArthur study Bible (if you have access to a more literal translation, please feel free to provide it), "A better translation is, 'Do you think you can convince me to become a Christian in such a short time?'. Recognizing his dilemma, Agrippa parried Paul's question with one of his own". So perhaps Agrippa was just making a basic argument and taking the title 'Christian' for granted (using it neutrally/as an accepted title, in passing) to describe those who represent the faith in Jesus the Christ which Paul was preaching to him. Either way, it is hard to tell from this instance alone, and Paul doesn't rebuke or correct the title either. Paul only says that whether he had a short or long time, Agrippa's basic parry/objection, to explain the faith that he wishes that all would become as he was (a believer). Make of that what you will.

The second (actually first in chronological order) occurrence of the word, in Acts 11:26, which says "and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch", is perhaps even more neutral since it is not a quote - being a statement by the actual narrator (Luke) who is himself a believer. The narrator chose to use the word here though, and chose to include the information. Not much else can be drawn from the short in-passing reference, other than to ask why Luke would even use it if the term was irrelevant or not pertinent to "the disciples"? He easily could have left out those few extra words and not disrupted the surrounding narrative.

Lastly, and the most convincing that believers applied the title to themselves also, is the usage in 1 Peter 4:15-17:

"Make sure that none of you suffers as a murderer, or thief, or evildoer, or a troublesome meddler; but if anyone suffers as a Christian, he is not to be ashamed, but is to glorify God in this respect. For it is time for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God?"

First, regardless of the different possible translations of the ending of verse 16, as you pointed out earlier, the usage of 'Christian' at the beginning of the verse and the context and parallels around it are unaffected. The first and most convincing indicator to me that Peter is using the word 'Christian' for believers (approvingly) is that Peter is using it to refer to one who will suffer unto the glory of God, and not for any due suffering for their own sin. In other words Christian here serves as a contrast to the behavior of murderers, thieves, evildoers, and meddlers. And the fact that Peter even uses the title I think is significant. In fact I think I even see a possible chiasmus in this passage structured like this:

A - murderer, thief, evildoer, meddler
- B - Christian
- B' - household of God / us
A' - those who do not obey the Gospel

Meaning the parallels are between the "murderer, thief, evildoer, meddler" and "those who do not obey the Gospel", and between "Christian" and "the household of God / us". I could be mistaken in this case about the chiasmus, but it was common in Semitic literature to use chiasmi and parallel (reverse) symmetry to express thoughts (and there are several other examples of 'Hebraisms' - Jewish idioms/phrases - in the Greek NT, which are spoken in a way a native Jew would say them, and not a Greek). In any case, even without that chiamus, the fact that Peter uses it in what seems to me to be an approving context, and that Peter even chooses the term when he could have drawn on other vocabulary ("believer" would have worked just the same), leads me to lean toward the conclusion that Peter approved of the title to refer to believers in Christ who suffer for His name and seek His glory.

Since you disagree with the Dictionary definition of Christianity, and apparently of Christian as well, what is your personal definition of these terms?

As I said above, mostly I just wanted to evaluate the word in the order and contexts in which it first appears (without being anachronistic). My assessment of those contexts as they first occur in Scripture are above. If a modern definition takes that into consideration then all the better.

[continued below...]

 

[cyberjosh]

I will take the time to respond to this next portion quickly as well, but it is getting late for me and I will have to return to the remainder of your generous response tomorrow.

2 Ekklesia

You don’t care what people think the ekklesia is today. You only care about what the Scripture says about the ekklesia. In the view I present, the NT says that the ekklesia are local expressions only. That the only name associated with each ekklesia was the name of the city in which they existed. That they were composed of people called out of cities by God to be an expression of His Son Jesus Christ in those cities.

The Churches of Christianity and the ekklesia of the NT are not the same thing. For one thing, the Churches of Christianity are each universal expressions with local churches in the cities named for the Church of which they are a part. The ekklesia are only local expressions. For another, the Churches of Christianity are denominational, each with authoritative human leaderships. The ekklesia had only one leader, the Lord Jesus Christ, and no other Lords. Including Lords that are human and Vicars, that is representatives, of the one Lord Jesus Christ, who is already present through the Holy Spirit. Nor are the ekklesia something that no longer exists because the Churches of Christianity, specifically one of the Churches of Christianity, is the historical development of what the ekklesia was; as Roman Catholicism claims.

What does Scripture say to you regarding the ekklesia? What are their relationships to the Churches in Christianity? Does the Scripture say to you that the ekklesia were simple organizations to be replaced by the more developed Churches of Christianity?

Although it may appear that the ekklesia is local only, while certainly it is valid for the local physical expressions seen in Acts, this did not prevent Paul from describing the ekklesia as the unified soma (body, or in other verses soma christou "body of Christ") of all believers in Colossians 1:18, 24 and Ephesians 5:23. From Colossians: "He is also head of the body (somatos), the church (ekklesias)" and "on behalf of His body, which is the church". You may want to consider that equation, because clearly in the theology of Paul (and indeed the whole NT) the spiritual body is the identifying reality of all believers in Christ, who collectively are the church (ekklesia) and the bride. Though physical manifestations may vary (whether 'Jewish' Christianity in Jerusalem or the first 'Gentile' Christianity in Rome or Antioch) the reality in Christ is the same (1 Corinthians 12:13). Paul deals with some of this in his epistles that address the Judaizers such as in Galatians and even some in Romans; he emphasizes the unity of the body and church regardless of gender, ethnicity, or social status (Galatians 3:28), and certainly not with any regard to physical location or assembly (God is God over all the earth - and even still if you make your bed in Sheol). Yes, social issues (which had bearing on morality and godliness) were addressed in locales, and rightly so, but other messages were delivered to all regardless, as core to the gospel and the word of the Holy Spirit to the churches (as in Revelation which begins with the seven churches and ends with the unified bride of Christ who cries "come!").

However, even though this discussion about the ekklesia is interesting, I actually just picked a Greek word at a whim as an example, as a term that may be understood differently today than it was used originally. I could have equally picked another Greek word for an example, but I guess I didn't. I wasn't intending to tie it directly to the word 'Christian' in any way when I wrote that though.

P.S. As a preview in response to the rest of your post, I did find a few Church Father quotes from the second century - one circa 125 AD by Justin Martyr - which do in fact apply the title 'Christian' to believers. I also will consult 1 Clement when I have time just to see if it uses the title, as I know 1 Clement was another early Christian (couldn't avoid using the unqualified term this time, although I think I've established my understanding of its meaning by now ) writing by 'Pope' Clement of Rome.

God Bless,
~Josh

 

[Elijah674]

Re: When it's time to go.

"When I settle into a church, I know four things:"

1) There are going to be what I CONSIDER to be errors in theology preached. I may "Come around to agreement", or THEY may come around, or maybe not. It Doesn't matter.

2) There are going to be folks in the church that aren't to my liking. I may learn to like them, or I may not. All I have to do is Love them.

3) The church isn't "Perfect" - not even close, and my joining it didn't make it any better. Oh - and generally the Music is (ugh) contemporary noise.

4) THIS is the church that God wants me in NOW. Case closed.

And so I'll stay in that church until:

I Move away from the area.

God takes me out and moves me to a different church (This has happened a couple of times).

The church "goes under" (This has happened a couple of times too).

And in extreme cases, there's always the "Ice Block" test. It O.K. to sit on a block of Ice - AS LONG AS the Ice is melting under you. When your posterior begins to freeze, it's time to move on.

The AoG that I'm in now is EXACTLY where I'm supposed to be. I don't particularly care for the Church - I Like the pastor, get little or nothing out of the services, Dislike the music, and derive little or no actual "Fellowship" from the congregation beyond the typical "Working relationships" as a member and a Deacon in the church.

BUT it's where I'm SUPPOSED TO BE for some reason right now, and as Rick Warren says - It's NOT about me - it's about being obedient to the calling. SO until there's a "Release" - I'm there to stay.

It is amazing how all of these post never come even close to the real issue of Rev. 18:4. Never once has it been stated by any here about these church folds being Rev. 17:1-5 CHRISTLESS. (Isa. 5:3) or had they even cared as noted by some, about these FALSE DOCTRINES being taught for truth!

And one says: 'It's NOT about me - it's about being obedient to the calling.' This one + us all best re/read Josh. 7:12's last part of the verse! Obedient?? Who is?
'.. because they were accursed: neither will I be with you any more, except ye destroy the accursed from among you.'


There will be NO LIARS saved Rev. 17 friends.
--Elijah

 

[Elijah674]

Re: When it's time to go.

It is amazing how all of these post never come even close to the real issue of Rev. 18:4. Never once has it been stated by any here about these church folds being Rev. 17:1-5 CHRISTLESS. (Isa. 5:3) or had they even cared as noted by some, about these FALSE DOCTRINES being taught for truth!

And one says: 'It's NOT about me - it's about being obedient to the calling.' This one + us all best re/read Josh. 7:12's last part of the verse! Obedient?? Who is?
'.. because they were accursed: neither will I be with you any more, except ye destroy the accursed from among you.'


There will be NO LIARS saved Rev. 17 friends.
--Elijah

Me again: Also ask yourself who takes over Laodicea in Rev. 3:9 when Christ is again is given the boot!:robot

[9] Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; ..'

 

[cyberjosh]

Sorry FC, this week is very busy for me. I might have to complete the rest of my response to your post this weekend.

God bless,
~Josh

 

[Elijah674]

Re: When it's time to go.

Me again: Also ask yourself who takes over Laodicea in Rev. 3:9 when Christ is again is given the boot!:robot

[9] Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; ..'

Is the thread being hi/jacked? or is it 'time to go';)