"Christians Only" - Dogma or Preference?

[AJB4]

I'm just wondering - how many people see being "Christians only" as a dogma, and how many just prefer being "Christian only", but don't think it's sinful not to?

I've noticed, many people who have it as a dogma say that it's a sin to wear any other name as well as "Christian" because of this verse:

Acts 4:12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=4&verse=12&version=9&context=verse) - Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

There's a couple of problems with this reasoning:

1) "Christ" or "Christian" is not Jesus' name. That would be "Yeshua".

2) That's only an interpretation of what was said there anyway. What if it was merely saying 'no other power' or 'no other person'.:confused:

I've never really believed that we would be judged based on what name we wore...

[JDIBe]

I would say it's more of a "mindset" than anything else.

(That doesn't clear things up much, does it?) :)

[ParsonJefferson]

I've always taken "Christians Only" as a statement and a goal.

I want to be a Christian. Not a Lutheran Christian or Catholic Christian. Just a Christian.

But the other part of that statement is "not the only Christians..." This, to me, says that it's not mine to obsess over whether or not everybody else has the wrong doctrine. My job is to be as faithful as I can be.

[OneInTheLordJC]

What other name were you thinking about using?

[crawfish]

I think the statement should be viewed as a desire to break down the barriers between various Christian groups, not to push ourselves as being more pure because we eliminate a denominational name. The early churches had some pretty radical differences of opinion at the time; yet, they were all brothers in Christ. Like them, we should regard our commitment to Christ as a unifying factor greater than all other differences.

[AJB4]

What other name were you thinking about using?
The point is not wearing a different name - the point is having the freedom to attach other names to "Christian" without the fear of being judged for it.

[Frame1520]

The point is not wearing a different name - the point is having the freedom to attach other names to "Christian" without the fear of being judged for it.
I agree judging someone for attaching another name, like "Baptist Christian" or whatever is not a good thing. And wasting time putting people down, condemning them or just being plain mean is useless. Now, an open conversation with someone about the specifics of a teaching that is wrong...Now that's something probably best suited to a face to face conversation with someone you KNOW...Doing it over the internet is certainly not a winsome tactic. (Some people need to take a step back and realize that before they post some of the things they post on here!)

But why is it necessary to add something more to being a Christian? What difference does it make? Is there any purpose other than aligning yourself as part of a specific denomination to using another "brand" of christian name? I'm not trying to be argumentative, just a thought as I saw your post.

[DanielRB]

Peace, AJB4, :wave:

The point is not wearing a different name - the point is having the freedom to attach other names to "Christian" without the fear of being judged for it.

I don't have a problem considering a "baptist" or "lutheran" or "presbyterian" as my Christian brother or sister, so long as they acknowledge that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

It's not a question of being "sinful" or not. I think it's a question of what we should try to focus on. I think that if our goal is to be Christ-like, then "Christian" is a good label for us. I think that denominational labels might interfere with that goal. We shouldn't focus on Luther, Calvin or even Peter or Paul. We should focus on Christ.

In Christ,

Daniel

[Mick116]

For myself - as a worshipper in the Anglican tradition - I have a preference for designations such as "Christian", "catholic" (lower case "c"), "believer" (something carried over from my brethren days, I guess), "disciple", "follower of Jesus", etc. etc.

I don't think we can be too dogmatic about this issue - as the saying goes, "what's in a name?"

[Izdaari]

I don't really care what name a church calls itself, so long as it's true to what Christ and the Apostles taught. And if it isn't? Then the name still doesn't matter: the purest name wouldn't make it a true church.

[ChristianGuy1125]

hello i'm new

[ParsonJefferson]

Personally, I think a name like "... Christian Church" (using the name of the town, or location of the church as the first word or the name) is as good a name as there can be. On the other hand, there are far more important things to fight about than the name on the side of a church building.

[DanielRB]

Peace, Izdaari :wave:

I don't really care what name a church calls itself, so long as it's true to what Christ and the Apostles taught. And if it isn't? Then the name still doesn't matter: the purest name wouldn't make it a true church.


While what they teach and believe is more important than what they call themselves, I think the name can indicate certain things and there are limits of what is appropriate. Obviously "First Satan Christian Church" would probably be not the best name. ;) I also think that certain names are better than others. For example, while the theology of the Lutheran Church may be very good to a large degree, I don't like using the name of a man (no matter how good that man might be) in the name of a Church. It tends to make the focus on the distinctives of a fallible human's teachings, rather than on Christ.

In Christ,

Daniel

[Splayd]

...I also think that certain names are better than others. For example, while the theology of the Lutheran Church may be very good to a large degree, I don't like using the name of a man (no matter how good that man might be) in the name of a Church. It tends to make the focus on the distinctives of a fallible human's teachings, rather than on Christ.
I agree, though in fairness to Lutherans, it wasn't a name they took upon themselves. It was essentially a derogoratory name used by others to set them apart. The same can be said of a few groups.

While I'm glad we didn't settle with "Campbellites", the RM was known to many by this name for some time (and still is to a much lesser degree). That title makes us no more or less a part of the Church though.

Realistically, I can't imagine a better name than "Church of Christ" but I still recognise that the name means very little in and of itself.

Peace

[Izdaari]

Peace, Izdaari :wave:



While what they teach and believe is more important than what they call themselves, I think the name can indicate certain things and there are limits of what is appropriate. Obviously "First Satan Christian Church" would probably be not the best name. ;) I also think that certain names are better than others. For example, while the theology of the Lutheran Church may be very good to a large degree, I don't like using the name of a man (no matter how good that man might be) in the name of a Church. It tends to make the focus on the distinctives of a fallible human's teachings, rather than on Christ.

In Christ,

Daniel
All good points, Daniel. And in fact I do think Lutheran theology is very good -- but you're right, naming it after a mere man (and Luther was a very flawed man), wasn't the best of moves. Still, I'm going to go with the best content even if the name isn't the best.

Izzy,
who is still undecided which denomination, or deliberate lack thereof, is closest to the truth.

[spiritfilledjm]

As far as I'm concerned, Christian was a name given to people who followed The Way (or Jesus) by the people of Antioch in Asia (I believe) to call the people who believed in Jesus "Little Christs" and back then that wasn't a good thing. I say I'm a Christian just so I don't confuse people. But in all actuality I like to call myself "Christ Like" which is another translation of the word Christian.

[DanielRB]

Peace, Splayd :wave:

I agree, though in fairness to Lutherans, it wasn't a name they took upon themselves. It was essentially a derogoratory name used by others to set them apart. The same can be said of a few groups.

This might be true, but that was almost 500 years ago. The Lutherans today wear the label not because somebody is forcing them to, but because they want to.

While I'm glad we didn't settle with "Campbellites", the RM was known to many by this name for some time (and still is to a much lesser degree). That title makes us no more or less a part of the Church though.

Agreed; what your enemies call you makes no difference.

Realistically, I can't imagine a better name than "Church of Christ" but I still recognise that the name means very little in and of itself.

Peace

Personally, I think the most common name for the Church in the NT is "The Church of God" and the most common name for the followers is either "Saints" or "Bretheren" (I'd have to dust off my studies I did years ago on this to remember exactly). However, I think any biblical name for the followers of Christ and his Church is preferable to anyone based upon human tradition.

In Christ,

Daniel

[spiritfilledjm]

Also, I personally am Christian only as I've been to alot of denominations over the years and I can understand where they all get there various views from. That and I don't think that anyone on earth can truly agree with every thing in a certain doctrine of a denomination or church.I just go to the one that I most agree with.

[DanielRB]

Peace, spiritfilledjm :wave:

Also, I personally am Christian only as I've been to alot of denominations over the years and I can understand where they all get there various views from. That and I don't think that anyone on earth can truly agree with every thing in a certain doctrine of a denomination or church.I just go to the one that I most agree with.

That's very true. I think that's why it's important to not insist on doctrinal unity on every point, only on essentials. Of course, deciding what those "essentials" are can itself be controversial. But if a Church insists on, say, a particular viewpoint on the millinium, then I think they're insisting on something that Chrisians can, in sincerety, disagree agreeably and still worship together.

In Christ,

Daniel

[stranger]

" A rose by any other name would smell as sweet... " [Shakespeare - 'Romeo and Juliet']

But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.
[James 1:22 ]

Does calling oneself 'christian' cause one to follow Jesus as Lord?

[If one follows a 'lord' then one OBEYS that lord... to obey Jesus one would have to obey his command to love all the time , to all men and to God ... breaking that love just once is sin ... are not most men sinners and thus unable to follow Jesus as Lord ?]

[DanielRB]

Peace, Stranger :wave:

" A rose by any other name would smell as sweet... " [Shakespeare - 'Romeo and Juliet']

But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.
[James 1:22 ]

Does calling oneself 'christian' cause one to follow Jesus as Lord?

[If one follows a 'lord' then one OBEYS that lord... to obey Jesus one would have to obey his command to love all the time , to all men and to God ... breaking that love just once is sin ... are not most men sinners and thus unable to follow Jesus as Lord ?]

You bring up a good point, that the name is not as important as what we do. However, just because it is not the most important, it doesn't mean that it is not important at all.

In Christ,

Daniel

[stranger]

The point is that in Hebrew tradition, one's 'name' is what one IS ... thus Lucifer [giver of light] is perfect until sin is found in him and he becomes 'Satan' [adversary], Abram's name is changed to 'Abraham', Jacob's name is changed to 'Israel' and so on ...

Jesus' actuall name is just the same as 'Joshua', but a better transliteration might be 'Yeshua' .. [the vowels are much in doubt as there are no vowels in written Hebrew ...]

The name itself then is not what it's about and almost everyone has it wrong anyway, but it MEANS 'saviour' and that is the real 'name' of Jesus , what he IS ... to understand scripture one must study Hebrew usage of words and idoms else one misses the point in assuming that translation is even opossible, let alone accurate or transferring the true meaning... one must get back to what the original author meant [and to whom he addressed his comments - for most of scripture is NOT addressed to people in general]