[Meeting] Re: meeting: Pan African Brethren Conference on Missions (8th - 12th Nov)

[Phil Nickerson]

> ----------
> From: 	owner-meeting at kent.net on behalf of Phil Nickerson[SMTP:NICKE at NS.SYMPATICO.CA]
> Sent: 	Saturday, October 30, 2004 1:23:46 AM
> To: 	meeting at kent.net
> Subject: 	Re: meeting: Pan African Brethren Conference on Missions (8th  -  12th Nov)
> Auto forwarded by a Rule
> 
> 
>It seems all of these names exclude everyone but those that follow Christ.


Jimmy,

Allow me to word your statement a bit differently ... the names you mention 
exclude everyone but those that "are" Christ's. I think you'll agree with this.

The word "follow" might give the wrong sense. Those who belong to God by 
blood all come under the one and same name(s).





>Isn't that what His ekklesia is?  The body of Christ to the exclusion of all
>others.  I've been called many things, and I answer to all of the above!  I
>don't think it is necessarily an exclusive terminology to other Christians
>because it encompasses all who identify with Christ.


As long as they are Biblical names, then yes, we can and should accept any 
designation that God has given us.

But when (unfortunately) believers staple a name such as "brethren" / 
"brethren assemblies" to us, then we should repel that like the plague.

Not one of us here who are married would appreciate it if our spouse(s) 
said she would call themselves after our name, but by another man's name 
secondly.

And yet, we who are "called by His worthy Name" will be quick to adopt such 
insulting titles as "brethren" / "Brethren" / "brethren assemblies" / 
"Brethren assemblies" etc.

Rather, names given to the children of God in Scripture, came down upon 
"all" and not just a few to the exclusion of others.



>Now if some want to take the extreme position that to call ourselves
>Christians is exclusive to others that don't (even though they are
>spiritually identified with Christ) then I'd recognize the fact that they
>may be a weaker brother.  Of course today, the term "Christian" is
>synonymous with non-jew, non-muslim, non-catholic (roman), non-___________.
>It doesn't necessarily mean one who knows Christ and follows Him.



If we call ourselves "the Christians" to the exclusion of the rest of God's 
people, then of course we come under the umbrella of 1Cor 1:12-13.

We should instead be quick to be overly jealous of the Lord's Name, instead 
of clouding it over with insulting titles as "The Brethren" or "The 
brethren" ... capital B or no, means nothing. The fact that some use it 
gladly shows they have not the spiritual sense to even blush in a lot of cases.




>I maintain that what we call one another shouldn't be an issue


Then this would be an error Jimmy. It definitely should be an issue. 
Because too many of God's people take this attitude, then consequently we 
have names amongst the body of Christ that divide, such as Baptist / 
Pentecostal / Lutheran / brethren ... and what sickening savour this gives 
to the world of Christianity.

Again, it really should have to be argued if we read our Bibles carefully, 
for this argument of using unscriptural names / titles *cannot* be defended 
from the Word of God.

Phil Nickerson





To unsubscribe, send a message to esquire at kent.net with
	unsubscribe meeting
as the BODY of the message.  The SUBJECT is ignored.