Today's Appellations, Yesterday's Taunts

[Albion]

The government has to recognize the church body for its ministers to perform valid wedding ceremonies, for example. If one's denomination hasn't received that recognition--and some go decades without it--they are not allowed. In the USA, although it varies by state, the officiant who is acceptable to the bride and groom is qualified so long as he signs and returns the completed marriage certificate. Here, anyone can start his own church with minimal oversight and if people come to it, they do. Of course, there is the matter of credibility to keep things in perspective, just as with educational institutions. You can get a mail-order degree...and also a mail-order ordination certificate, but few people would consider them legitimate. I guess that's the way it is in New Zealand, too.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The government has to recognize the church body for its ministers to perform valid wedding ceremonies, for example. If one's denomination hasn't received that recognition--and some go decades without it--they are not allowed. In the USA, although it varies by state, the officiant who is acceptable to the bride and groom is qualified so long as he signs and returns the completed marriage certificate.

Anybody can perform a wedding ceremony but only a registered marriage celebrant may prepare and sign the civil law documents for a valid civil marriage. It is up to the folk who get married what they want, a ceremony and then a visit to a registry office or a celebrant who is registered. Catholic priests and nearly all Protestant ministers are registered marriage celebrants. It doesn't take long for a pastor to be registered. I've not heard of any groups being delayed except for a few hightly questionable groups like "scientology"

 

[Lamb]

I've noticed and think it interesting that so many denominational labels today are the results of yesterday's taunts by those outside the faith being described.

Are there any more recent examples I wonder?

 

[Confessional Lutheran]

Are there any more recent examples I wonder?

Honestly, not one I can think of, Lammchen.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Are there any more recent examples I wonder?

Yeah. I think "JWs" was intended as a kind of insult for Jehovah's witnesses. In Australia some called them "Jehoboes"

 

[MennoSota]

The term "Christian" was originally a derogatory term. Early on, believers realized that being called a derogatory name for following their Savior was just a part of carrying their cross. Why not celebrate?

Mennonites left Germany under persecution. They left the Ukraine under persecution. Their unwillingness to engage in warfare and their desire to be separate from the State brought much derision. It's okay. God was with them. What could man do to them?

 

[MoreCoffee]

The term "Christian" was originally a derogatory term.

It wasn't derogatory. It was given by divine providence. After he found him, he took him to Antioch. So for an entire year they met with the church and taught a great many people, and it was first in Antioch that the disciples were by divine providence called Christians. (Acts 11:26)

Early on, believers realized that being called a derogatory name for following their Savior was just a part of carrying their cross. Why not celebrate?

Mennonites left Germany under persecution. They left the Ukraine under persecution. Their unwillingness to engage in warfare and their desire to be separate from the State brought much derision. It's okay. God was with them. What could man do to them?

 

[MennoSota]

It wasn't derogatory. It was given by divine providence. After he found him, he took him to Antioch. So for an entire year they met with the church and taught a great many people, and it was first in Antioch that the disciples were by divine providence called Christians. (Acts 11:26)

Unfortunately you have not quoted scripture accurately.

Acts 11:25-26
So Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church and taught a great many people. And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians.

While God ordains all things by his providential will, that in no way means that the term "Christian" was not originally a derogatory term.

 

[MennoSota]

Again, nothing in the scripture about Providence in Acts 11, but certainly the church was facing persecution in the area around Palestine.

Acts of the Apostles 11:19-26
[19]Meanwhile, the believers who had been scattered during the persecution after Stephen’s death traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch of Syria. They preached the word of God, but only to Jews.
[20]However, some of the believers who went to Antioch from Cyprus and Cyrene began preaching to the Gentiles about the Lord Jesus.
[21]The power of the Lord was with them, and a large number of these Gentiles believed and turned to the Lord.
[22]When the church at Jerusalem heard what had happened, they sent Barnabas to Antioch.
[23]When he arrived and saw this evidence of God’s blessing, he was filled with joy, and he encouraged the believers to stay true to the Lord.
[24]Barnabas was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and strong in faith. And many people were brought to the Lord.
[25]Then Barnabas went on to Tarsus to look for Saul.
[26]When he found him, he brought him back to Antioch. Both of them stayed there with the church for a full year, teaching large crowds of people. (It was at Antioch that the believers were first called Christians.)

 

[MoreCoffee]

Unfortunately you have not quoted scripture accurately.

Acts 11:25-26
So Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church and taught a great many people. And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians.

While God ordains all things by his providential will, that in no way means that the term "Christian" was not originally a derogatory term.

Maybe you should research the verse a little more. "After he found him, he took him to Antioch. So for an entire year they met with the church and taught a great many people, and it was first in Antioch that the disciples were by divine providence called Christians." is a good translation.

Acts 11:26

That a whole year - Antioch was a city exceedingly important in its numbers, wealth, and influence. It was for this reason, probably, that they spent so long a time there, instead of traveling in other places. The attention of the apostles was early and chiefly directed to cities, as being places of influence and centers of power. Thus, Paul passed three years in the city of Ephesus, Act 20:31. And thus he continued a year and a half at Corinth, Act 18:11. It may be added that the first churches were founded in cities; and the most remarkable success attended the preaching of the gospel in large towns.

They assembled themselves ... - They came together for worship.

With the church - Margin, in the church. The Greek ἐν en will bear this construction; but there is no instance in the New Testament where the word “church” refers to the edifice in which a congregation worships. It evidently here means that Barnabas and Saul convened with the Christian assembly at proper times, through the space of a year, for the purposes of public worship.

And the disciples were called Christians ... - As this became the distinguishing name of the followers of Christ, it was worthy of record. The name was evidently given because they were the followers of Christ. But by whom, or with what views it was given, is not certainly known. Whether it was given by their enemies in derision, as the names Puritan, Quaker, Methodist, etc., have been; or whether the disciples assumed it themselves, or whether it was given by divine intimation, has been a matter of debate. That it was given in derision is not probable, for in the name “Christian” there was nothing dishonorable. To be the professed friends of the Messiah, or the Christ, was not with Jews a matter of reproach, for they all professed to be the friends of the Messiah. The cause of reproach with the disciples was that they regarded Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah; and hence, when their enemies wished to speak of them with contempt, they would speak of them as Galileans Act 2:7, or as Nazarenes Act 24:5, “And a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.” It is possible that the name might have been given to them as a mere appellation, without intending to convey by it any reproach. The Gentiles would probably use this name to distinguish them, and it might have become thus the common appellation. It is evident from the New Testament, I think, that it was not designed as a term of reproach. It occurs but twice elsewhere: Act 26:28, “Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian”; 1Pe 4:16, “Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed.” No certain argument can be drawn in regard to the source of the name from the word which is used here. The word used here, and translated “were called” - χρηματίζω chrēmatizō - means:

(1) To transact any business; to be employed in accomplishing anything, etc. This is its usual signification in the Greek writers.
(2) To be divinely admonished, to be instructed by a divine communication, etc., Mat 2:12; Luk 2:26; Act 10:22; Heb 8:5; Heb 11:7; Heb 12:25.
(3) To be named, or called, in any way, without a divine communication, Rom 7:3, “She shall be called an adulteress.” It cannot be denied, however, that the most usual signification in the New Testament is that of a divine monition, or communication; and it is certainly possible that the name was given by Barnabas and Saul. I recline to the opinion, however, that it was given to them by the Gentiles who were there, simply as an appellation, without intending it as a name of reproach; and that it was readily assumed by the disciples as a name that would fitly designate them. If it had been assumed by them, or if Barnabas and Saul had conferred the name, the record would probably have been to this effect; not simply that they “were called,” but that they took this name, or that it was given by the apostles. It is, however, of little consequence whence the name originated. It soon became a name of reproach, and has usually been in all ages since, by the wicked, the frivolous, the licentious, and the ungodly.
​

It is, however, an honored name - the most honorable appellation that can be conferred on a mortal. It suggests at once to a Christian the name of his great Redeemer; the idea of our intimate relation to him; and the thought that we receive him as our chosen Leader, the source of our blessings, the author of our salvation, the fountain of our joys. It is the distinguishing name of all the redeemed. It is not that we belong to this or that denomination; it is not that our names are connected with high and illustrious ancestors; it is not that they are recorded in the books of heraldry; it is not that they stand high in courts, and among the frivolous, the fashionable, and the rich, that true honor is conferred upon men. These are not the things that give distinction and speciality to the followers of the Redeemer. It is that they are “Christians.” This is their special name; by this they are known; this at once suggests their character, their feelings, their doctrines, their hopes, their joys.

This binds them all together - a name which rises above every other appellation; which unites in one the inhabitants of distant nations and tribes of men; which connects the extremes of society, and places them in most important respects on a common level; and which is a bond to unite in one family all those who love the Lord Jesus, though dwelling in different climes, speaking different languages, engaged in different pursuits of life, and occupying distant graves at death. He who lives according to the import of this name is the most blessed and eminent of morals. This name shall be had in remembrance when the names of royalty shall be remembered no more, and when the appellations of nobility shall cease to amuse or to dazzle the world.​

 

[MennoSota]

This is the only important part of your copy and paste.

"The name was evidently given because they were the followers of Christ. But by whom, or with what views it was given, is not certainly known. Whether it was given by their enemies in derision, as the names Puritan, Quaker, Methodist, etc., have been; or whether the disciples assumed it themselves, or whether it was given by divine intimation, has been a matter of debate."

There is nothing in the text to say it was given by divine guidance. That believers started to call themselves Christians when they were known as "The Way" seems odd. Thus, the most probable reason for the name, based on the persecution the church faced, is that the name "Christian" was originally one of derision.

What you did was to actually add words to the Bible that do not exist. That is an egregious error on your part. Let the text speak. Adding or subtracting words from the Bible to create a false theology is a terrible thing.

 

[MoreCoffee]

This is the only important part of your copy and paste.

"The name was evidently given because they were the followers of Christ. But by whom, or with what views it was given, is not certainly known. Whether it was given by their enemies in derision, as the names Puritan, Quaker, Methodist, etc., have been; or whether the disciples assumed it themselves, or whether it was given by divine intimation, has been a matter of debate."

There is nothing in the text to say it was given by divine guidance. That believers started to call themselves Christians when they were known as "The Way" seems odd. Thus, the most probable reason for the name, based on the persecution the church faced, is that the name "Christian" was originally one of derision.

What you did was to actually add words to the Bible that do not exist. That is an egregious error on your part. Let the text speak. Adding or subtracting words from the Bible to create a false theology is a terrible thing.

You read too selectively and so you read poorly. This is the salient part that you evidently passed over or chose to discount. "The word used here, and translated “were called” - χρηματίζω chrēmatizō - means: ... To be divinely admonished, to be instructed by a divine communication, etc., Mat 2:12; Luk 2:26; Act 10:22; Heb 8:5; Heb 11:7; Heb 12:25."

 

[MennoSota]

You read too selectively and so you read poorly. This is the salient part that you evidently passed over or chose to discount. "The word used here, and translated “were called” - χρηματίζω chrēmatizō - means: ... To be divinely admonished, to be instructed by a divine communication, etc., Mat 2:12; Luk 2:26; Act 10:22; Heb 8:5; Heb 11:7; Heb 12:25."

Context is key. The reason why believers were in Antioch was due to persecution. In Antioch there are now Gentile converts, but there is also Gentiles who want nothing to do with such a belief. The nickname given to the believers in Antioch is "Christian." It becomes the name that Gentiles refer to when discussing the followers of The Way.
I understand why you feel the need to make this a divinely inspired name, but the context does not fit the interpretation you desire.

 

[Albion]

Either way, it doesn't seem to be what the OP contemplated. "Christian" is not comparable to the terms that originally were used in a derisive way but ultimately were accepted by various denominations such as the Lutherans, Methodists, and Quakers.

Incidentally, although I have thought about it for awhile, those (above) are the only ones I can think of that fit the bill.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Context is key. The reason why believers were in Antioch was due to persecution. In Antioch there are now Gentile converts, but there is also Gentiles who want nothing to do with such a belief. The nickname given to the believers in Antioch is "Christian." It becomes the name that Gentiles refer to when discussing the followers of The Way.
I understand why you feel the need to make this a divinely inspired name, but the context does not fit the interpretation you desire.

More selective reading on your part leads to additional poor reading of the text and the commentary. The salient part missed this time is:

That it was given in derision is not probable, for in the name “Christian” there was nothing dishonorable. To be the professed friends of the Messiah, or the Christ, was not with Jews a matter of reproach, for they all professed to be the friends of the Messiah. The cause of reproach with the disciples was that they regarded Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah; and hence, when their enemies wished to speak of them with contempt, they would speak of them as Galileans Act 2:7, or as Nazarenes Act 24:5, “And a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.” It is possible that the name might have been given to them as a mere appellation, without intending to convey by it any reproach. The Gentiles would probably use this name to distinguish them, and it might have become thus the common appellation. It is evident from the New Testament, I think, that it was not designed as a term of reproach.​

 

[MennoSota]

More selective reading on your part leads to additional poor reading of the text and the commentary. The salient part missed this time is:

That it was given in derision is not probable, for in the name “Christian” there was nothing dishonorable. To be the professed friends of the Messiah, or the Christ, was not with Jews a matter of reproach, for they all professed to be the friends of the Messiah. The cause of reproach with the disciples was that they regarded Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah; and hence, when their enemies wished to speak of them with contempt, they would speak of them as Galileans Act 2:7, or as Nazarenes Act 24:5, “And a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.” It is possible that the name might have been given to them as a mere appellation, without intending to convey by it any reproach. The Gentiles would probably use this name to distinguish them, and it might have become thus the common appellation. It is evident from the New Testament, I think, that it was not designed as a term of reproach.​

I have read your copy and paste. I find it to be a weak argument with very little contextual evidence.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I have read your copy and paste. I find it to be a weak argument with very little contextual evidence.

It's from a commentary by a Presbyterian. Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible. It's well known, has a long history, and is well regarded for its sagacity and scholarly acumen. Of course Barnes is not alone in noticing that "Christian" is not a pejorative in The Acts of the Apostles. Nor is he alone in knowing that the word χρηματίζω means To be divinely admonished, to be instructed by a divine communication and that it is used with that sense in Mat 2:12; Luk 2:26; Act 10:22; Heb 8:5; Heb 11:7; Heb 12:25. But you are not convinced, far be it from me to try to convince you of what you refuse to be convinced about.

 

[MennoSota]

It's from a commentary by a Presbyterian. Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible. It's well known, has a long history, and is well regarded for its sagacity and scholarly acumen. Of course Barnes is not alone in noticing that "Christian" is not a pejorative in The Acts of the Apostles. Nor is he alone in knowing that the word χρηματίζω means To be divinely admonished, to be instructed by a divine communication and that it is used with that sense in Mat 2:12; Luk 2:26; Act 10:22; Heb 8:5; Heb 11:7; Heb 12:25. But you are not convinced, far be it from me to try to convince you of what you refuse to be convinced about.

Thanks.
No, I am not convinced that God gave the apostles a name they were to call themselves. But, I can see how that view would support the concept of apostolic succession, which is also a non-biblical concept promoted by the RC.

 

[Josiah]

Are there any more recent examples I wonder?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. That's the moniker the denomination gave for itself (and the legal moniker in every state and country in which it owns and operates parishes, which it calls Stakes). But the critical, ridiculing name OTHERS used for it was "Mormon." For YEARS, the LDS and its members fought against that name... but they've given up (Just as Lutherans, Protestants, Methodist, Baptists, Quakers and a bunch of others eventually gave up). Today, even LDS folks refer to themselves as Mormons, and we see the LDS even in advertisments saying "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the Mormons."

 

[MoreCoffee]

Thanks.
No, I am not convinced that God gave the apostles a name they were to call themselves. But, I can see how that view would support the concept of apostolic succession, which is also a non-biblical concept promoted by the RC.

You see Apostolic Succession in the word "christian". Remarkable. No one I know sees that in the word.