Faith

[Former Christian]

Jethro Bodine

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.

I don’t like to quote the bible to Christians because Christians don’t all understand the bible alike. Makes more sense not to use the bible as a reference at all.

I offered you a Scriptural reason and you call it unreasonable. I offered you a Scriptural rational and you call it a rationalization. That’s alright because anymore I’m use to it. Unfortunately, it’s what I’ve come to expect from Christians more often than not. Doesn’t make me inclined to be anything different than a former Christian.

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.

Who are you to judge who’s misrepresented what it means to be a follower of Christ? As it’s written, “Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls†(Rom 14:4 NIV)

That title is universally understood to refer to a religion based on the teachings of a person. However those teachings are understood.

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.

When I attended my first Christian Church, I was encouraged to read the bible for myself. When it came out that I was understanding the bible differently than they did, and when I decided it would be hypocrisy for me to conform to their understanding when it wasn’t my understanding, I was asked to leave.

Consider that in relation to calling myself a Christian.

Do you think I came to the view I present by caring for extra-biblical influences? And which influences might that be?

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.

I know what Christianity is all about. It’s a religion that is human in nature and denominational in character.

Those who follow a religion with a denominational character are not following Jesus Christ. Not the Jesus Christ who prays that his own all be one. There will be nothing Christ-like in their behaviour, they will not grow up into the full stature of Christ, they will have no fruit of the Spirit. They will only have their religion. Nor should any more be expected of them.

There’s no such thing as “the Church.†Except to those Churches of Christianity who are “the Church†in their own eyes. There are only Churches that correspond to the denominational character of Christianity. The bible describes individual ekklesia that are referred to only by the name of the city in which they exist, ekklesia that God desires to express the one universal Body of Christ. Personally, I don’t think a development after the first century into something different is legitimate. Unless one says that the bible merely represents a beginning. Which leaves the bible as meaningless as a nut, that in the 21st century has grown into a large tree.

As far as my embracing beliefs and customs that I’m sure is the real truth, I can say only this. Naturally speaking, if I can’t trust in the truth that I know, then who’s truth can I trust?

Believing in something is what faith is all about. Everyone has faith in something. Sometimes faith turns inward toward oneself alone or primarily. Sometimes faith turns outward toward something or someone outside of the self, like a perceived god, a religion or philosophy, another person. Either way, it is faith. The trick is to have faith in the right thing. Faith isn’t as difficult a matter as some try to make it.

The only thing I’m tearing down is an illusion. And if what I present as truth on this forum be as much of an illusion, then it too needs to be torn down.

And for all you know, maybe it already has. How do you know but that the truth I present on this forum is what I believed before becoming something else? Not an Atheist. They’re as certain of their illusion as are Theists. How about an Agnostic? Not Theist, not Atheist. Open minded to the possibility of knowing real reality. That would be in keeping with realizing the nature and character of Christianity, as well as realizing that the bible is just what some Christians on this very forum have said it is. A collection of writings whose writers were each fully influenced by their own culture and time. Showing without a doubt that the bible is composed of the writings of men. How about a religious Agnostic? That would be in keeping with still being addicted to religion like it was opium due to many years of religious addiction abuse syndrome. For all you know, maybe it already has.

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.

If a title is your chief concern, if certain doctrines or a set of beliefs, if a certain form of worship, then everything I’ve said will mean nothing to you.

I used to adhere to that title, the title Christian. When I realized that the title was associated with a man-made religion, I put it off. Former Christian is not a title. It’s a rejection of a title. Through that rejection I can only be considered to be one who is in Christ, if I’m related to Christ at all. And that’s not a title either. It’s a matter of life. Ergo, the only change in title that I’m guilty of is a rejection of a title.

The way Christians worship God is by way of a religion, through a division or denomination of a religion. Each denomination being a religion in itself. Worshipping according to a man-made form. A form centered in man-made doctrines that are so important that they will deny the Lord’s Table to those who don’t agree with their doctrine. That indeed should change to worshipping God according to Spirit and reality.

Jesus died that whoever believed into him might have eternal Life. Not in the bye and bye or just for the Jews, certainly not just for Calvinists. It’s meant to be for anyone who will believe in God, today, now, in the present. Are believers intended to be conformed to a Christian denomination or a set of Christian doctrines? I don’t think so. They’re intended to be conformed to Jesus Christ. The same Jesus Christ whom the bible says resurrected and ascended and is now at the right hand of the Father. The living Christ. It’s intended that those who believe be conformed to eternal Life in Christ. Not by simply following a Christ that only has meaning according to individual interpretation. Religions with their titles, doctrinal systems and practices have no importance when compared to eternal Life.

Why do you think that not a single New Testament writer called himself a Christian? If they lived today, they all would have done so at every available opportunity. They would have made a big issue of calling themselves Christians. Just like Christians do today. The word Christian would have appeared in the NT a hundred times or more, instead of only three. Then there would be a biblical precedent for a present practice. But there’s not. Paul never called himself a Christian. He said everything but that to Agrippa who actually used the term right there in front of him. Peter never called himself a Christian. He only referred to an “if†scenario. If one suffers as a Christian.

According to the bible, no one is intended to be a member of a religion that calls itself Christianity. No one is intended to be part of a sect, that is, a denomination of Christianity. No one is intended to be a Christian, that is, simply a follower of Christ like one would follow a respected religious leader. How tenuous that is. How often did the followers of Christ in his time on earth prove how tenuous that is? There is something infinitely greater available today. It’s the same as has been available for two millennia. That of being IN CHRIST.

Read it in your own bible.

FC

 

[zeke]

...Peter never called himself a Christian. He only referred to an “if†scenario. If one suffers as a Christian.

... No one is intended to be a Christian....

FC - didn't those disciples in Antioch who were "in Christ" wear the name "Christian" as a matter of honor as follows of their risen Savior? Would Peter have dishonored Christ by wearing the name "Christian"?

"And it came about that for an entire year they met with the church, and taught considerable numbers; and the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch." (Acts 11:23-26).​

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I don’t like to quote the bible to Christians because Christians don’t all understand the bible alike. Makes more sense not to use the bible as a reference at all.

This is what I would expect from one who rationalizes the plain words of Christian scripture away with human reasoning because it doesn't line up with what they want it to mean.

Who are you to judge who’s misrepresented what it means to be a follower of Christ? As it’s written, “Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls” (Rom 14:4 NIV)

Didn't you do that when you decided the rest of us 'Christians' don't truly represent what it means Biblically to be a Christian?

When I attended my first Christian Church, I was encouraged to read the bible for myself. When it came out that I was understanding the bible differently than they did, and when I decided it would be hypocrisy for me to conform to their understanding when it wasn’t my understanding, I was asked to leave.

Consider that in relation to calling myself a Christian.

I am, lol. I'm thinking that if you told them that we should be ashamed to be called by that name, when Peter plainly says to not be ashamed to be called by that name, then it makes sense that they asked you to leave.

Do you think I came to the view I present by caring for extra-biblical influences? And which influences might that be?

I already said what influence--the influence of Messianic, Jewish mindset thinking. They too think it's NOT a good thing to be called a 'christian', and that the ceremonial law has not been made obsolete, and have a general disrespect for NT scripture.

I know what Christianity is all about. It’s a religion that is human in nature and denominational in character.

Those who follow a religion with a denominational character are not following Jesus Christ. Not the Jesus Christ who prays that his own all be one. There will be nothing Christ-like in their behaviour, they will not grow up into the full stature of Christ, they will have no fruit of the Spirit. They will only have their religion. Nor should any more be expected of them.

But the answer is not to refuse to be called a 'christian' yourself. In fact, I think it all the more important to be called by that name and make it known what a real Christian looks like by acting like the real thing. Especially when Peter plainly says not to be ashamed to be called by that name when things get tough.

Believing in something is what faith is all about. Everyone has faith in something. Sometimes faith turns inward toward oneself alone or primarily. Sometimes faith turns outward toward something or someone outside of the self, like a perceived god, a religion or philosophy, another person. Either way, it is faith. The trick is to have faith in the right thing. Faith isn’t as difficult a matter as some try to make it.

I'm convinced that you do not know what specifically it is that we have faith in and which makes a person a Christian, a member of the 'called out' people of God, aka 'the church'. Just because many do not have that faith and yet call themselves Christians and part of the Church doesn't mean we have to stop being called that.

And for all you know, maybe it already has. How do you know but that the truth I present on this forum is what I believed before becoming something else? Not an Atheist. They’re as certain of their illusion as are Theists. How about an Agnostic? Not Theist, not Atheist. Open minded to the possibility of knowing real reality. That would be in keeping with realizing the nature and character of Christianity, as well as realizing that the bible is just what some Christians on this very forum have said it is. A collection of writings whose writers were each fully influenced by their own culture and time. Showing without a doubt that the bible is composed of the writings of men. How about a religious Agnostic? That would be in keeping with still being addicted to religion like it was opium due to many years of religious addiction abuse syndrome. For all you know, maybe it already has.

How about 'someone who has yet to be transformed by the grace of God'? Is that a possibility?

If a title is your chief concern, if certain doctrines or a set of beliefs, if a certain form of worship, then everything I’ve said will mean nothing to you.

My chief concern????? You're the one who has made it a point to change his title. And defend worship customs and practices the church in general has abandoned. I think these are YOUR concerns, not mine!

I used to adhere to that title, the title Christian. When I realized that the title was associated with a man-made religion, I put it off. Former Christian is not a title. It’s a rejection of a title. Through that rejection I can only be considered to be one who is in Christ

Don't kid yourself. You're merely changing titles. And, it seems, to try to get a rise out of people and make a point. Which I will tell you has the effect of removing you farther from Christ in the eyes of others, not bringing you more closely to him. That in the end, my friend, is the point you're getting across to people.

...if I’m related to Christ at all.

Are you? Because, honestly, you're not coming across as a defender of Christ.

And that’s not a title either. It’s a matter of life. Ergo, the only change in title that I’m guilty of is a rejection of a title.

...and the adoption of another one. And one that, IMO, is more successful in identifying you with something outside of Christ--really. You've chosen a counterproductive way to make a point about how corrupt the kingdom of God has become which Christ himself will cleanse at his coming as he said he will do.

The way Christians worship God is by way of a religion, through a division or denomination of a religion. Each denomination being a religion in itself.

I don't...and I am very much a Christian, and not ashamed to be identified as such.

Worshipping according to a man-made form. A form centered in man-made doctrines that are so important that they will deny the Lord’s Table to those who don’t agree with their doctrine. That indeed should change to worshipping God according to Spirit and reality.

So this means I should not call myself a Christian???? That is ridiculous. Totally ridiculous. It has the opposite effect of drawing people to Christ and NT revelation.

Jesus died that whoever believed into him might have eternal Life. Not in the bye and bye or just for the Jews, certainly not just for Calvinists. It’s meant to be for anyone who will believe in God, today, now, in the present. Are believers intended to be conformed to a Christian denomination or a set of Christian doctrines? I don’t think so. They’re intended to be conformed to Jesus Christ. The same Jesus Christ whom the bible says resurrected and ascended and is now at the right hand of the Father. The living Christ. It’s intended that those who believe be conformed to eternal Life in Christ. Not by simply following a Christ that only has meaning according to individual interpretation. Religions with their titles, doctrinal systems and practices have no importance when compared to eternal Life.

But to not call yourself a 'christian' because other people who call themselves 'christian' don't conform to the image of Christ???? Sorry to be so blunt, but that's just plain ridiculous.

Why do you think that not a single New Testament writer called himself a Christian?

Only in your interpretation of scripture.

If they lived today, they all would have done so at every available opportunity. They would have made a big issue of calling themselves Christians. Just like Christians do today. The word Christian would have appeared in the NT a hundred times or more, instead of only three. Then there would be a biblical precedent for a present practice. But there’s not. Paul never called himself a Christian. He said everything but that to Agrippa who actually used the term right there in front of him. Peter never called himself a Christian. He only referred to an “if” scenario. If one suffers as a Christian.

So, according to your logic don't call yourself a liar (that's bad), but if someone gives you a hard time about being one don't be ashamed that you bear that name. Sorry, your Biblical interpretation about what 'christian' means, and why we should reject that title, fails miserably in the light of scripture itself.

Don't you see? You say you got hurt for being a real believer with the real truth among people who did not have the truth, and they rejected you. Peter says when that happens "do not be ashamed...that you bear that name", the name of the one who is and has the truth and suffered for the same reason.

12 Dear friends, do not be surprised at the painful trial you are suffering, as though something strange were happening to you. 13 But rejoice that you participate in the sufferings of Christ, so that you may be overjoyed when his glory is revealed. 14 If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you. 15 If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer or thief or any other kind of criminal, or even as a meddler. 16 However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name. (1 Peter 4:12-16 NIV1984)

 

[Former Christian]

Zeke

FC - didn't those disciples in Antioch who were "in Christ" wear the name "Christian" as a matter of honor as follows of their risen Savior? Would Peter have dishonored Christ by wearing the name "Christian"?

"And it came about that for an entire year they met with the church, and taught considerable numbers; and the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch." (Acts 11:23-26).

Only if that’s how you want to interpret it. And if you want to believe in your own interpretations instead of what the bible actually says. The text doesn’t say that at all. Acts 11:26 says they were called Christians, not they called themselves Christians. Peter only gave an “if†scenario, “If you suffer as a Christianâ€. No NT writer refers to himself as a Christian. Not like is done today in Christianity. At that time it was only a descriptive term referring to believers used by unbelievers.

I think Gentiles. The Jews referred to them as Nazarenes, followers of Jesus the Nazarene. The term Christian would have had a totally different meaning for the Jews, who actually believed in a coming Christ. A Christ that wouldn’t have included Jesus the Nazarene. The Jews rejected Jesus the Nazarene as being that Christ.

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Jethro Bodine

Posted by Former Christian

Who are you to judge who’s misrepresented what it means to be a follower of Christ? As it’s written, “Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls†(Rom 14:4 NIV)
Didn't you do that when you decided the rest of us 'Christians' don't truly represent what it means Biblically to be a Christian?

Christian “of, relating to, or professing Christianity or its teachings; a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachingsâ€
(Oxford Dictionary)

I’ve never said that Christians don’t represent what it means to be a Christian. They obviously do. All of them. Not just the few selected by Fundamentalist Christians. The only distinction I make is between being in Christ and being a Christian. A person who is in Christ may be a Christian. But not all Christians are in Christ. And because Christians walk as men today, there is no way to judge between them. Except to judge one set of interpretive doctrines by another. And in regard to interpretive doctrines, I take a relativistic approach, tolerating all such doctrines without necessarily believing them myself.

Posted by Former Christian

When I attended my first Christian Church, I was encouraged to read the bible for myself. When it came out that I was understanding the bible differently than they did, and when I decided it would be hypocrisy for me to conform to their understanding when it wasn’t my understanding, I was asked to leave.
Consider that in relation to calling myself a Christian.
I am, lol. I'm thinking that if you told them that we should be ashamed to be called by that name, when Peter plainly says to not be ashamed to be called by that name, then it makes sense that they asked you to leave.

I considered myself a Christian at the time. I only disagreed concerning two of the five points of Calvinism. They practiced an extreme form of closed communion against Christians who didn’t doctrinally agree with them. What they claimed was Lord’s Table was connected to their doctrine rather than either to Life or to Jesus Christ.

Former Christian
Do you think I came to the view I present by caring for extra-biblical influences? And which influences might that be?

I already said what influence--the influence of Messianic, Jewish mindset thinking. They too think it's NOT a good thing to be called a 'christian', and that the ceremonial law has not been made obsolete, and have a general disrespect for NT scripture.

I’ve never heard of that Christian denomination.

In the view I present, the ceremonial law has not been made obsolete, it’s been fulfilled. The purpose of the Tabernacle ritual (ceremonial law) for believers today is to understand what it represents as a type. If the Tabernacle ritual is ever reinstated, as even many Christians think should happen, it will only be something of men. The Israel of God that has existed since the first century includes only those who are in Christ.

I have the highest regard for the NT. For what it actually says. Not what it variously interpretively says in the various denominations of Christianity. In the view I present, it’s those who say that the NT writers were influenced by the culture and times in which they found themselves, those who interpret the bible to mean what it does not; they are the ones who disrespect the NT as Scripture, and use the bible as if it were only a writing of men.

Former Christian

I know what Christianity is all about. It’s a religion that is human in nature and denominational in character.

Those who follow a religion with a denominational character are not following Jesus Christ. Not the Jesus Christ who prays that his own all be one. There will be nothing Christ-like in their behaviour, they will not grow up into the full stature of Christ, they will have no fruit of the Spirit. They will only have their religion. Nor should any more be expected of them.

But the answer is not to refuse to be called a 'christian' yourself. In fact, I think it all the more important to be called by that name and make it known what a real Christian looks like by acting like the real thing. Especially when Peter plainly says not to be ashamed to be called by that name when things get tough.

In the view I present, Jesus Christ and Christianity are NOT synonymous. Nor is Christianity synonymous with the Body of Christ.

Former Christian

If a title is your chief concern, if certain doctrines or a set of beliefs, if a certain form of worship, then everything I’ve said will mean nothing to you.
My chief concern????? You're the one who has made it a point to change his title. And defend worship customs and practices the church in general has abandoned. I think these are YOUR concerns, not mine!

You’re defending the title as if it is. With great vehemence.

Christianity has NOT abandoned its worship customs and practices. If anything, more have been created. In the view I present, Christianity has created worship customs and practices that have replaced the original intent.

Don't kid yourself. You're merely changing titles.

As you wish.

And, it seems, to try to get a rise out of people and make a point. Which I will tell you has the effect ofremoving you farther from Christ in the eyes of others, not bringing you more closely to him. That in the end, my friend, is the point you're getting across to people.

Well, it has had that effect on a few. So far that effect has been reactionary, not unlike yourself. In stead of seeing the point of what is being said.

No doubt you would have felt better if I had come on a few months ago as a Christian (a lie) and said I’m just like you Christians are (another lie) and basically believe just like you Christians do (the lies just keep on coming). Then tried to get Christians to have a sense of the supernatural they claim to believe in. Which is all I’m concerned with. Playing at a natural religion is not conducive to anything except a good feeling from quashing one’s own conscience.

Former Christian
...if I’m related to Christ at all.
Are you? Because, honestly, you're not coming across as a defender of Christ.

Why? Because I’m not defending a man-made religion? When I say that believers should Trust God instead of leaning on their own understanding, that individuals should be in Christ instead of just following Christ, that believers should listen to the teaching of Jesus Christ using the bible through the Spirit instead of listening to biblical interpretations of denominations and men, that believers should meet as the ekklesia expressing the body of Christ instead of meeting as a Church of a man-made religion expressing a denomination, that believers should live as if they’re in Christ instead of living as if they’re in a religion or just men, that believers should walk by the Spirit instead of perfecting themselves by the flesh, that believers should think on those things above where Christ is instead of on earthly things:

When I say such things, to you that’s not defending Jesus Christ? Who or what then am I defending?

Former Christian
IN CHRIST....And that’s not a title either. It’s a matter of life. Ergo, the only change in title that I’m guilty of is a rejection of a title.
...and the adoption of another one. And one that, IMO, is more successful in identifying you with something outside of Christ--really.

Wow! You really revealed yourself with that one. Maybe you’d like to rephrase that.

You've chosen a counterproductive way to make a point about how corrupt the kingdom of God has become which Christ himself will cleanse at his coming as he said he will do.

That’s about as good an excuse for leaving Christianity as is, as I’ve ever heard. But the Kingdom of God is not corrupt. Christianity is.

Former Christian
The way Christians worship God is by way of a religion, through a division or denomination of a religion. Each denomination being a religion in itself. Worshipping according to a man-made form. A form centered in man-made doctrines that are so important that they will deny the Lord’s Table to those who don’t agree with their doctrine. That indeed should change to worshipping God according to Spirit and reality.
I don't...and I am very much a Christian, and not ashamed to be identified as such. So this means I should not call myself a Christian???? That is ridiculous. Totally ridiculous. It has the opposite effect of drawing people to Christ and NT revelation.

Ridiculous? Yeah, makes sense you would see it that way.

Don't you see? You say you got hurt for being a real believer with the real truth among people who did not have the truth, and they rejected you. Peter says when that happens "do not be ashamed...that you bear that name", the name of the one who is and has the truth and suffered for the same reason.

I assume you’re referring to the first Christian Church I attended. At the time suffering as a Christian never even entered the picture. As I said, I considered myself and those involved Christians. This was my understanding at the time: to be identified with Christ one must be a Christian, and to be a Christian one must be a part of Christianity. I was suffering for understanding Scripture differently. In other words, I didn’t have the right doctrine that suited them. I didn’t have the “right†understanding of things that they did.

So In your own words: â€don’t you see?†I wasn’t suffering for being a Christian. I was suffering for being different. Just as I am suffering at your hand right here.

FC

 

[Elijah674]

The Catholics truly believe they are true Christians.
The 7-Day Adventists truly believe they are true Christians.
The Jehovah's Witnesses truly believe they are true Christians.
The Mormons truly believe they are true Christians.


I think I am finally beginning to understand why you prefer to be known as "Former Christian"..... :D


.... although I wouldn't dare pass a sweeping statement that the "true Christian does not exist". It's for God to judge, not us.

'i' think that God does that??
James
[17] Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

What more can God ask of us than to be 'LED' Rom. 8:14 of the Holy Ghost.. EXCEPT FOLLOW!? If that is done, we will find where that Eph. 4:5 [ONE FAITH IS!]

One more good verse needs believed though..
James
[26] For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

--Elijah

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Jethro Bodine



Christian “of, relating to, or professing Christianity or its teachings; a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings”
(Oxford Dictionary)

I’ve never said that Christians don’t represent what it means to be a Christian. They obviously do. All of them. Not just the few selected by Fundamentalist Christians. The only distinction I make is between being in Christ and being a Christian. A person who is in Christ may be a Christian. But not all Christians are in Christ. And because Christians walk as men today, there is no way to judge between them. Except to judge one set of interpretive doctrines by another.

But you are so very wrong. The Bible tells us how to reasonably discern for ourselves (so we can guard ourselves) who is in Christ and who is faking it. And it surely is not doctrine that determines that. You are the victim of probably the biggest lie in religion, that somehow correct doctrine is what puts one in God's favor. And it seems you are under that deception yourself. What tells me that may be true? That is how you are judging others, that's what. Your belief that doctrine reveals true Christianity causes you to judge others accordingly and makes you take the stand you have against the church. You're actually no different than the ones you are resisting. Are you humble enough to accept this?

I considered myself a Christian at the time. I only disagreed concerning two of the five points of Calvinism. They practiced an extreme form of closed communion against Christians who didn’t doctrinally agree with them. What they claimed was Lord’s Table was connected to their doctrine rather than either to Life or to Jesus Christ.

And this has nothing to do with whether a person is in Christ or not--neither your rejection of it, nor another's acceptance of it. NOTHING!


In short, how a person handles doctrinal disputes tells us more about their relationship with Christ more than the doctrines themselves.

 

[zeke]

Only if that’s how you want to interpret it. And if you want to believe in your own interpretations instead of what the bible actually says. The text doesn’t say that at all.

You didn't answer my questions, FC - didn't those disciples in Antioch who were "in Christ" wear the name "Christian" as a matter of honor as follows of their risen Savior? Would Peter have dishonored Christ by wearing the name "Christian"? You appear to be making semantic rules where no semantic rules apply - yes?

 

[Former Christian]

Jethro Bodine

The Bible tells us how to discern for ourselves who is in Christ and who is faking it.

Does it? What does it say?

And it surely is not doctrine that determines that.

“Except to judge one set of interpretive doctrines by another.” Maybe you’d understand that better if I added, “as is done in Christianity”. So you’d know I agree with that statement.

The primary doctrine of judgment is the Trinity, adhered to by the majority in Christianity. Those who DON’T adhere to that doctrine are automatically considered cultic or not a part of Christianity. In that view, to NOT understand that Jesus Christ is the second person of the Trinity is heresy and tantamount to believing “in another” Jesus. Nevertheless, many doctrines are included in authoritative denominational standards.

Most denominations practice closed communion. Wherein if one doesn’t believe in the authoritative doctrinal standard of the denomination, one can’t participate in the Lord’s Supper in that denomination. Some denominations take that to its logical conclusion, even though it’s considered extreme by other denominations. The logical conclusion is to shun the offending individual altogether from the assembly, rather than only exclude such from the Lord’s Table. The first Church I attended was one of those denominations that took the matter to its logical conclusion.

If closed communion is the proper way to deal with doctrinal distinctions that are considered aberrational, then shunning is reasonable. For such would be considered fomenters of division and the NT has some things to say about that. And one must note that Roman Catholicism existed at least a half millennia longer than Protestantism when one ponders who are the fomenters of division.

In the view I present, the practice of closed communion changes the experience of the Lord’s Supper into something natural and organizational, instead of something supernatural, as it was originally intended. The symbolic view of the Lord’s Table held by many Protestants is basically a natural view. While the transubstantiation view of Roman Catholicism is basically a mental understanding by interpretation of what transpires supernaturally in the Lord’s Table. While neither view affects the reality of the Lord’s Table, both views can be a hindrance to the personal experience of the Lord’s Table. It depends on how the faith of the individual has been affected.

In the view I present, neither membership in Christianity or one of its divisions (denominations), nor “correct” doctrine, assures ones position in Christ. God assures that position through the Spirit.

You are victim of probably the biggest lie in religion, that somehow correct doctrine is what puts one in God's favor. It seems you are under that deception yourself.

In the view I present, both the emphasis on doctrine and the existence of interpretive doctrine are opposed.

And in regard to interpretive doctrinal distinctions among Christians, I take a relativistic approach, tolerating all such doctrines without believing them myself. The real emphasis should be on walking by the Spirit and hearing the teaching of Jesus. Then living according to what he teaches through the Spirit. It’s the only way to have the fruit of the Spirit. Fruit needs life to grow and that Life is in Christ and comes from Christ.

That's why you've taken the stand you have against the church.

In the view I present, the stand is against Christianity as a man-made religion, not against “the Church”. For the simple reason that “The Church” exists only as a figment of Christian imagination.

In Christianity, “The Church” is often considered to be represented by a specific denomination, as in Roman Catholicism wherein it considers itself to be “the Church”. It’s sometimes considered to be synonymous with Christianity in a historical sense, which apparently is your view. “It’s generally considered to have two aspects, local and universal. The universal aspect being considered synonymous with the Body of Christ.

These are all interpretive ideas within Christianity that is even reflected in English Translations of the NT. Wherein the NT Greek word ekklesia is translated by the English word Church, which is a word that has a different Greek origin (kuriakon doma, meaning Lord’s House), and an entirely different meaning than ekklesia. This interpretive translation may have started with the Geneva translation of 1587 that translates ekklesia as church, as does the KJV translation of 1611. The first English translation of the NT, the Tyndale translation of 1525, translates ekklesia as congregation, as does the Bishops translation of 1568. That is a closer to the actual meaning of the Greek word ekklesia.

In the NT, the ekklesia are local and named only according to the city in which they exist. The ekklesia are not denominational expressions. As are Churches in Christianity. The idea of Churches are a historical development, an interpretive change from the original meaning of the NT ekklesia.

In the NT, the Body of Christ is the universal element (Eph 4) and each local ekklesia expresses and is the one body of Christ on earth (Eph 1). Each local ekklesia expresses and is the temple of God, or where God resides on earth (Eph 2). Yes, God is everywhere. But as God resided in the Tabernacle, so also God resides in each ekklesia today. Instead of a physical Tabernacle, God centers his residence Spiritually among the people of God today, even though they’re scattered by denominational influence. Those who are in Christ are a part of the ekklesia that exists today in each city. Whether or not they also attend a denominational Church of Christianity.

Former Christian
I considered myself a Christian at the time. I only disagreed concerning two of the five points of Calvinism. They practiced an extreme form of closed communion against Christians who didn’t doctrinally agree with them. What they claimed was Lord’s Table was connected to their doctrine rather than either to Life or to Jesus Christ.

Your response:
And this has nothing to do with whether a person is in Christ or not--neither your rejection of it, nor another's acceptance of it. NOTHING!

Really? Then what does it have to do with?

Seemed a fitting response at the time for what you wrote. Which was:

FC wrote:
When I attended my first Christian Church, I was encouraged to read the bible for myself. When it came out that I was understanding the bible differently than they did, and when I decided it would be hypocrisy for me to conform to their understanding when it wasn’t my understanding, I was asked to leave.
Consider that in relation to calling myself a Christian.

Your response:
I am, lol. I'm thinking that if you told them that we should be ashamed to be called by that name, when Peter plainly says to not be ashamed to be called by that name, then it makes sense that they asked you to leave.

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Zeke

Former Christian
Only if that’s how you want to interpret it. And if you want to believe in your own interpretations instead of what the bible actually says. The text doesn’t say that at all.

You didn't answer my questions, FC - didn't those disciples in Antioch who were "in Christ" wear the name "Christian" as a matter of honor as follows of their risen Savior? Would Peter have dishonored Christ by wearing the name "Christian"? You appear to be making semantic rules where no semantic rules apply - yes?

My original response:

Only if that’s how you want to interpret it. And if you want to believe in your own interpretations instead of what the bible actually says. The text doesn’t say that at all. Acts 11:26 says they were called Christians, not they called themselves Christians. Peter only gave an “if†scenario, “If you suffer as a Christianâ€. No NT writer refers to himself as a Christian. Not like is done today in Christianity. At that time it was only a descriptive term referring to believers used by unbelievers.

Was I too specific? I didn’t realize you wanted a yes or no answer.

didn't those disciples in Antioch who were "in Christ" wear the name "Christian" as a matter of honor as follows of their risen Savior?

No.

Would Peter have dishonored Christ by wearing the name "Christian"?

Yes.


However, consider that yes and no answers say nothing really and one can read whatever one wants into them. It’s an old lawyers trick. A trick beneath most Christians I should think. Whatever one says about the content of the bible and about the supernatural must be qualified to be sure that what is said isn’t misunderstood.

You appear to be making semantic rules where no semantic rules apply - yes?

The old semantic in the answer trick.

Semantics “the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. The two main areas are logical semantics, concerned with matters such as sense and reference and presupposition and implication, and lexical semantics, concerned with the analysis of word meanings and relations between them, such as synonymy and antonymy.... the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or textâ€
(Oxford Dictionary)

Seems to me, one who doesn’t have semantics, doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

I know something of the Greek and the meaning of NT words. I’ve been reading the bible with great interest for several years. That’s just on a natural level. There is also the matter of experiencing the supernatural. Peter knew Jesus as the Son of God apart from any natural knowledge. At least that’s what Jesus said. Paul more than once brings up the Holy Spirit in the lives of those who are in Christ. Paul specifically brings up the matter of beginning by the Spirit and ending by the flesh. We can’t just discount these things because we want to believe in what we want to believe or what we were taught to believe. The bible can be very clear if one lets it. It does have something to say on its own apart from any practice of interpretation on our part. But one has to know the language one is reading. And that’s semantics. And we have to be aware that sometimes there are English translations in the English bibles that are very interpretive. That has the bad habit of changing the meaning of what is interpreted.


FC

 

[smaller]

Whatever anyone here says about you FC, in reading your posts you are probably more 'christian' than many. Who has the 'whole real package' anyway? I think you see the fact that many of these various sect setups can be traps for the heart.

Christianity in many ways is a large reflection of the condition of mankind in general. Divisive, self justifying, condemning. Quite a sad show in many ways. Yet also sometimes good. Take any given conglomeration of people in the world and you'd find the same things.

Many leave churches over doctrines they just can't swallow, end up in another subset, can't swallow, rotate. After awhile you get sick of it and if you have a personal drawing to the matters, you work things out that you can live with on an everyday basis.

s

 

[Former Christian]

Smaller

Yes. Perhaps.

FC

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Whatever anyone here says about you FC, in reading your posts you are probably more 'christian' than many. Who has the 'whole real package' anyway? I think you see the fact that many of these various sect setups can be traps for the heart.

Christianity in many ways is a large reflection of the condition of mankind in general. Divisive, self justifying, condemning. Quite a sad show in many ways. Yet also sometimes good. Take any given conglomeration of people in the world and you'd find the same things.

Many leave churches over doctrines they just can't swallow, end up in another subset, can't swallow, rotate. After awhile you get sick of it and if you have a personal drawing to the matters, you work things out that you can live with on an everyday basis.

s

None of this justifies deciding you won't call yourself a 'christian' anymore. Especially when the scriptures tell us very plainly to NOT be ashamed of that name.

FC is creating more trouble and division than he thinks he is rectifying with his misguided attempt to make a statement against the church of Christ. A statement as I've said actually removes him from Christ in the eyes of the world (and the church for that matter). What value can that possibly have? Real Christlikeness is seen in how it endures the failures of others in the church, not judges according to what doctrines one believes. Whenever I encounter a person with a "me and the rest of you" attitude in the church I know I'm dealing with someone who's love for the body of Christ, warts and all, is suspect. The love for the people of God, no matter how ugly we are, that is the distinguishing mark of the true follower of Christ. Remember, Christ died for this ugly bunch..when it was much uglier than it is now. And he will sort the good from the bad when he returns, purifying his kingdom as he has promised.

I would suggest to FC that he stop leading the body of Christ astray with his anti-scriptural decision to not call himself a 'christian'. As well meaning as it may be(?), it is clearly and without debate against scripture to do so. He is dead wrong to risk leading others into the same error with this misguided, man made, flesh centered thinking.

 

[smaller]

None of this justifies deciding you won't call yourself a 'christian' anymore. Especially when the scriptures tell us very plainly to NOT be ashamed of that name.

Today when anyone deploys the 'term' Christian, what does that 'really' mean?

Christians today are 'branded.' No 'sect brands' me. I detest such branding, as if a believer is a piece of doctrinal chattel of some sect.

FC is creating more trouble and division than he thinks he is rectifying with his misguided attempt to make a statement against the church of Christ.

Which one is that? Clearly one can look about and see a massive amount of diversity and division, all terming their brand as 'thee one and only legit.' That alone should send one past the door. So I sympathize and relate to 'some' of his statements because they are 'true.' Certainly can't hold it against him for questioning things.

A statement as I've said actually removes him from Christ in the eyes of the world (and the church for that matter).

Who set you in that seat again? Is there some jot or tittle of your sect that FC missed that causes you to throw down on him? Unfortunately this is the 'common' practice of 'most' such sects. Miss a dot, out the door ya go.

What value can that possibly have? Real Christlikeness is seen in how it endures the failures of others in the church, not judges according to what doctrines one believes.

Well then, consider him a failure and endure him.

Whenever I encounter a person with a "me and the rest of you" attitude in the church I know I'm dealing with someone who's love for the body of Christ, warts and all, is suspect.

It's certainly fair game to question all things and to 'hold fast' to that which is good. That's for each persons conscience to deal with. I'm certain that there are many 'warts and all' in many sects that you personally can not tolerate as it relates to many certain matters.

The love for the people of God, no matter how ugly we are, that is the distinguishing mark of the true follower of Christ. Remember, Christ died for this ugly bunch..when it was much uglier than it is now. And he will sort the good from the bad when he returns, purifying his kingdom as he has promised.

I have not seen FC condemn anyone here yet. Have you? Observing matters of theology comparisons can be done without condemnation. That's part of the enjoyment of it.

I would suggest to FC that he stop leading the body of Christ astray with his anti-scriptural decision to not call himself a 'christian'. As well meaning as it may be(?), it is clearly and without debate against scripture to do so. He is dead wrong to risk leading others into the same error with this misguided, man made, flesh centered thinking.

As if no one in the churches have that?

It's a pretty big shotgun blast out there in the whole church world. You know that.

And just beneath the surface in most of them is a setup to condemn 'other believers' for 'not believing like them.' You know that as well. It is best to take a close look at 'the whole situation' before ascribing to 'condemnation' of other believers. Maybe take a good step back and think about it.

s

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Today when anyone deploys the 'term' Christian, what does that 'really' mean?

Christians today are 'branded.' No 'sect brands' me. I detest such branding, as if a believer is a piece of doctrinal chattel of some sect.



Which one is that? Clearly one can look about and see a massive amount of diversity and division, all terming their brand as 'thee one and only legit.' That alone should send one past the door. So I sympathize and relate to 'some' of his statements because they are 'true.' Certainly can't hold it against him for questioning things.



Who set you in that seat again? Is there some jot or tittle of your sect that FC missed that causes you to throw down on him? Unfortunately this is the 'common' practice of 'most' such sects. Miss a dot, out the door ya go.



Well then, consider him a failure and endure him.



It's certainly fair game to question all things and to 'hold fast' to that which is good. That's for each persons conscience to deal with. I'm certain that there are many 'warts and all' in many sects that you personally can not tolerate as it relates to many certain matters.



I have not seen FC condemn anyone here yet. Have you? Observing matters of theology comparisons can be done without condemnation. That's part of the enjoyment of it.



As if no one in the churches have that?

It's a pretty big shotgun blast out there in the whole church world. You know that.

And just beneath the surface in most of them is a setup to condemn 'other believers' for 'not believing like them.' You know that as well. It is best to take a close look at 'the whole situation' before ascribing to 'condemnation' of other believers. Maybe take a good step back and think about it.

s

So you also want to ignore Peter's admonition to NOT be ashamed of the name 'christian'? I will endure your decision but that doesn't mean I can't tell you what I think about it.

You have no choice if you want to obey plain scripture that you must be branded a 'christian'. You or anyone else can't redefine what that means just because many, many people misrepresent it and have hurt you. That's actually pretty childish in my estimation. I suspect it's motivation is in pride. You're human, surely you can understand how that works in a person.

The more people who misrepresent it makes me want to be careful to be the real thing all the more. I have my tales to tell of 'christians' who have hurt me and judged me and rejected me on the basis of doctrine, but at no time did it ever occur to me to abandon the 'church' or the name 'christian'. It made me want to be the real thing all the more, especially to them, and seek out edifying fellowship with similar minds, for my sake not theirs, and not make trouble among those who have rejected me. You would be mistaken to take my chastisement of FC as me not enduring him as a failing brother. Why do people always play the judging card when you correct or chastise them???? He has every right to be a part of the church as I do, despite his obvious failure...a liberty which I find he is not giving to those who he disagrees with. How do I know this? Because he has made it a point to distinguish being 'christian' and 'being in Christ'.

 

[smaller]

So you also want to ignore Peter's admonition to NOT be ashamed of the name 'christian'? I will endure your decision but that doesn't mean I can't tell you what I think about it.

There are many claimants today to the term 'christian' that come with an abundance of 'clauses' in the fine print that I will not stand under claiming that 'brand' being 'christian.'

dig?

You have no choice if you want to obey plain scripture that you must be branded a 'christian'.

See previous. Here's an example. Both the RCC and the EO claim to be the 'one True Christian Church.' Yet both of these 'brands' have been openly condemning not only everyone else who does not 'accept' their branding, but also each others. And over what? Four words. "and of the Son."

Is that christian, to condemn other believers over four words? Not in my heart to do so or to claim as 'christian.'

And you want to boil it down to just one word? Christian? And use that to condemn? What kind of Christian is that, that would condemn a person over one word?

You or anyone else can't redefine what that means just because many, many people misrepresent it and have hurt you.

No, I follow my own conscience. If I find conviction good, I adhere. Conviction bad, disassociate. Jesus keeps my heart going in the right direction.

That's actually pretty childish in my estimation. I suspect it's motivation is in pride. You're human, surely you can understand how that works in a person.

The more people who misrepresent it makes me want to be careful to be the real thing all the more.

Isn't that exactly what I'm stating? I happen to be very cautious about what I will stand under and make 'claims' about. Condemning other believers isn't even on my list.

I have my tales to tell of 'christians' who have hurt me and judged me and rejected me on the basis of doctrine, but at no time did it ever occur to me to abandon the 'church' or the name 'christian'.

Believers are one thing. Understandings are a different matter. I don't hate any E.O. or R.C.C. member whatsoever. It's not in my repertoire to do so, even thought I be an official heretic in their systems. Not my problem. I won't take their condemnation into myself. My heart says NO.

It made me want to be the real thing all the more, especially to them, and seek out edifying fellowship with similar minds, for my sake not theirs, and not make trouble among those who have rejected me. You would be mistaken to take my chastisement of FC as me not enduring him as a failing brother. Why do people always play the judging card when you correct or chastise them???? He has every right to be a part of the church as I do, despite his obvious failure...a liberty which I find he is not giving to those who he disagrees with. How do I know this? Because he has made it a point to distinguish being 'christian' and 'being in Christ'.

It's pretty petty. Sorry. He's right to avoid many matters under the flag of 'christian' because there are many false brands therein and thereunder.

Being in Christ is an entirely different matter. Many 'sects' will claim a believer is only 'in Christ' if they stand under their sects branding pattern. That is not 'christian.' Nor is the spreading of condemnation for non-brand adherence.

I will not take condemnation to any person reaching for God in Christ over petty things as little as 'four words' or 'one word' compared to 'four words.' That whole exercise is one of vanity and utterly futile.

s

 

[Jethro Bodine]

And you want to boil it down to just one word? Christian? And use that to condemn? What kind of Christian is that, that would condemn a person over one word?

I'm sorry. I must have missed it. Where have I said you or anyone else is condemned because they don't want to be called a christian? I do openly condemn and judge your beliefs...but not you. Not as FC as done by deciding those who don't agree with him are only 'Christian' and not of Christ while he is 'in Christ'. That is what it means to condemn somebody and not just their doctrine.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Many 'sects' will claim a believer is only 'in Christ' if they stand under their sects branding pattern.

So, do I have to rally under the flag of FC's sect to be considered 'in Christ'? When he condemns 'christians' as being 'not in Christ' he is also condemning me who is, and always will be called a christian, but who sympathizes with his frustration but doesn't condemn others over the acceptance or non-acceptance of petty doctrine. (There is doctrine that is not up for debate, of course, and which does condemn a person).

 

[smaller]

I'm sorry. I must have missed it. Where have I said you or anyone else is condemned because they don't want to be called a christian? I do openly condemn and judge your beliefs...but not you. Not as FC as done by deciding those who don't agree with him are only 'Christian' and not of Christ while he is 'in Christ'. That is what it means to condemn somebody and not just their doctrine.

Is the term 'christian' as a spelling form all there is to it? Is that really something to fret about?

Not in my reading or understanding. The term itself is just that.

What the reality is of the term is an entirely different matter.

s

 

[WIP]

I think in some circles the term 'Christian' is taken very, very seriously while in others and quite possibly most circles reserve it as a title of distinction for political or social acceptance.