Post by ANDREW M on Aug 5, 2007 5:37:02 GMT -5
Amongst the prejudices the early Irvinists displayed towards the traditional churches of their day was their belief that the New Testament Church had taken "no name." and as a result the seed of this belief has been sown over several generations, propagating the ideology that for a church to adopt a name is somehow wrong, unscriptural and contrary to God's will.
Such an idea seems to have no substance nor precedent in the scriptures and may even be contrary to the mind , will and habit of God.
When one considers the scriptures from Genesis to Revelations even a few cursory thoughts reveal that names and the process of naming, is very much consistent with the mind and actions of God.
When God created the first human being he called him "man" or "Adam" because he was made from the earth. Until fairly recent times, people and places, etc, were given names after something, someone or to mark some event, etc. Names "meant" something. Only recently have names been given to young children simply because we liked the sound of a name, without considering its meaning or its appropriateness to whom it is applied. The general habit of naming orginated from God.
After naming "Adam" God gave authority to Adam to name his newly created wife "Eve" and then bought all the beasts of the field to Adam for him to name also. In doing so God allowed man/Adam to create identity, order and understanding, which of course avoids ignorance and confusion. We can take it for granted that the authority that man had to name the individual species of the animal kingdom was also extended into every other aspect of mans' life.
God intervened personally to change Abram's name from "Father" to Abraham, meaning "Father of many nations," to mark his purpose for Abraham's life.
God renamed Jacob "Israel" and his twelve sons were denominated the twelve tribes of Israel, operating separately in some respects but also collectively as the "children of Israel" as God's OT chosen race were called. In time two of these denominations became separated from the other ten. Here we can see how denominations can become separated by differing beliefs, but that does not make their "naming" wrong, but rather their beliefs ?
God intervened personally in the naming of John the Baptist (God is merciful) and also Jesus (Emmanuel - God is with us). Their parents had no say in the matter. In time Jesus renamed Simon with the name "Cephas" - meaning "The Rock," translated = Peter ! Again marking a purpose for someone's life.
At the very beginning of his ministry Jesus named his future followers thus, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for you shall be CALLED the "CHILDREN OF GOD." Here is another example of God not shying away from denominating names according to purpose. Formerly God's chosen race were denominated the "children of Israel," now they were being given the very important name of the "the children of God," signifying their close family relationship to God. Not a nomenclature to be overlooked on account of its supreme importance.
In the New Testament followers of Christ are regularly referred to by the name "children of God" although it is often shortened to just "children" but meaning the same thing. There can be little doubt this name was in common usage in NT times.
The importance of names to God cannot be overstated because their is no more important name to him than his own. When Jesus delivered the Lord's Prayer he included the line "Hallowed be thy name." Regularly in the New Testament we are reminded how important it is to believe in, or have faith in, the name of Jesus.
Just after Jesus re-named Simin into Peter, he addressed the matter of HIS church. In ALL things that Jesus said and did, he put the name of his Heavenly Father God to it, either specifically or indirectly. Surely, no one disgrees with this ?
Jesus said "And upon this rock, I will build MY CHURCH ?"
Whose Church ? Suerly God's church, or the church of God ?
Thereafter the name "church of God" (also abbreviated to "church") appears regularly through the letters and Epistles of the New Testament. Sometimes it was also called the "church of Christ," but still meaning the same thing.
A cursory study of the New Testament will show that "church of God" and "children of God" were names regularly used (along with some others meaning the same thing) by the early Christians to denominate their group from the rest of society.
As for the term "Christians," this was first given to them by outsiders at Antioch because they identified with Jesus. To outsiders this term was often used in a derogatory term, but Peter exhorted Christians not to be ashamed of this name but to glorify God through it. Even though it was first created by unbelievers, it identified the early Christians with Jesus and they were to be proud of it.
Although the term "Christian" or "Christians" are only used three times in the New Testament, the context of their usage implies the name was widespread both with unbelievers and believers in its application.
In further considering "names" or "naming" we should also consider that our names must be found in the Lamb's Book of Life. Furthermore, in the after-life we have been promised a "new name !"
Does not taking a name make any sense ? Is it a Godly thing ? Does it result in confusion or indentification ?
Are their any commandments not to take a name ? Does such an idea fly in the face of the consistency, habit and will of God ?
Does not having a name have any consequences when the Lamb's Book of Life is opened ? Does the words "Depart I know ye not" have any implication for those who are without identity before God ?
The truth is that sects who take no name end up with many names, such as "the Testimony," "the Way, "the Truth," "the Fold," "the Meetings," and so on, because having a formal identity is not only necessary, it is absolute common-sense. Giving names to something or someone is a God given right as shown through Adam.
For many Christian faiths this whole issue is a "non-issue."
There may be nothing wrong with a church or group nor taking a name for themselves, however that does not make it right either.
Such an idea seems to have no substance nor precedent in the scriptures and may even be contrary to the mind , will and habit of God.
When one considers the scriptures from Genesis to Revelations even a few cursory thoughts reveal that names and the process of naming, is very much consistent with the mind and actions of God.
When God created the first human being he called him "man" or "Adam" because he was made from the earth. Until fairly recent times, people and places, etc, were given names after something, someone or to mark some event, etc. Names "meant" something. Only recently have names been given to young children simply because we liked the sound of a name, without considering its meaning or its appropriateness to whom it is applied. The general habit of naming orginated from God.
After naming "Adam" God gave authority to Adam to name his newly created wife "Eve" and then bought all the beasts of the field to Adam for him to name also. In doing so God allowed man/Adam to create identity, order and understanding, which of course avoids ignorance and confusion. We can take it for granted that the authority that man had to name the individual species of the animal kingdom was also extended into every other aspect of mans' life.
God intervened personally to change Abram's name from "Father" to Abraham, meaning "Father of many nations," to mark his purpose for Abraham's life.
God renamed Jacob "Israel" and his twelve sons were denominated the twelve tribes of Israel, operating separately in some respects but also collectively as the "children of Israel" as God's OT chosen race were called. In time two of these denominations became separated from the other ten. Here we can see how denominations can become separated by differing beliefs, but that does not make their "naming" wrong, but rather their beliefs ?
God intervened personally in the naming of John the Baptist (God is merciful) and also Jesus (Emmanuel - God is with us). Their parents had no say in the matter. In time Jesus renamed Simon with the name "Cephas" - meaning "The Rock," translated = Peter ! Again marking a purpose for someone's life.
At the very beginning of his ministry Jesus named his future followers thus, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for you shall be CALLED the "CHILDREN OF GOD." Here is another example of God not shying away from denominating names according to purpose. Formerly God's chosen race were denominated the "children of Israel," now they were being given the very important name of the "the children of God," signifying their close family relationship to God. Not a nomenclature to be overlooked on account of its supreme importance.
In the New Testament followers of Christ are regularly referred to by the name "children of God" although it is often shortened to just "children" but meaning the same thing. There can be little doubt this name was in common usage in NT times.
The importance of names to God cannot be overstated because their is no more important name to him than his own. When Jesus delivered the Lord's Prayer he included the line "Hallowed be thy name." Regularly in the New Testament we are reminded how important it is to believe in, or have faith in, the name of Jesus.
Just after Jesus re-named Simin into Peter, he addressed the matter of HIS church. In ALL things that Jesus said and did, he put the name of his Heavenly Father God to it, either specifically or indirectly. Surely, no one disgrees with this ?
Jesus said "And upon this rock, I will build MY CHURCH ?"
Whose Church ? Suerly God's church, or the church of God ?
Thereafter the name "church of God" (also abbreviated to "church") appears regularly through the letters and Epistles of the New Testament. Sometimes it was also called the "church of Christ," but still meaning the same thing.
A cursory study of the New Testament will show that "church of God" and "children of God" were names regularly used (along with some others meaning the same thing) by the early Christians to denominate their group from the rest of society.
As for the term "Christians," this was first given to them by outsiders at Antioch because they identified with Jesus. To outsiders this term was often used in a derogatory term, but Peter exhorted Christians not to be ashamed of this name but to glorify God through it. Even though it was first created by unbelievers, it identified the early Christians with Jesus and they were to be proud of it.
Although the term "Christian" or "Christians" are only used three times in the New Testament, the context of their usage implies the name was widespread both with unbelievers and believers in its application.
In further considering "names" or "naming" we should also consider that our names must be found in the Lamb's Book of Life. Furthermore, in the after-life we have been promised a "new name !"
Does not taking a name make any sense ? Is it a Godly thing ? Does it result in confusion or indentification ?
Are their any commandments not to take a name ? Does such an idea fly in the face of the consistency, habit and will of God ?
Does not having a name have any consequences when the Lamb's Book of Life is opened ? Does the words "Depart I know ye not" have any implication for those who are without identity before God ?
The truth is that sects who take no name end up with many names, such as "the Testimony," "the Way, "the Truth," "the Fold," "the Meetings," and so on, because having a formal identity is not only necessary, it is absolute common-sense. Giving names to something or someone is a God given right as shown through Adam.
For many Christian faiths this whole issue is a "non-issue."
There may be nothing wrong with a church or group nor taking a name for themselves, however that does not make it right either.