I've been thinking a lot about a certain topic over the last couple months, maybe some of the readers here could help me with some opinions. It would be appreciated.
There are many today who would put forward the idea that there is an essential difference between a Christian and a Disciple. A Christian according to this view, is someone who has believed in Christ, and because of their faith, are secure in Christ and will have eternal life. A disciple has of course done this as well, but has also reached a level of commitment that simply isn’t required in order to be a Christian. Justification is by faith alone, and to add repentance of sin, or commitment to Christ is to add works to justification. The radical calls to sacrifice coming from the lips of Jesus that cause the hairs on our necks to stand, simply don’t have anything to do with eternal life, but rather a deeper commitment to follow Him. I think of course there are differing levels of maturity within the church, but is it possible to be a Christian and not a disciple?
Is this distinction Biblical? Are there two classes of Christianity? If someone hears the call, "whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will find it" and simply doesn't think much of the whole idea of following Christ, but they've "believed", is this mindset possible for someone who would truly be a Christian?
Maybe we have the terminology and practice reversed. I am hearing becoming a christian comes before being a disciple. Was not the early church a group of "disciples" who were labeled Christians? My learned definition of Christian is "follower of Christ". Am I truly a follower of Christ if I just believe or because I am following? Although if one does not believe... He will not follow.
ReplyDeleteKeith
The term 'Christian' covers a pretty broad range of beliefs and practices these days and probably has since the time it was first used. That being said, you'd have an equally difficult time pinning down consistent beliefs and practices within those throughout history who have claimed to be followers of Christ. Can a distinction be made? Probably not a real one. If you're talking about those who are 'saved' versus those who are 'called' you might be leading into an interesting discussion, especially with all this talk of 'universalism' and such that seems to be quite popular in the mainstream right now.
ReplyDeleteKrook
I think you know what my view is on this. When you study the idea of belief from a new testament perspective, look at the words of Jesus, and what the books of Peter and James describe as a disciple and true faith I don't think that there is any other way to look at it. To say one simply needs to believe and that that others will have a deeper commitment is border line teaching another Jesus. (II Cor. 11) This is why we have to be so careful how we present the gospel. Jesus said that Hard will be the path that leads to life. (Matthew 7:13-14) This is an indication of commitment and struggle not simply a belief. In fact in the days of the early church to truly follow Christ or put your faith in Him was a giant step of risk and commitment. They had to risk giving up everything in order to believe in Him. But when Paul in Romans describes Abraham having faith and God counting that as righteousness we must note what Abraham did. In Genesis 15 it describes that Abraham went through a great sacrifice with not only his toil but his animals to establish this covenant with God and then later we know he was ready to sacrifice Isaac. We tend to see faith as simple belief but when we look at the faith of those in the old Testament we see great sacrifices and them carrying their "crosses" (Hebrews 11) Was it because he trusted God? Yes, but that trust was mixed with devotion and willing sacrifice.
ReplyDelete