Joe, I think that those nowadays who refer to THEMSELVES as Christians are the ones in a better position to say whether the term is erroneous. They wouldn’t be the only group to take a name which was originally intended as an insult and adopt it as a term of pride. Certainly, I know of some people who would gladly punch the nose of anyone who suggested that they WEREN’T Christians.
To say, as you have in the past, that they ought to be referred to as “Believers” (without the “in Jesus”, which you often omit) is tremendously uninformative and not likely to foster communication. It’s like languages in which the word for their own speakers is “the human beings” or “the people”; it’s kind of pointless once you translate it from the original tongue.
Joe, I think that those nowadays who refer to THEMSELVES as Christians are the ones in a better position to say whether the term is erroneous. They wouldn’t be the only group to take a name which was originally intended as an insult and adopt it as a term of pride. Certainly, I know of some people who would gladly punch the nose of anyone who suggested that they WEREN’T Christians.
To say, as you have in the past, that they ought to be referred to as “Believers” (without the “in Jesus”, which you often omit) is tremendously uninformative and not likely to foster communication. It’s like languages in which the word for their own speakers is “the human beings” or “the people”; it’s kind of pointless once you translate it from the original tongue.