The Narrow Path Ministries

A lesson in the nomenclature of "Christian"

First mentioned in scripture in Acts 26:28.... "Then Agrippa said to Paul, "Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?" and 1Peter 4:16 ...."However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name."

It is derived from "Christ" (Latin "Christus") from the Greek "Khristos" (anointed or to anoint) and is a fairly recent word, from the Latin "Christanus", then Old English "cristnian" to modern English "Christen" to today's "Christian". It refers to a follower of Jesus Christ.

A Jew is a follower of God through the teachings of the Old Testament. "Jews" are a general term for a specific group of OT believers that have sub-groups known as Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Beta Israel ... orthodox, liberal, conservative...Hebrew, Greek...etc. Each sub-group known for their personal interpretation of scripture, leaders and ways to worship God.

Christians are followers of God born of a people in the Old Testament but followers of the New Testament through God on earth, Jesus Christ. "Christians" are a general term for a specific group of NT believers that also have sub-groups. The sub-groups of Christianity are numerous.

The word "Christian", just like the word "Jewish", is a denomination. WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY: "Denomination" = 1. The act of naming, 2. The name of a class or group: classification, 3. An organized body of similar religious congregations. The word "Jew" is first used in scripture to delineate a certain group of Godly people. Later these Jews are referred to as different sub-groups within scripture because there was a growth/disagreement/divisions within Judaism that caused such sub-groups to emerge.

Christians have also gone through, and continues to go through, growth/disagreement/divisions within Christianity. In the first several hundred years of Christianity there were many heretical groups with incorrect concepts of "Christ" worship/scripture interpretation. Some of these were, but not limited to these, Gnosticism, Marcionism,, Novatianism & Modalism. These heretical quasi-Christian groups caused much dissension, so much so, that early Christian leaders began to stand up against such heresies. Justin Martyr (100-165AD) wrote of the "the catholic resurrection". Tertullian (160-225AD) wrote of the "the catholic goodness of God". Both writers using the word as "Universal or General" since Catholic comes from the Greek "katholikos" = throughout the whole, i.e., universal. It is from the word katholikos that the word "catholic" comes.

Ignatius of Antioch (35-107 AD) wrote in a Letter to the Smyrnaeans about 107 AD. He wrote to them because there were those that were preaching that Jesus was not resurrected from the dead. In his letter to them he wrote "... "Now, he [Jesus] suffered all these things for our sake, that we might be saved. And he truly suffered, even as he truly raised himself up; not as certain unbelievers say .... [Ignatius continues] .... there let the people be [at the Church], just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." He is responsible for the first known use of the word to describe Christians that follow Jesus Christ, not the heresies that surrounded the times. He used the Greek word katholikos , meaning "universal," to describe the church now in writing. Ignatius used the word "Catholic" as if it were a word already in use to describe the Church. This has led many scholars to conclude that the appellation "Catholic Church" with its ecclesial connotation may have been in use as early as the last quarter of the first century.

It would be well apparent that Ignatius of Antioch (who lived from 35-107AD) was well aware of the preaching that Paul and Barnabus did at Antioch (Acts 15) approx 63AD and how the Church corrected Antioch with a mandate. Ignatius would have been about 40 years old and well aware of this.

The word "Catholic" was also used by several other early Christians but one that stands out was Irenaeus (130-200 AD). Irenaeus in a refutation of Gnosticism, because the Gnostic movement had a huge following (some think maybe larger than the Christian movement), wrote Adversus haereses (Against Heresies). This treatise basic theme was the "Detection and Overthrow of the False Knowledge". This treatise is known and held then, as today, both in spiritual and scholastic circles, as a pivotal writing in defense of Christianity.

Against Heresies was written approx 180AD. These writing covered five books with chapters ranging from 25 to 41 in length. In defense of Christianity, Irenaeus covered a number of topics to prove his point. Some of these points were, but not limited to these simple few.... the false, apocryphal and perverted scriptures used by these quasi-Christians, their blasphemous doctrines, other heresies that drives Irenaeus to bolster Christian defense after Christian defense.

In Book Three, Chapter 4, Ireanus talks about the truth is to be found nowhere else but in the Catholic Church, the sole depository of apostolical doctrine. Heresies are of recent formation, and cannot trace their origin up to the apostles. This is the first recorded use of a word to delineate Christians away from quasi/heretic Christians. Here the term is used to take the initial denomination word "Christian" and now create a Christian sub-group as "Catholic" Christian. This is done by Ireanus to demonstrate to the Christian world that we (Christians of Jesus' time) are not a part of, or to be associated with, the many heretical groups popping up merely years after Christ's death/resurrection. Those Christians were known as "Catholics".

In this same book in Chapter 21, Ireanus defends the prophecy in Isaiah (7:14) against the misinterpretations of Theodotion, Aquila, the Ebionites, and the Jews, giving authority of the Septuagint OT version, over the Hebrew version. Arguing in proof that Christ was born of a Virgin, because these other quasi-Christian sub-groups did not believe that Jesus was born of a virgin (ie, these Christian sub-groups were using the Hebrew OT as their proof-text). It should be noted by several modern-day non-Catholic scholars (NIV Bible/International Bible Society & FF Bruce) agree with Ireanus when they state respectively .... " The Septuagint quickly became the Bible of the Jews outside Palestine...It later became the Bible of the early church...The Hebrew canon was not accepted by the early church, which used the Septuagint...most Protestants decided to follow the original Hebrew canon..." and "So thoroughly did the Christians appropriate the Septuagint as their version of the scriptures that the Jews became increasingly disenchanted with it"

Christianity began as followers of Jesus Christ. From this, and within a relatively very short period (1st Century AD), heretical "Christian" sub-groups began to arise preaching the Word as they saw it. It was not long afterwards that Christian leaders began to stand up against these heretical groups and argued with the zeal that Paul & Barnadus did in Acts 15 at Antioch. From these very early arguments Christians that were standing up against the heretical groups took their "Christian" denomination stance further by delineating themselves as "Catholic" (Universal) Christians....not to be associated with heretics. It should be noted that there are no known Christian writing disputing the naming of Christians as "Catholics" or the "Catholic Church", but there are volumes of writing disputing numerous heretic movements. From the 1st Century to 1500's, Catholic Christianity had controversies, but never to cause a schism like that of the Reformation of Martin Luther in 1517. It was at this time, that Catholic Christianity took a huge step sideways as to how another denomination of "Christianity" would look at, interpret, study and preach the Word of Jesus Christ.

Martin Luther with his arguments, both positive and negative, supported his position by dropping the early Christian Septuagint OT Bible version for the Jewish Hebrew OT Bible version. This allowed Luther to argue scripturally against Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead. From this onset, Luther began to have a group of followers who were now known as "protestors", ie, Protestants. As Luther continued to preach he found not only followers but other preachers that felt they had a better interpretation of scripture and broke away from Luther and began their own "Christian" denomination sub-group. To date, there are nearly 30,000 Christian sub-group denominations .... all Protestant (none merely "Christian" because history proves otherwise) and still growing. There is only one Catholic Christian Church that we can find documented in early Christian writing from the 1st Century.

When you find someone that states "I am a Christian", then they are either 2000 years old or completely devoid of any knowledge of Christian history. Below is a quick flow chart of just some of the Christian denominations from Jesus Christ to now .... what are you?

JESUS CHRIST ...... Christians ......Catholics .................................................
Lutherans ......
Zwinglianism ......
Calvinism......
Unitarians......
Prebyterians......
Reformed ......
Pietists ......
Anglicans ......Episcopal......Methodists ......
English Methodist ...... Salvation Army ......
Free Methodists ...... Methodist New Connection ......
Calvinist Methodist ...... American Methodist ......
Reformed Methodist ...... African ME Zion ......
Union African ...... African Union ME ...... Union American ......
African ME Church ......Reformed Union ......Independent AME ......
Wesleyan Connection ......Methodist Episcopal ......Free Methodist ......
Holiness Methodist ......Congregational Methodist ......Reformed Zion ......
Colored ME Church ......New Congregational ...... Assembly of God ......
Pentecostal ......Rival Union ......Gospel Mission ......Bethesda ......
1st Century Pentecostal ......Evangelist Revival ......Friends of Revival ......
Christian Decision ......Pentecostal Alliance ......Free Pentecostal ......
Apostolic Church ......Independent Pentecostal ......United Pentecostal ......
Pentecostal Holiness ......Calvary Pentecostal ......Pentecostal Assembly ......
Voice of Healing ......French-Swiss Pentecostal ......Assembly of Christian Evangelists ......
Baptists ......English Baptists ......German Baptists ......American Baptists ......
Evangelical Baptists ......Primitive Baptists ......Free Will Baptists ......Independent Baptists ......Disciples of Christ ......Seventh Day Adventists ......Church of God ......Reformed Adventists ......Life and Advent ......Primitive Adventists ......Jehovah's Witness ......Friends of Man ......Apostolic ......Plymouth Brethren Closed Brethren ......Open Brethren ......Brethren Eight Groups......Puritans ......Protestant Episcopal ......Quakers ......Hicksites ......Wilburites ......Primitive Friends ......Congregational.....Morman ......Reorganized Morman ......Temple Lot ......Cutlerites ......Strangites ......Bickertonites ......Christian Science ......New Christian Science ......Free Christian Science ......Reformed Christian Science ......

It would be nice to get back to the single denomination "Christian", but it appears that so many Christian spin-off's occurred in the past, and continue today, that the Catholic "universal" Christian Church stood up in the 1st Century and said "enough". God said "one Shepard, one flock", not 30,000 and growing.

You say you are a generic "Christian"? Oh really, what brand, what flavor? What tenants do you stand by? Those tenants that Luther formulated out of anger or those formed in the beliefs of the earliest Christians? A scriptural Bible formed by Luther, et al, or a scriptural Bible used by the earliest Christians? Lesson over. New lesson on Flavius Josephus next because generic Christians say "Josephus stated in one of his writings that the Jewish scriptures were 39 books".

Catholic Steve

Ok, I'll bite...

Thanks for the lesson, CS. What makes you think, however, that we aren’t already familiar with church history? I’m partial to Philip Schaff’s 8 volume work (which you can read online here -- http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/About.htm ) but have also enjoyed Mosheim, Eusebius and many others. Steve Gregg did a nice lecture series on Church History that you can download and listen to for free.

Some thoughts…

A Jew is a follower of God through the teachings of the Old Testament. "Jews" are a general term for a specific group of OT believers that have sub-groups known as Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Beta Israel ... orthodox, liberal, conservative...Hebrew, Greek...etc.

Don’t forget that Christians were originally considered another sect of Judaism.

Also, I think many (perhaps most) Jews would take issue with your definition of them as “follower[s] of God through the teachings of the Old Testament”. To be a Jew is more of an ethnic identity than a religious one. There are Jews who are Christian, Buddhist, Atheist, Scientologist, etc., yet still identify themselves as Jews.

In the first several hundred years of Christianity there were many heretical groups with incorrect concepts of "Christ" worship/scripture interpretation.

That’s a loaded statement. Traditionally, the word “heresy” means: 1 a : adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma b : denial of a revealed truth by a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church c : an opinion or doctrine contrary to church dogma (per Webster). A secondary definition of “heresy” would be: 2 a : dissent or deviation from a dominant theory, opinion, or practice b : an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth or to generally accepted beliefs or standards.

These groups became “heretical” only after consensus was achieved (or decree was writ) about what was “orthodox”. Additionally, as Churchill put it, “History is written by victors.” Once the Roman church became dominant, divergent views became de facto heretical.

Much of what we know about many of these “heretical” groups comes not from their own writings but from the writings of their detractors. This leaves open the possibility (and in some cases the likelihood) that what we now know of some of these groups is not, in fact, entirely accurate.

… Catholic comes from the Greek "katholikos" = throughout the whole, i.e., universal. It is from the word katholikos that the word "catholic" comes.

This is a key point and very important to keep in mind: The term catholic church originally referred to the universal church. The Roman church appropriated the word; in essence saying, “No we are the universal church. If you’re not one of us, you’re not part of the universal church.” The Eastern Orthodox church basically does the same thing. On the other hand, those outside of the Roman or Eastern church generally say, “If you are a follower of Jesus, then you are a part of the universal church.”

Your examples of quotes by Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Ignatius and Irenaeus are an example of this attempt at appropriation and obfuscation. Just because these early church fathers used the term “catholic” does not mean that they were referring in any way, shape or form to the organization that now calls itself The Catholic Church.

For example, you stated, “In Book Three, Chapter 4, Ireanus [sic] talks about the truth is to be found nowhere else but in the Catholic Church, the sole depository of apostolical [sic] doctrine.” Irenaeus was not speaking of the Roman Catholic Church as it exists now as a sect of Christianity with certain distinctives, doctrines and structures. He was speaking about the church universal. The organization that is today known as The Catholic Church would have never entered into Irenaeus’ mind. Irenaeus was not differentiating between different forms of ecclesiastical expression. He was referring to groups that did not conform to what he viewed as orthodox teaching.

Here the term is used to take the initial denomination word "Christian" and now create a Christian sub-group as "Catholic" Christian.

Incorrect. Irenaeus is differentiating between who is “in” the universal Christian church as who is “out”. He is differentiating between what is Christian and what is not. To be Christian is to be part of the universal church.

Just because the RCC calls itself the catholic church doesn’t mean it is so. The same could be said about claims of apostolic succession. Just because something is claimed, it doesn’t necessary make it so. Just because Jehovah’s Witnesses call themselves Jehovah’s Witnesses doesn’t mean they are actually credible witnesses for Jehovah. And just because Mormons call themselves The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints doesn’t mean they actually are a church of Jesus Christ or are, for that matter, saints.

Not sure what your point was there about the LXX. There are many good books about the process by which the scriptures were canonized.

Christianity began as followers of Jesus Christ.

And Christianity continues to be followers of Jesus Christ.

From this, and within a relatively very short period (1st Century AD), heretical "Christian" sub-groups began to arise preaching the Word as they saw it.

The whole point of labeling them as heretical was to identify them as not Christian.

It was not long afterwards that Christian leaders began to stand up against these heretical groups and argued with the zeal that Paul & Barnadus [sic] did in Acts 15 at Antioch.

I’ve seen you use this phrase a couple of times and I’m wondering where it comes from. In Acts 15, Paul and Barny are debating on behalf of the Gentiles: That they don’t have to convert to Judaism in order to be saved. Paul and Barny are arguing for inclusion of the Gentiles, while the men from Judea are arguing for exclusion.

The Christian leaders who stood up against “heretical” groups were attempting to prevent the inclusion of their teachings (and often rightly so) by excluding them from the church. Sort of a reversal of Paul and Barny.

Another huge difference is that Paul and Barny are using debate, dialog, discussion, (no doubt) appeal to scripture and (assumedly) the guidance of the Holy Spirit to support their position and win the day. Later councils often relied upon threat (and use) of violence, imprisonment and/or banishment to get their way.

From these very early arguments Christians that were standing up against the heretical groups took their "Christian" denomination stance further by delineating themselves as "Catholic" (Universal) Christians....not to be associated with heretics. It should be noted that there are no known Christian writing disputing the naming of Christians as "Catholics" or the "Catholic Church", but there are volumes of writing disputing numerous heretic movements. From the 1st Century to 1500's, Catholic Christianity had controversies, but never to cause a schism like that of the Reformation of Martin Luther in 1517. It was at this time, that Catholic Christianity took a huge step sideways as to how another denomination of "Christianity" would look at, interpret, study and preach the Word of Jesus Christ.

And this is where you make the quantum leap into illogic. Your argument here is a non sequitur. That fact that the term “universal” (aka catholic) was used to differentiate between what was considered heretical and what was considered orthodox does not necessary mean that those who called themselves the “Catholic church” were, in fact, the universal church in its entirety. If, for example, some who refer to themselves as The Catholic Church were to cease following Jesus, adopt behaviors antithetical to Christ-likeness and/or introduce spurious teachings, they could cease to be a part of the “catholic” (as in “universal”) church, regardless of what they might call themselves.

Martin Luther and those of the Protestant Reformation were as much a part of the catholic (in the true sense of the word) church as those who appropriated the word Catholic and applied to themselves. By the same token, there have been those who called themselves “Catholic” who had absolutely nothing to do with Christ or his church.

I would posit that there is, and always has been a “universal” church. It is, and always has been, made up of those who follow Jesus, regardless of what they call themselves. The true “universal” church is, and always has been, under His headship. It looks, and always has looked, like Him. Its values are His values. It is the Body of Christ; the Bride; the ecclesia of Christ.

Martin Luther with his arguments, both positive and negative, supported his position by dropping the early Christian Septuagint OT Bible version for the Jewish Hebrew OT Bible version. This allowed Luther to argue scripturally against Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead. From this onset, Luther began to have a group of followers who were now known as "protestors", ie, Protestants.

Actually, the term “Protestant” originally came about to describe the dukes and princes who were opposed to the ruling of the Second Diet of Speyer, which reversed the policy of religious tolerance adopted at the Diet of 1526. This reversal meant that the Edict of Worms would be enforced after all, without waiting for a General Council. The Lutheran royals, who were in the minority, acted in the interest of their subjects and entered a legal appeal (or protest) in hopes of gaining further mediation.

To date, there are nearly 30,000 Christian sub-group denominations .... all Protestant (none merely "Christian" because history proves otherwise) and still growing. There is only one Catholic Christian Church that we can find documented in early Christian writing from the 1st Century.

There you go again with those leaps…

A. Your number of 30,000 is highly debatable. A link to your source would be helpful. The number one comes up with probably has more to do with how one defines a denomination than anything else. But even if it is 30,000 or 300,000, who cares! You seem to be starting from an a priori assumption that multiple expressions of the church are a bad thing.
B. You lost me on the “none merely “Christian” because history proves otherwise” statement. I don’t understand what you are trying to say here.
C. Agreed that there is only one catholic (aka universal) Christian Church but that one Church has many expressions (er, denominations).
D. Again, your attempt to claim that the RCC is the same “catholic” church that the early fathers wrote about is fallacious.

When you find someone that states "I am a Christian", then they are either 2000 years old or completely devoid of any knowledge of Christian history.

This is a nonsensical assertion. When you find someone that states “I am a Christian”, it generally means that they believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and are following Him. You can do that with or without knowledge of the last 2,000 years of Christian history.

Yo, I am a Christian. I am not 2,000 years old nor am I devoid of knowledge of Christian history. Put that in your censer and smoke it!

That was a nice list. It must’ve taken some time to type it all out. Of course, I would change it to:

Jesus Christ
|
Christians (in various expressions)

So much simpler (and less typing!).

It would be nice to get back to the single denomination "Christian"

Why? I think God likes diversity (as long as we can all play nice). There are thousands of variations within most species of creatures in God’s creation. I love the fact that some Christians worship with “bells and smells”, while others sit around a living room in a house, while others attend a suburban mega-church. Christ is big enough for all that and more.

God said "one Shepard [sic], one flock", not 30,000 and growing.

There is one Shepherd: Christ. There is one flock: His church universal. As Jesus said in John 10:14: “I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me.” In context, of course, Jesus is referring to the fact that the Jews and Gentiles (two flocks) will become a single covenant people in Christ. The RCC is not needed to facilitate any of this.

You say you are a generic "Christian"? Oh really, what brand, what flavor? What tenants do you stand by? Those tenants that Luther formulated out of anger or those formed in the beliefs of the earliest Christians?

Why do you keep trying to force these “either/or” scenarios when “both/and” works just fine. Luther was justifiably angry at the abuses he was seeing. Sometimes this type of anger is also called “righteous indignation”. Jesus demonstrated it when he overturned the moneychanger’s tables at the temple.

I am a Christian, though I actually prefer the term “follower of Jesus”. I became a follower of Jesus as a result of a personal encounter with Him, which was outside of any church or denomination. Over the years I've attended and investigated various "brands". At this point, I don't consider myself any particular “brand” though, as I stated before, I have developed an affinity with Anabaptism and Quakerism.

I don’t own any rental properties, so I don’t have any tenants, but the tenets I adhere to are those of historical Christianity. They are not dependant upon any particular denominational affiliation.

Hi C.Steve,

Thanks Steve for that brief history and thanks Mort for your reply.

I have a question for you C.Steve. When Jesus said the ff: in

Mathew 16:18
" And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Peter must have known the importance of Jesus' statement and he must have known that he was being annointed as the head of the church here on earth therefore as the head of the church he must have a successor. How come Peter never bothered assigning or annointing someone as his successor to follow his footsteps as the head of the church here on earth before he died? I'm sure that he must have known that he is going to die therefore he needs a successor.
The idea that Peter must have a successor as the head of the church was picked up later by the early Catholic fathers.

Maybe you have answered this question in a diff. thread if you have just let me know and I will try to find it.

You say you are a generic "Christian"? Oh really, what brand, what flavor? What tenants do you stand by? Those tenants that Luther formulated out of anger or those formed in the beliefs of the earliest Christians? A scriptural Bible formed by Luther, et al, or a scriptural Bible used by the earliest Christians? Lesson over. New lesson on Flavius Josephus next because generic Christians say "Josephus stated in one of his writings that the Jewish scriptures were 39 books".


Steve, I'm a Christian as it was used in Acts 11 "a follower of Christ." The tenants i go by are the commands of Jesus found in the beautitudes of Matt 5-7 and in the rest of the NT. It's not all that difficult if you just read the NT.
So my flavor of the month is alaways the same flavor namely the words of Jesus and his apostles that he appointed himself.

The tenants i go by are the commands of Jesus found in the beautitudes of Matt 5-7 and in the rest of the NT

Oh no! You also have tenants, Steve?

I don’t own any rental properties, so I don’t have any tenants, but the tenets I adhere to are those of historical Christianity.

Okay! I'm glad there's somebody here without tenants.