|
Dear Glen,
Have I offended thee because I tell you the truth?
"can't get along" "stay by
yourself" "the one in error" "a red flag" "lone-ranger" "them"
"psychological emotional problems"
Thank you Glen for showering blessings upon
me.
{Blessed are ye, when [men] shall
revile you, and persecute [you],
and shall say
all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.} (MAT
5:11)
Thousands have been murdered "in the name of Jesus."
I am reluctant to be called a "Christian" because Christianity is divided and a
house so divided cannot stand. Most professing Christians pick and
choose what they will and will not obey, and in vain use the name of
Jesus to justify their actions. But, praise be to
God, it is He who is writing the Book of Life, as well as the other
books.
{He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white
raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but
I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. He
that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.}
(Rev. 3:5-6)
William Tyndale and many other martyrs (Gk: witnesses) had
to go it alone. Without him, we would not have the scriptures we now have,
yet Christians burned him at the stake while choking him to
death. You might want to check out the book called Fox's Book of
Martyrs.
In World War I and in World War II, Christians fought
Christians. In World War III it will not be any different. And I am
detecting that spirit in this forum too.
With very careful clarification, I
have allowed the term, just as Peter did. "Yet if [any man suffer] as a Christian, let him not be ashamed;
but let him glorify God on this behalf." (1PE
4:16) I have used the description: "Hebrew Christian" at
times for clarification. But then I can be lumped in with the murderers
who think they are doing God a service when they kill God's little lambs.
There is always a danger when accepting such a label.
It was illegal in the time of Paul to start a new
religion. To do so meant death. This is the basis for Paul's appeal
to Ceaser in Rome. The reason for teh writing of the Book of Acts was
very likely to provide an Amicus Curiae legal brief in Paul's
defense. It showed that it was outsiders who first dubbed the followers of
Jesus as Christians, but the reality is that the followers of Jesus are a
part of the continuum from the beginning. They were forced out of the
synagogues because those in power rejected Jesus.
They retreated into house churches. They became persecuted.
By the way, you have been mis-spelling my
name.
Love,
Marlin
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 1:34
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Xmas
Thanks Martin, for your
reply. It helps me understand you much better.
1. I am not
surprised you can't get along with any Christians and have to stay by
yourself. You should consider you are the one in error. I say this
because you can't get along, for any extended period of time, WITH
ANYBODY. This is a red flag. I have met "lone-ranger" people
and have found them to have psychological emotional problems.
2.
I am sorry to hear you are against the precious name Christian. I am
most thankful to be called a Christian. The "ian" means belonging to
Christ.
I believe the word "Christian" is the new name God's
followers were going to be called.
CONCERNING THE NAME "CHRISTIAN" The near-unanimous
chorus of scholars and wise men shouting that this name was given in derision
of the new faith is as shameful as it is amazing. We shall not use the space
to record the names and comments of those affirming that "Christians" was a
name given in derision, belittling the members of Christ as "goody-goodies,"
etc., the tragedy being that even some brethren have fallen in with such an
"accepted" explanation! Even the Encyclopedia Britannica chimes in with "It
was at Antioch that the term `Christian' was first given to converts to the
new faith, as some maintain, in derision." F36 But where, in God's holy name, is there any intimation of
such a thing, either in the word of God or any dependable history? Hervey
emphatically declared, and it is true, that "There is no evidence of its
having been given in derision." F37 Furthermore, if the name "Christian" was given in derision
of the faith by the enemies of the gospel, whatever became of that everlasting
"new name" which the mouth of God named upon his children?
God promised
that he himself would give his people a new name. He promised that it would be
given at a time when "the Gentiles and kings" had seen his "righteousness" (Isaiah
62:2). It was not to be a name which
enemies would give, for God said, "I will give them an everlasting name, that
shall not be cut off" (Isaiah
56:5). It was not to be a name which would
arise beyond the fellowship of God's people; but, as the Lord said, "Even unto
them will I give in my house and within my walls a place and a name better
than of sons and of daughters" (Isaiah
56:5). If God made good on that promise,
the name was given in his house and within his walls; and that cannot mean in
the ranks of the despisers of his truth. Moreover, it was to be "a new name"
(Isaiah
62:2), and a name "which the mouth of the
Lord" would name.
Significance of the name's being "new." If "disciples"
had continued to be the name of God's followers, there would have been nothing
new in such a designation, because the Pharisees and John the Baptist also had
"disciples." Implicit in the new name was the teaching that Christianity was
never to be confused with Judaism, or any of the sects of the Jews, all of
which had their "disciples," the very name being indicative of the Jewish
connection.
This is the only name specifically commanded by an apostle as
the one in which the Lord's people should "glorify God" (1 Peter
4:16). And how, it may be asked, does the
name "Christian" worn by God's people glorify the Father in heaven? This is
done by its emphasis upon the name of Christ, the name literally meaning "of
Christ." Herein also appears the utter impossibility of such a name having
been given by the instigation of Satan. It is contrary to the nature of Satan
to suppose for even a moment that the evil one would have concocted a name
with so much of Christ in it. People who can really believe that Satan
invented and instigated this name might also very well believe that the devil
invented the Lord's Supper.
The contrast between the New Testament
handling of the name "Christian," as distinguished from many designations
applied to the followers of the Lamb in the New Testament, stresses the
uniqueness of the term "Christian." For example, the Holy Spirit referred to
the Lord's followers as (1) the called of God (Romans
1:6; 8:28), (2) sons of God (Romans
8:14), (3) children of God (Romans
8:16), (4) the sanctified (1 Corinthians
1:2), (5) the faithful in Christ (Ephesians
1:1), (6) servants of Christ (Philippians
1:1), (7) the elect of God (1 Peter
1:1), (8) God's elect (Colossians
3:12; Titus
1:1), (9) saints in Christ, the term
"saints" being used 50 times in the epistles (10) brethren, this designation
being used 132 times in the epistles, and (11) simply "the church," as used 85
times. Nevertheless, it was the name "Christian" which above all others came
to be the historical designation of the brethren. This was the only name an
apostle commanded the saints to wear (1 Peter
4:16), the only name advocated before
kings (Acts
26:28), and the only name consciously
designated by an inspired author of a New Testament book as a replacement for
"disciples," as in Acts 11:26.
Finally, the events leading to the giving
of this new name were ordered, not on earth, but from heaven. First, a "name
bearer" was chosen of God and converted in Acts 9; next the Gentiles were made
participants in the blessings of the faith, upon the same terms as Jews, this
being accomplished by a whole series of supernatural occurrences leading to
the conversion of Cornelius and his house in Acts 10; and then in Acts 11, as
soon as the first great Gentile church had been assembled at Antioch, a man
full of the Holy Spirit went and called the "name-bearer" from Tarsus, the
same line recording the fact that the disciples were called "Christians" first
at Antioch. From this, the conclusion may not be denied that Paul himself
announced this name within the church at Antioch, the inspired apostle being
God's spokesman.
Acts
Chapter 11 -
Read This Chapter
Study Resource List
BCC -> Commentary
on 11:26
DSN -> Synopsis
on 11:26
GEB -> Study
Notes on 11:26
GSB -> Study
Notes on 11:26
JFB -> Commentary
on 11:26
MHC-COM -> Commentary
on 11:26
MHC-CON -> Commentary
on 11:26
OCA -> Commentary
on 11:26
PNT -> Commentary
on 11:26
RWP -> Study
Notes on 11:26
TSK -> Commentary
on 11:26 TSK -> Entry
for 11:26
WEN -> Notes
on 11:26
NTB -> Antioch; Christian; Disciple; Tarsus; Zeal,
Religious< /A>
TTT -> Titles and
Names of Saints
EBD -> Antioch; Barnabas; Christian; Paul
SBD -> Antioch; Barnabas; Christian
11:26and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. And for an entire year they met with the church and taught considerable numbers; and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch. kai eurwn (5631) hgagen (5627) eiv Antioxeian. egeneto (5633) de autoiv kai eniauton olon sunaxqhnai (5683) en th| ekklhsia| kai didacai oxlon ikanon, xrhmatisai (5658) te prwtwv en Antioxeia| touv maqhtav Xristianouv.
|
