Faith

[Former Christian]

Define:

1 Christian

2 True Christian

3 In Christ

4 The faith

FC

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Tina

“ Originally Posted by Former Christian

Just try to consider that a sub-species of Christian that is “the true Christian”, does NOT in fact exist.

In your opinion, can you elaborate what exactly is a "true Christian" ?”



First, let’s take a look at the dictionary definition of Christian: “of, relating to, or professing Christianity or its teachings” or “informal: having or showing qualities associated with Christians, especially those of decency, kindness, and fairness” or “a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings.” (Oxford Dictionary)

As you see, the dictionary definition is somewhat variable. Anybody could be a Christian. Even one who would otherwise not be considered a Christian if they are showing qualities considered Christian.

The idea of the “true Christian” among Christians themselves is also rather variable in meaning. Some would say that true Christians are those who agree with their own doctrinal standard. Some would say that true Christians are only those who are “born again”. Some would say that a true Christian is one who rigidly follows the commandments or teachings of Jesus Christ as found in the bible. What a true Christian is depends entirely upon which Christian you ask.

The Greek word that is translated “Christian” means one who follows the Christ. The Greek word itself offers nothing in itself to define what exactly that means other than its primary definition. In the first century, it was a term that was used by non-believers to refer to believers. According to the NT, it appears that initially the term was used by Gentile unbelievers. There is no indication that the Jews called them Christians. Since they believed in the Messiah, just not Jesus as the Messiah. You must keep this in mind when you consider any definition of the term today. Because if you will notice, the word Christian has taken on a different meaning since the first century.

In Christianity, the term Christian has taken on the meaning of a self-denotation, that it didn’t have in the first century. Today, the term can have a broad meaning that is inclusive of all who are in Christianity, or it can have a very narrow meaning that is exclusive of other communities of Christians, and varying degrees of meaning in between.

I take a simple view of the term Christian. The term as used today includes anyone who truly believes he’s a Christian. As far as the nature of a “true Christian”, every Christian who truly believes he’s a Christian is a true Christian. Differences in doctrinal belief does NOT affect the definition.

My view of the term Christian is entirely compatible with what I believe about Christianity. That it’s a man-made religion. Not a Divinely ordained religion. Not a true expression of the Divine or the Body of Christ on earth. Not a community of those who are in Christ. Just a man-made religion. The community that calls itself Christianity, is composed of those who truly believe they are Christians.

You must consider my view that there’s a difference between being in Christ and being a Christian. Being in Christ isn’t synonymous with being a “true Christian”. One who is in Christ may be a Christian, but not all Christians are in Christ. In fact by all outward appearances, the vast majority of Christians are not in Christ. But according to their own belief they are Christians, true Christians, nevertheless.

FC

I see what you're saying as being provocative just for the sake of being provocative. You're not teaching anything. You're not encouraging or helping anybody with any real substance.

I don't see the value of you making a point of you saying you're a former christian if you won't share in any real detail what you think is a right relationship with God and what the correct identification is for a person who has that correct relationship.

You've chosen an unnecessary and ineffective way to show the world that 'Christian' should actually mean something consistent with the term. You've abandoned 'Christianity' but you haven't landed anywhere that would somehow represent what it means to be 'Christ-like' in a real relationship with Christ. Even if you called yourself a 'Christ-like-ian', you'd still face debate about what defines Christ-likeness.

 

[Former Christian]

Jethro Bodine

Sorry you feel that way.

FC

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Jethro Bodine

Sorry you feel that way.

FC

Instead of dividing off into your own 'former christian' denomination, just live out what the Bible tells us counts and matters in the kingdom. People will get it.

 

[Former Christian]

Mr. Jethro Bodine

We’re on a forum that deals in opinions and I gave mine. I was asked questions and I answered them. I’ve only done what’s expected. One can’t live a life on a forum composed of idioms and thought. Your suggestion to “live out†is meaningless on a forum. You have no idea the sort of life I live in real life. You’ve said many words in these last few posts that reveal where you’re really at and what you think of what I’ve been saying. Given sufficient time, Christians will always reveal their true nature. No telling how many will read our words besides you and me. It’s my hope and prayer that at least one will see more than cliché and what’s natural to men.

Sincerely,

Former Christian

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Your suggestion to “live out” is meaningless on a forum. You have no idea the sort of life I live in real life.

Are you afraid that I was suggesting you're not living out what matters and what counts in the kingdom? Don't be. As you point out, I know nothing about what you do.

No telling how many will read our words besides you and me.

I agree. I hope many people read this forum. I want people to know what's important and what matters and what counts in the kingdom, and what doesn't. Many people do not know what matters in the kingdom and instead focus on what doesn't matters. That is what tarnishes the term 'christian' and causes it to be misrepresented in the world. The answer is not to become a 'former christian'. The answer is to educate people in what behaviors really count in regard to living up to the high calling calling we have received to be a 'Christ-tian' in this world. Carefully selecting a denomination surely isn't one of them... but neither is making it a point to not be called a 'christian' one either, IMO.

Personally, based on scripture, I believe making it a point to make sure people know you don't want to be called a 'christian' is an ineffective way to lead people to the truth. Particularly since you offer no practical alternative to what you reject in 'Christianity'.

It’s my hope and prayer that at least one will see more than cliché and what’s natural to men.

What are you saying is cliche and natural to men? I ask so I can be sure to understand what you're saying.

 

[WIP]

Let's get this back on the topic of faith and not on the question of who is or is not faithful.

 

[smaller]

Many believers where I grew up adhered to the 5 sola's that Luther brought forth in comparison to the RCC semi-works based beliefs.

One of those solas was justification of/by faith alone, sola fide.

This matter was undoubtedly brought forth by Paul in the N.T. But this same fact was written of LONG before Paul came around to observe it:

Habakkuk 2:4
Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.

Paul did teach the N.T. Gospels right out of the Old Testament. And did so via 'Revelation' of what was already written of:

Galatians 1:12
For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

It was Jesus who revealed this particular matter to Paul. There are many such 'revealings' in the Old Testament, and Jesus does still teach the faithful of these matters.

1 Corinthians 14:26
How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

So, here is a factual interpretation of faith, not of myself, but from what we've 'all' been taught.

Faith is an 'intangible' matter. The 'substance' of things we HOPE for.

Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Faith undoubtedly works in the arena of intangibles. And how is this so? Paul tells us flat out in the open what the measure of faith is and what it consists of:

Galatians 5:6
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

There then is 'the measure' of FAITH, which is LOVE expressed.

Was Luther then right that it is faith alone? No. Faith demands the evidence of EXPRESSION. Therefore both Luther and the RCC were correct, but without the expression, Luther imho was 'less correct' than the RCC in saying that there must be 'evidence' of expression in actions. Otherwise such faith is, as James observed, DEAD faith. Dead faith means such faith is meaningless without and apart from 'expression.'

A person can claim faith all they want. Without expression it is meaningless. A person can claim for example 'love of God,' but if they can't love their brothers John says that type of faith is also meaninglesss and such claimants are, harshly exposed by John as LIARS.

1 John 4:20
If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?

I very much appreciate the line of reasoning that John puts forth here.

There arises great difficulties when 'doctrines of men' are put forth to equate to 'faith in belief' of them as a replacement for 'tangible expressions of LOVE' between believers. The later is true and truthful FAITH, the former has ZERO to do with 'faith.' Faith is not belief in a given set of positional structures. Not saying those are not of importance, but there is greater importance in expressions or actions of LOVE between believers.

So, when doctrines are deliberated, that is one thing, but the larger objectives remain the focus of faith. Doctrines are very helpful for us to consider the 'whys' of shortcomings. But they are not replacements for REAL FAITH.

Finally, faith HAS to come from God, as God Is Love and LOVE expressed is the measure of FAITH. Many claim to have faith in and of themselves only. This is not a truth. We as believers are shown the Love that God has for us, and we therefore share and express in thankfulness what we have been given.

I hope you are built up by these matters and I know how to provoke to LOVE because I too have been provoked of God to Love as He Loves me.

enjoy!

smaller

 

[for_his_glory]

I think FC is showing great faith in Christ as he leans totally on that which is Christ spoken which is very different than that of Christ interpretative. It's not even our faith, but that of the faith of Christ to know those who are truly called by His name are those who only hear His Spirit teaching us all truths of what he has already spoken.

This is the very reason why I do not go to Church anymore as you can not even get two different denominations/non-denominations, even though they call themselves Christian, to agree with what Christ has already spoken.

James 1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

This is what it means to be a true child of God as we are called to continue in the works Jesus left for us to do until his return. It's also called a personal relationship with Christ to know his attributes and to show those attributes to others as we display the fruits of Gods Spirit.

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Hebrews11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Two key phrases here are hearing by the word (spoken word) of God not mans interpretation, and he that cometh to God (not man coming to man)

1Corinthians 2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

The only way to have the mind of Christ is to allow His faith to work in us as we learn to listen to what His Spirit is teaching us.

Because of confusion, 1Corinthians 14:33, I do not attend the conventional sense of the Church (building) as being an established denomination/non-denomination interpretation of doctrines any more as for me and my house we will serve the Lord and teach others by His Holy Spirit using me as His vessel to speak through as the faith of Christ increases His knowledge in me as I dig deeper into His Spirit to teach me all things so I may know the true mind of Christ for what he wants me to learn and share with others.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

There arises great difficulties when 'doctrines of men' are put forth to equate to 'faith in belief' of them as a replacement for 'tangible expressions of LOVE' between believers. The later is true and truthful FAITH, the former has ZERO to do with 'faith.' Faith is not belief in a given set of positional structures. Not saying those are not of importance, but there is greater importance in expressions or actions of LOVE between believers.

So, when doctrines are deliberated, that is one thing, but the larger objectives remain the focus of faith. Doctrines are very helpful for us to consider the 'whys' of shortcomings. But they are not replacements for REAL FAITH.

Finally, faith HAS to come from God, as God Is Love and LOVE expressed is the measure of FAITH. Many claim to have faith in and of themselves only. This is not a truth. We as believers are shown the Love that God has for us, and we therefore share and express in thankfulness what we have been given.

(emboldened parts by me)

Bravo! You said it all, brother!

I hope you are built up by these matters...

Totally!

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Maybe we can all start calling ourselves 'fruits of the Spirit' to effectively label our rebellion against the status quo.

Okay...maybe not.

 

[Former Christian]

Jethro Bodine

“The answer is not to become a 'former christian'.....What are you saying is cliche and natural to men? I ask so I can be sure to understand what you're saying.â€


Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.
(NIV)

Knowing something of the Greek,

It’s my opinion that this translation gives a clear translation of this verse.


If the only faith that I have regarding Christianity is that it’s a visible religion of human derivation,

If I don’t follow Christianity in any of its various forms (denominations),

If what I have faith in is what I consider to be what the uninterpreted Bible says, that which is not the same as what Christianity or any of its denominations says,

If what I have faith in regarding unseen things that are clearly seen and visible through my spirit through that faith, that I don’t see being seen nor expressed in or by Christianity or any of its denominations;

Why should I call myself a Christian?


If the only reason I’m on a Christian forum at all is because Christians claim to believe that the bible is more than simply of human derivation, that is, the ones who started this forum believe that,

If as it happens, I still have faith in the bible as being the only objective revelation given by God through men chosen by God on matters unseen by those who have a different faith than I, and unexpressed on earth as to how it’s supposed to be expressed,

If I have faith in Jesus, the only one who can give the real meaning of what the bible says,

If I have faith that this same Jesus is teaching me the real meaning of what the bible says, for whatever reason,

If I have NO faith in the interpretations of what the bible says that are proposed by the myriad of Christian biblical interpreters;

Why should I call myself a Christian?


If I have faith that neither the term Christianity nor the term Christian that it is derived from was ever intended to be a self-denotation,

If I have faith that the term Christian as it was originally used was not a term of derision, but that it is now in relation to Christianity by those who are non-Christians,

If I have faith that being in Christ involves infinitely more than just being a follower of Christ, which is the literal and only meaning of the Greek word used in the bible only three times,

If I have faith that Christianity is a man-made religion and that the term Christian is associated with that man-made religion today,

If I have faith that I’m not a part of that man-made religion,

Why should I call myself a Christian?


If I’m a fool to believe as I do, because the Jesus that I have faith is teaching me is actually another Jesus, a Jesus other than the Jesus Christ revealed in the bible, a Jesus other than the myriad of Jesus Christs preached in Christianity,

If I have faith in a Jesus that is only a fabrication of my own mind, as are those being preached interpretively in Christianity,

If it’s true that I’m just as much a biblical interpreter as is any Christian and share in the delusion that all Christians share that a practice of interpretation brings,

Even so, under those circumstances,

Why should I call myself a Christian?


Faith? Everyone has faith. That isn’t the important issue. It’s what or who we have faith in that’s important. Christians have faith in many things and in many Gods according to their interpretations. If we’re talking about the metaphor of the blind men describing different parts of an elephant, then maybe what’s being described isn’t an elephant at all. They are, after all, blind. One would think that those who claim to experience the supernatural would all experience the same supernatural, rather than be like blind men experiencing different things.

Some have faith in their own faith because it’s their faith that their faith is given by God. If faith itself is from God instead of being our own faith that’s being changed to conform to the faith of Christ, then neither what seems to be our faith nor what seems to be the object of that faith is important. Because that faith and its object as well as its final result is merely our destiny. You know, I actually heard a well known physicist say that according to quantum mechanics, whatever we are and whatever we think is merely destiny that we can’t change. While I have a certain admiration for that particular physicist, in his ability to explain science, I have no faith in his idea of destiny. Nor do I have any faith in the idea that our faith is just an insertion by God so that we will be good little zombies for whatever purpose God has for us, whether that purpose leads us to heaven or hell. I see nothing like that in the bible nor in that which Jesus Christ is teaching me.

I have faith that if Christians would simply and truly follow the one God, and his one Son, and just listen to that oneness through the one Spirit as so clearly revealed through the one uninterpreted bible; instead of listening to their own minds as they produce their own biblical interpretations that have become, and still are becoming, the Traditions of men;

Then maybe, just maybe, the name Christian might take on a meaning worthy of the name.

Is that really so hard to grasp?

FC

 

[Jethro Bodine]

If the only faith that I have regarding Christianity is that it’s a visible religion of human derivation,

If I don’t follow Christianity in any of its various forms (denominations),

If what I have faith in is what I consider to be what the uninterpreted Bible says, that which is not the same as what Christianity or any of its denominations says,

If what I have faith in regarding unseen things that are clearly seen and visible through my spirit through that faith, that I don’t see being seen nor expressed in or by Christianity or any of its denominations;

Why should I call myself a Christian?

Well, for starters you are wrong to say that all Christian denominations don't represent the Biblical Christ. Christian denominations include even your scope of belief. Even your beliefs (as far as I can tell at this point) are included in the religion of Christianity you call "a visible religion of human derivation". Everybody who names the name of Christ belongs to Christianity. The question is, who among those truly belong to Christ.

If I have faith that this same Jesus is teaching me the real meaning of what the bible says, for whatever reason,

If I have NO faith in the interpretations of what the bible says that are proposed by the myriad of Christian biblical interpreters;

Why should I call myself a Christian?

Because whether you believe it or not, you are indeed just another interpretation among the myriad of interpretations concerning the scriptures about Christ. You're just another offshoot denomination among all of us who think we know how to interpret the scriptures about Christ. That makes you a Christian whether you want to be called that or not.

If I have faith that neither the term Christianity nor the term Christian that it is derived from was ever intended to be a self-denotation,

If I have faith that the term Christian as it was originally used was not a term of derision, but that it is now in relation to Christianity by those who are non-Christians,

If I have faith that being in Christ involves infinitely more than just being a follower of Christ, which is the literal and only meaning of the Greek word used in the bible only three times,

If I have faith that Christianity is a man-made religion and that the term Christian is associated with that man-made religion today,

If I have faith that I’m not a part of that man-made religion,

Why should I call myself a Christian?

What makes you think true Christians who do accurately represent the title of Christian the way it was once represented have vanished from the globe? And even if you think you are the only one who has the true religion of Christianity, why wouldn't you want to be called by that name? Just because many do not know what it means to walk and talk like a true Christian as was done in the early church that does not mean you can not be a Christian now.

If I’m a fool to believe as I do, because the Jesus that I have faith is teaching me is actually another Jesus, a Jesus other than the Jesus Christ revealed in the bible...

Then you believe in vain. You are lost. You have not yet made peace with God through the only way and person he has appointed through which we are commanded to do that. Another Jesus than what the NT teaches us about can not save.

If I have faith in a Jesus that is only a fabrication of my own mind, as are those being preached interpretively in Christianity,

If it’s true that I’m just as much a biblical interpreter as is any Christian and share in the delusion that all Christians share that a practice of interpretation brings...

That is precisely why you are still a Christian whether you want to be called one or not. You have an opinion about Christ that dictates a particular way you relate to God. That makes you a part of that which you condemn. And you are no different than the rest of us in that...you also think you are right and everybody else is wrong. It's very clear. You are most definitely a Christian.

Faith? Everyone has faith. That isn’t the important issue. It’s what or who we have faith in that’s important. Christians have faith in many things and in many Gods according to their interpretations. If we’re talking about the metaphor of the blind men describing different parts of an elephant, then maybe what’s being described isn’t an elephant at all. They are, after all, blind. One would think that those who claim to experience the supernatural would all experience the same supernatural, rather than be like blind men experiencing different things.

And Christ told us what that supernatural experience is that defines and shows who really do have (correct) faith in Him.

Some have faith in their own faith because it’s their faith that their faith is given by God. If faith itself is from God instead of being our own faith that’s being changed to conform to the faith of Christ, then neither what seems to be our faith nor what seems to be the object of that faith is important. Because that faith and its object as well as its final result is merely our destiny. You know, I actually heard a well known physicist say that according to quantum mechanics, whatever we are and whatever we think is merely destiny that we can’t change. While I have a certain admiration for that particular physicist, in his ability to explain science, I have no faith in his idea of destiny. Nor do I have any faith in the idea that our faith is just an insertion by God so that we will be good little zombies for whatever purpose God has for us...

Just because faith is given to us as a free gift of God that does not somehow preclude the free will to act as we want. I think you misunderstand what it means to be given faith from God, and what we have faith in, and the purpose it was given.

I have faith that if Christians would simply and truly follow the one God, and his one Son, and just listen to that oneness through the one Spirit as so clearly revealed through the one uninterpreted bible; instead of listening to their own minds as they produce their own biblical interpretations that have become, and still are becoming, the Traditions of men;

Then maybe, just maybe, the name Christian might take on a meaning worthy of the name.

Is that really so hard to grasp?

FC

No it's not hard to grasp. But I'm not convinced you are hearing the truths taught us in the scriptures as accurately as you think you are.

Traditions are not wrong in and of themselves. Jesus himself worshiped according to tradition. The problem is when tradition replaces the requirements of God that are still binding. It is not wrong to replace things that are no longer binding with tradition...unless your conscience won't allow it.

 

[Former Christian]

Jethro Bodine

“Because whether you believe it or not, you are indeed just another interpretation among the myriad of interpretations concerning the scriptures about Christ. You're just another offshoot denomination among all of us who think we know how to interpret the scriptures about Christ. That makes you a Christian whether you want to be called that or not.â€

You really need to think that answer over. I’m just an ordinary man and it doesn’t make any sense to me. It certainly shouldn’t make any sense to you.


“What makes you think true Christians who do accurately represent the title of Christian the way it was once represented have vanished from the globe? And even if you think you are the only one who has the true religion of Christianity, why wouldn't you want to be called by that name? Just because many do not know what it means to walk and talk like a true Christian as was done in the early church that does not mean you can not be a Christian now.â€

There are no Christians that accurately represent the title of Christian the way it once was used for the simple reason that the term was only a term used by non-believers to put believers in a box, not a self-denotation as it is today. The term today represents what you see in Christianity and brought out in your prior paragraph. The denominational character of Christianity, or as you put it, “the myriad of interpretations concerning the scriptures about Christâ€. So far as I know, there isn’t but one Christ.

I don’t think I have the true religion of Christianity as you implied. As a former Christian I’m not associated with Christianity the religion at all. What I believe has nothing whatever to do with Christianity, despite some apparent similarities. You don’t seem to understand what I mean by the difference between Christianity or being a Christian and being in Christ.

It’s apparent that you still have faith in Christianity. And I understand that. Having one’s faith in Christianity destroyed is traumatic. At least it was for me. If I hadn’t retained my faith in the bible and in the God and Son of God it portrays, I doubt we would be having this discussion. Not the same discussion anyway.


“That is precisely why you are still a Christian whether you want to be called one or not. You have an opinion about Christ that dictates a particular way you relate to God. That makes you a part of that which you condemn. And you are no different than the rest of us in that... â€

Are you saying that a person who emphasizes the teachings of Christ in his personal philosophy, but has no faith as to the verity of his more esoteric teachings, such as eternal life in, is a Christian whether he likes it or not? I hardly think so. He’s only a Christian if that’s what he really thinks he is.


“you also think you are right and everybody else is wrong. It's very clear. You are most definitely a Christian.â€

Simply because I don’t believe that what I believe is merely an opinion? I’ve already stated that if I for one minute I thought that what I believe is merely an opinion, that opinion wouldn’t be worth one bean. I would just go back to believing that God doesn’t exist and adhering to the cultural philosophy in which I find myself. With variations, of course, that would benefit me. If I thought it best for me and my family and friends, I would lie, cheat and steal to protect our interests. Even murder if necessary. I would be no different than the nations of this earth. And most people including Christians, when it comes down to it.

But I don’t believe what I believe currently, simply because I’m a Christian in spite of myself. I believe what I believe in spite of Christianity and once being a Christian.

What we have faith in determines our motivations and daily lives. As a Christian, my motivations and daily life were much different from what it is today. You can say I’m a Christian. That doesn’t make it so. Just as you think that my saying I’m not a Christian, doesn’t make it so. What we believe, our faith, is what makes whatever we are so. What I believe and my actions prove I’m not a Christian. Yet I believe it proves that I’m in Christ.


“Just because faith is given to us as a free gift of God that does not somehow preclude the free will to act as we want. I think you misunderstand what it means to be given faith from God, and what we have faith in, and the purpose it was given.â€

I don’t believe we’re given faith as a free gift from God. My faith is in God, not faith itself. I believe that our own human faith in God is sufficient to head us in the right direction, being in Christ. Once in Christ, not only are we made righteous and saved by the faith OF Christ, our own human faith is conformed to the faith OF Christ. Jesus is the author and perfector (NASB is rightly translated) of faith. Our human faith, not a faith given as a gift that would already be perfect, or it would be no different from our own faith.

The idea that faith is a special gift from God comes through John Calvin. Most Protestants who aren’t Calvinists don’t believe in such a thing. This idea comes from an emphasis on the Sovereignty of God that totally destroys any real free will and responsibility of man for his own actions. Ultimately one must say that the reason Adam sinned was because he lacked this faith. One must ultimately say then that it wasn’t Adam’s fault he sinned. It was just a part of the purpose of God to get the outcome he desired. No need to hoe that row. Nothing grows where there’s no water.


“No it's not hard to grasp. But I'm not convinced you are hearing the truths taught us in the scriptures as accurately as you think you are.â€

So what else is new? I merely say what I believe to be true. I don’t expect Christians, not any more anyways, to agree with much that I have to say. If I had any desire to start my own community with members that believe as I do, the last place I would go for converts is to Christianity. I’ve seen with my own eyes the results of that mistake in communities that started centered in God and Christ and ended up just another denomination of Christianity. Besides, I may still have too much of Christianity left in me yet, if what you say is true, to start such a community at this time. And I have no desire to start such a community. So if it gets started, God or the one who is the head of the Body, will have to do the starting. I’ve seen it happen. Just doesn’t seem to last very long before some human takes control. From what I’ve experienced, whether or not the human, instead of Jesus, stays in control is totally up to the community. This doesn’t appear to be the time in which Jesus forces his will on anyone. That time is yet to come.


“Traditions are not wrong in and of themselves. Jesus himself worshiped according to tradition. The problem is when tradition replaces the requirements of God that are still binding. It is not wrong to replace things that are no longer binding with tradition...unless your conscience won't allow it.â€

“A†Tradition is the key. Which Tradition did Jesus worship according to? Was it the Tradition described in the OT, or did he worship according to the Tradition of the Pharisees? Jesus pointed out countless times that the Tradition of the Pharisees and Sadducees was the Tradition of men that replaced the Tradition given by God.

I really don’t want to get into the Law thing, that has already taken up three threads. Maybe four. I’m way behind on the thread that I started. But know this. I don’t believe that any of the Tradition that God has given is no longer binding. Whether fulfilled or not, the Tradition given by God is still binding. Whether we meet in the Tabernacle/Temple or meet as ekklesia (NOT equivalent to Church in my mind), the Tradition given by God is still binding. What makes the Tradition of God not binding to Christians are the Traditions of men.

To me this isn’t a matter of conscience. I don’t murder simply because of conscience. I was in the Armed Forces, and was quite as willing to murder in the name of my country as anyone else in that position. I now wouldn’t murder, because the Tradition of God says we must not murder. I would have to find some other way to serve the nation in which I live as a stranger passing through. I know the interpretations. That under God’s command murder was committed. But there’s no nation on earth that I know of that’s the Kingdom of God. The defense mechanisms and such don’t hold water either. Heb 11 shows that. In self defense I will fight if I think I can subdue or run, but I won’t murder. If necessary, I’ll let that crime be on the other person’s head.

But also know this. As an Atheist I would have no qualms about murdering someone in self-defense. Been there, done that. As an Atheist, I would personally believe it wrong to murder for pleasure. But I wouldn’t think it wrong for anyone else. And if I ever knowingly was around such a one, I wouldn’t hesitate to kill that person before he had a chance to kill me. Survival is important to an Atheist. Just so you know what to expect in case I revert to Atheism.


FC

 

[Jethro Bodine]

FC, I figure if Peter calls us 'Christians', and that we should praise God that we bear that name, then it's okay to be called a Christian:

"...if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name." (1 Peter 4:16 NIV1984)

Even Peter knew that "...there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2 Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute." (2 Peter 2:1-2 NIV1984)

Despite the many who have brought the way of truth into disrepute, just as expected even in Peter's time, I think it right that we continue to call ourselves 'Christians' and not be ashamed of it. If you ask me, I'd say that's pretty accurate and spiritual scriptural interpretation.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I don’t believe we’re given faith as a free gift from God.

Then you have something to boast about before God.

Me? I wouldn't dare.

My faith is in God, not faith itself.

So is mine. But that doesn't mean the surety of that which I can not see with my eyes is somehow my own doing.

It actually reasons that a person who boasts of his own faith would be the one who would have 'faith in faith', instead of 'faith in God'.

I think it was to you that I said you don't know what it means to have faith, and what we have faith in, and for what purpose. I suspect you really do not understand what faith is all about.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I really don’t want to get into the Law thing...

I don't blame you. People make it so complicated instead of just reading what the NT scriptures plainly say about it. I agree with you that (spiritless) interpretation is indeed a problem in the church. But I would add that a lack of Biblical knowledge in her leadership may be the bigger problem.

...I don’t believe that any of the Tradition that God has given is no longer binding. Whether fulfilled or not, the Tradition given by God is still binding.

Hebrews explains how, for example, the Day Of Atonement (regarded as the most Holy of Jewish High Days, if I'm not mistaken), is no longer needed for a people completely and forever forgiven and brought near through the blood of Christ.

It is no longer binding on the people of God that they approach him through the blood of bulls to be forgiven, and in the manner specified to do that, now that a new and better way, the way of faith in Christ's blood, has appeared and made that old way obsolete and no longer needed. It's inapplicable to a people made new in Christ Jesus. This is what it means when Paul says that the "law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful..." (1 Tim. 1:9 NIV1984).

People who stand forever armed before God with a declaration of Christ's righteousness do not need a law about the blood of bulls and goats. It hasn't been destroyed. It just isn't needed by people who have become new creations by faith in the forgiveness of God and are now forever righteous and legally free from sin guilt.

 

[Former Christian]

Jethro Bodine

“FC, I figure if Peter calls us 'Christians', and that we should praise God that we bear that name, then it's okay to be called a Christian:â€


The term Christian is only used three times in the NT. None of those three times refers to self-denotation. Christians interpret all three as such, nevertheless.

Acts 11:26 And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Christians interpret this as saying:

Acts 11:26 And the disciples first called themselves Christians in Antioch.



Acts 26:28 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.

Paul’s response is interpreted as:

Acts 26:29 I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, a Christian, except these bonds.

But Paul didn’t call himself a Christian did he?

Acts 26:29 I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except these bonds.

No NT writer refers to themselves as a Christian.




1 Peter 4:16 Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.

This is truly the only verse that even comes close to giving the impression that the term Christian was used as a self-denotation.

1 Peter 4:
12 Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you:
13 But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ’s sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.
14 If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified.
15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men’s matters.
16 Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.
17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?
18 And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?
19 Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator.
(KJV)

Verse 12 shows the topic that Peter wishes to address. That these believers will suffer a trial. Verse 13 shows the trial is partaking of the suffering of Christ resulting in personal joy at the revealing of the glory of Christ.

Verse 14 shows that the believer should be happy to be reproached for the name of Christ as evidence of the glory of God upon them.

Now, Peter says something that many Christians have interpreted to mean that the term Christian was originally a term of derision. But Peter here refers to Christ himself, not a name relating to Christ, “he is evil spoken ofâ€. Christ is evil spoken of by those causing the suffering, but on the part of the believers, Christ is glorified.

Peter doesn’t use the term Christian so far.

Now, note the contrast between vss. 15 and 16. He refers to two different classes of reasons for suffering. Murderer/thief/evildoer/busybody and Christian. No believer should suffer for the former because it would bring shame on other believers and on Christ himself. But in suffering under the categorical name of Christian there is no shame. Even if it’s considered a crime by earthly powers like the list in vs.15, as it later was, it’s still not a reason for shame simply because it would be a political matter instead of a moral matter. It’s still a reason to give glory to God. Now, why would Peter have to say that suffering as a Christian isn’t a reason for shame if the believers were already calling themselves Christians? Peter merely gives a principle, if one suffers as, AS, a Christian, one shouldn’t be ashamed. In the Greek, the Greek word meaning as is actually in the text.

I have never suffered as a Christian except at the hand of those who call themselves Christians. I have never suffered as one who is in Christ except at the hand of those who call themselves Christians. How would you categorize that? Would that fact categorize me as an unbeliever in your eyes?

There is no indication that the name Christian was given by the Apostles or taken by the believers of the time. It was probably given by Gentiles to distinguish them from other religious and philosophical movements of the era. It was originally simply a term of category. Since the Jews believed in the coming of the Messiah, they wouldn’t have an issue about the appellation. The only problem they had was that they didn’t believe that Jesus, son of Joseph of Nazareth, was that Messiah. His followers were called Nazarenes and a sect by the Jews.

In my view, Peter doesn’t call anybody Christians. Including himself.

The Greek word translated Christian means nothing more than a follower of the Christ. It didn’t have the meaning it has today. Today, it has come to include more than merely a follower of the Christ. It has also come to mean a follower of Christianity or a follower of a particular denomination of Christianity. It has come to mean a follower of a religion. And to my mind, that’s a shame on Jesus Christ.

Being in Christ is something different, something infinitely more, than merely being a follower of a person or a follower of a denomination of Christianity. Look it up for yourself. It’s not hard to find as the English translations actually translate the Greek preposition correctly. Not like trying to find references to into Christ.

If you want to be one of the two extremes, the one who says I’m a Christian in spite of myself or the one who says I’m not a believer at all, you’re free to do so, of course. But wouldn’t it be easier if you thought of me as I do, a former Christian? It’s not like it’s an end all denotation. I only use it when I wish to contrast myself with the religion that calls itself Christianity, and with those who are Christians, but not in Christ. And the only reason I have to use the appellation at all is because those who are in Christ are determined to identify themselves with some part of the religion that calls itself Christianity. More than they identify themselves with the person of Jesus Christ. In my view, they’re deceived. So I don’t think it’s entirely their fault.

Colossians 3:
1 If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.
2 Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth.
3 For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.
4 When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.
5 Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:
6 For which things’ sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:
7 In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them.
8 But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth.
9 Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;
10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:
11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.
(KJV)

Christianity is an Adamic expression. As such it is of the earth, an expression of the human. Jesus Christ is of heaven, an expression of the Divine. In Christianity is the old man, the natural man, the old creation. In Jesus Christ is the new man, the Divinized man, the new creation.

2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!
(NIV)

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Jethro Bodine

“Originally Posted by Former Christian
I don’t believe we’re given faith as a free gift from God.
Then you have something to boast about before God.
Me? I wouldn't dare.â€

Not a matter of boasting. In my view, our human faith is being conformed to the faith of Christ. It’s part of being conformed to the image of Christ.


“I think it was to you that I said you don't know what it means to have faith, and what we have faith in, and for what purpose. I suspect you really do not understand what faith is all about.â€

You have me confused with someone else. I know precisely what faith is. The Greek word refers to a conviction. Anyone can have a conviction. The only difference is the object of conviction. Hebrews 11:1 is a definition of faith. It’s the beginning of Hebrews 11, which gives examples of how faith was exercised by believers in the past.

Heb 11:1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.
(NIV)

Faith is conviction in what is hoped for, certainty concerning what we do not see. Such certainty in what is supernatural is not due to faith given by God. It’s due to revelation given by God. We are to trust in the God who gave the revelation. It’s trusting God and leaning not on our own understanding. If God gives the faith, none of that can actually be true of us. For the faith isn’t ours. It’s God’s.


“Originally Posted by Former Christian
I really don’t want to get into the Law thing...
I don't blame you. People make it so complicated instead of just reading what the NT scriptures plainly say about it. I agree with you that (spiritless) interpretation is indeed a problem in the church. But I would add that a lack of Biblical knowledge in her leadership may be the bigger problem.â€

In my view, interpretation, spiritless or otherwise, is not the way the bible is intended to be understood. If we consider the bible to be a revelation from God, then obviously any interpretation on our part changes the revelation. If the bible is just the words of men long ago, then how we interpret the bible doesn’t really matter. In Christianity, the bible is considered the words of men, no matter what else is claimed. And thus the bible is and must be interpreted. In my view, that’s faith in the wrong thing.

As far as a lack of biblical knowledge among the leadership of Christianity, I have to disagree. They are very knowledgeable. And that’s the problem. They have a lot of knowledge of the bible as dead letters, and they have a lot of knowledge of interpretation and interpretations. So much knowledge that it’s hard for God to get through with his actual revelation. In my view, that’s faith in the wrong thing.

An educated clergy is appropriate to Christianity, its nature and its character. An educated Christian clergy is in keeping with what Christianity is. But such an education is not appropriate to the real expression of the Body of Christ. Such an education has the wrong source. The source is fully human. The only source necessary to all in the true expression of the Body of Christ is Jesus Christ, the head of the body. Jesus teaches using the bible, through the Holy Spirit. Any interpretation of that teaching changes the teaching of Jesus Christ into the teaching of men. That’s the nature of the Traditions of men. They are interpretations of the revelation of God. That’s all Jesus is teaching, the revelation of God. Through their practice of biblical interpretation, the faith of the Christian clergy is in the wrong object. That’s the problem in Christianity.

I don’t equate the Church or Churches of Christianity with the true expression of the Body of Christ, which are the ekklesia. In my view, the English word Church is a Traditional interpretive mistranslation of the Greek word ekklesia.


“Hebrews explains how, for example, the Day Of Atonement (regarded as the most Holy of Jewish High Days, if I'm not mistaken), is no longer needed for a people completely and forever forgiven and brought near through the blood of Christ....etc.â€

The ritual of the day of Atonement typifies something that is fulfilled in Jesus Christ. That doesn’t mean that the type is no longer applicable to the believer. How will you know of the reality the ritual typifies if you know nothing of the ritual? In the matter of binding, you think like a Jew. Nothing is binding. Never was. God merely said that certain things would happen if the Jews didn’t perform according to their responsibility given by God. They had a certain responsibility as a witness to the world. If they wavered in their purpose, their purpose was nil. God continually had to chastise a stiff necked people to bring them back to their original purpose,

Romans 3:2 First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.
(NIV)

That especially refers to the Law, but ultimately to the whole OT.

In Hebrews, Paul was trying to show the believers of Jewish background that their whole idea of the Law as binding was wrong. It is a guide. It is not binding. The tabernacle ritual is the example. What was typified has been fulfilled in Christ. So the type no longer needs to be functional. Yet the bible the original believers used was the OT. Why? So that they could understand the nature of the reality that has been fulfilled. The Law hasn’t been nullified, destroyed, abrogated, retired, relegated to an inessential, or whatever term you wish to use. What was type has been fulfilled by Jesus Christ. The type is the basis for all of the OT. That’s why Jesus said that he is found in the whole of the OT. Not just in the type.

John 5:39 You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me
(NIV)

The Jews mistakenly equated the type with God. They mistakenly thought that keeping the Law was the same as faith in God. Christians are doing the same thing in various ways through their various understandings of the Law. Believing in only certain parts of the Law. The types have been fulfilled. And are still necessary as an explanation of what was fulfilled. What wasn’t type continues to be a guide to our daily living while on earth.

God is not the Law and the Law is not God. Yet they are the same. Meditate on the apparent paradox.


FC

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Jethro Bodine

“FC, I figure if Peter calls us 'Christians', and that we should praise God that we bear that name, then it's okay to be called a Christian:”


The term Christian is only used three times in the NT. None of those three times refers to self-denotation. Christians interpret all three as such, nevertheless.

Acts 11:26 And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Christians interpret this as saying:

Acts 11:26 And the disciples first called themselves Christians in Antioch.



Acts 26:28 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.

Paul’s response is interpreted as:

Acts 26:29 I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, a Christian, except these bonds.

But Paul didn’t call himself a Christian did he?

Acts 26:29 I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except these bonds.

No NT writer refers to themselves as a Christian.




1 Peter 4:16 Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.

This is truly the only verse that even comes close to giving the impression that the term Christian was used as a self-denotation.

1 Peter 4:
12 Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you:
13 But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ’s sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.
14 If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified.
15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men’s matters.
16 Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.
17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?
18 And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?
19 Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator.
(KJV)

Verse 12 shows the topic that Peter wishes to address. That these believers will suffer a trial. Verse 13 shows the trial is partaking of the suffering of Christ resulting in personal joy at the revealing of the glory of Christ.

Verse 14 shows that the believer should be happy to be reproached for the name of Christ as evidence of the glory of God upon them.

Now, Peter says something that many Christians have interpreted to mean that the term Christian was originally a term of derision. But Peter here refers to Christ himself, not a name relating to Christ, “he is evil spoken of”. Christ is evil spoken of by those causing the suffering, but on the part of the believers, Christ is glorified.

Peter doesn’t use the term Christian so far.

Now, note the contrast between vss. 15 and 16. He refers to two different classes of reasons for suffering. Murderer/thief/evildoer/busybody and Christian. No believer should suffer for the former because it would bring shame on other believers and on Christ himself. But in suffering under the categorical name of Christian there is no shame. Even if it’s considered a crime by earthly powers like the list in vs.15, as it later was, it’s still not a reason for shame simply because it would be a political matter instead of a moral matter. It’s still a reason to give glory to God. Now, why would Peter have to say that suffering as a Christian isn’t a reason for shame if the believers were already calling themselves Christians? Peter merely gives a principle, if one suffers as, AS, a Christian, one shouldn’t be ashamed. In the Greek, the Greek word meaning as is actually in the text.

I have never suffered as a Christian except at the hand of those who call themselves Christians. I have never suffered as one who is in Christ except at the hand of those who call themselves Christians. How would you categorize that? Would that fact categorize me as an unbeliever in your eyes?

There is no indication that the name Christian was given by the Apostles or taken by the believers of the time. It was probably given by Gentiles to distinguish them from other religious and philosophical movements of the era. It was originally simply a term of category. Since the Jews believed in the coming of the Messiah, they wouldn’t have an issue about the appellation. The only problem they had was that they didn’t believe that Jesus, son of Joseph of Nazareth, was that Messiah. His followers were called Nazarenes and a sect by the Jews.

In my view, Peter doesn’t call anybody Christians. Including himself.

The Greek word translated Christian means nothing more than a follower of the Christ. It didn’t have the meaning it has today. Today, it has come to include more than merely a follower of the Christ. It has also come to mean a follower of Christianity or a follower of a particular denomination of Christianity. It has come to mean a follower of a religion. And to my mind, that’s a shame on Jesus Christ.

Being in Christ is something different, something infinitely more, than merely being a follower of a person or a follower of a denomination of Christianity. Look it up for yourself. It’s not hard to find as the English translations actually translate the Greek preposition correctly. Not like trying to find references to into Christ.

If you want to be one of the two extremes, the one who says I’m a Christian in spite of myself or the one who says I’m not a believer at all, you’re free to do so, of course. But wouldn’t it be easier if you thought of me as I do, a former Christian? It’s not like it’s an end all denotation. I only use it when I wish to contrast myself with the religion that calls itself Christianity, and with those who are Christians, but not in Christ. And the only reason I have to use the appellation at all is because those who are in Christ are determined to identify themselves with some part of the religion that calls itself Christianity. More than they identify themselves with the person of Jesus Christ. In my view, they’re deceived. So I don’t think it’s entirely their fault.

Colossians 3:
1 If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.
2 Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth.
3 For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.
4 When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.
5 Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:
6 For which things’ sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:
7 In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them.
8 But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth.
9 Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;
10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:
11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.
(KJV)

Christianity is an Adamic expression. As such it is of the earth, an expression of the human. Jesus Christ is of heaven, an expression of the Divine. In Christianity is the old man, the natural man, the old creation. In Jesus Christ is the new man, the Divinized man, the new creation.

2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!
(NIV)

FC

I've tried three times now to give this my honest consideration, but I still can't accept the unreasonable rationalizations you use to defend why true believers in Christ should not call themselves Christians.

It's plain that many, many people have misrepresented, and will continue to misrepresent, what it means to be a follower of Christ, but that is clearly no reason to abandon the title of Christian. That title is universally understood to mean a person, whether he really has or not, chooses to identify himself with Christ, not Buddha, not Muhammad, etc.

You need to read the Bible for yourself without the outside influence of Messianic believers in Christ who rely heavily on extra-Biblical oral and cultural traditions for interpreting the Bible. Their arguments are easily put to bed from the scriptures themselves without any reliance on outside information to do that. God was wiser than them and put in the scriptures the real truth for humble hearts to find and know for themselves.

The key in all this is knowing what Christianity is all about. It's not about pleasing God by showing him you believe correctly about certain topics of interest in the faith, or that you have the correct worship procedures and methodology. It's about being Christ-like in your behavior and growing up into the full stature of Christ according to the fruit of the Spirit. This is the truth that the church does not have and why people like yourself feel comfortable in tearing her down and embracing beliefs and customs that you are sure are the real truth and which pleases God. You are no different than any of the rest of us in that regard. But the distinguishing mark God IS looking for is the mark of the Holy Spirit seen in the fruit of the Spirit.

Changing your title is not the answer. Changing your worship practices is not the answer. Changing your doctrines and beliefs to that which you are sure are true and pleases God is not the answer. Having the character of God himself and acting like Jesus Christ IS the answer. This is the narrow road few people find but who think they have found it because they think their doctrine is correct, and their worship practices are correct. That is probably the biggest lie in all of the world's religions, including Christianity.