# Church Names



## bookslover (Jan 1, 2007)

I've long thought that Christian churches should have specifically Christian names: either reflecting some aspect of theology, or a biblical person, etc.

"Foonman Avenue Presbyterian Church" (for example) tells you where the church is, but it doesn't sound very spiritual.

Giving Christian churches names which are specifically Christian would be a good way to get "in the face" of the culture a little, also.

Any thoughts?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 2, 2007)

Thats exactly why we chose our name; it says it all:

*Christ Covenant Reformed Presbyterian*


----------



## jaybird0827 (Jan 2, 2007)

"To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ." (Romans 1:7)

"... unto the churches of Galatia" (Galatians 1:2)

"to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons" (Philippians 1:1)

"Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write..." (Revelation 2:1)

"And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write..." (Revelation 3:14)

Also, "you can't judge a book by its cover"; e.g. "Westminster Presbyterian Church" is common in PC(USA) as well as in the PCA. "Grace Presbyterian Church", "Providence Presbyterian Church", and so on.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 2, 2007)

jaybird0827 said:


> "To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ." (Romans 1:7)
> 
> "... unto the churches of Galatia" (Galatians 1:2)
> 
> ...


Beat me to this observation. Soooo--according to the regulative principle of church names, they should be after the location.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Jan 2, 2007)

I have often wished that the Reformed churches were set apart completely in name from the broad evangelical churches which share the same “protestant” designation. The world sees three Christian churches (generally): Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant. I hate being lumped in with the now, non-protestors who actually are reforming back to Rome. If I could have my wish, there would be a fourth designation that was clearly the original reformed Protestants made up of the churches that still protest Roman theology. So by this designation, all churches would automatically be, say Christ Covenant Reformed Presbyterian, but under one heading. They would be called something like Western Orthodox or Christ Apostolic Church, or Israel Christian Church  

Regarding local church names, I agree that the city name should be included for clarity. Wouldn’t it be beneficial if all those churches within that hypothetical fourth Christian church I mentioned above all used the same naming system?

But alas, the world is still cursed and made up of sinners, so I will have to be content with what we have.


----------



## Davidius (Jan 2, 2007)

jaybird0827 said:


> "To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ." (Romans 1:7)
> 
> "... unto the churches of Galatia" (Galatians 1:2)
> 
> ...


----------



## toddpedlar (Jan 2, 2007)

ChristopherPaul said:


> If I could have my wish, there would be a fourth designation that was clearly the original reformed Protestants made up of the churches that still protest Roman theology. So by this designation, all churches would automatically be, say Christ Covenant Reformed Presbyterian, but under one heading. They would be called something like Western Orthodox or Christ Apostolic Church, or Israel Christian Church



There's already the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ of the Apostolic Faith... we could all just join them


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Jan 2, 2007)

toddpedlar said:


> There's already the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ of the Apostolic Faith... we could all just join them



I see the wink, but they are still considered Protestant along with Saddle Back, Willow Creek, Lake Wood, St. Andrews, Christ Covenant Reformed Presbyterian, etc.

I am talking about separating from the Protestants, even though we would be doing so because we in fact still protest. I mean we can’t kick the non-protestors out right? 
  Talk about confusion.


----------



## Davidius (Jan 2, 2007)

ChristopherPaul said:


> I see the wink, but they are still considered Protestant along with Saddle Back, Willow Creek, Lake Wood, St. Andrews, Christ Covenant Reformed Presbyterian, etc.
> 
> I am talking about separating from the Protestants, even though we would be doing so because we in fact still protest. I mean we can’t kick the non-protestors out right?
> Talk about confusion.




Do we need to start classifying ourselves as "Confessional Protestants" instead of just "Protestants"?


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Jan 2, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Do we need to start classifying ourselves as "Confessional Protestants" instead of just "Protestants"?



That would certainly be a proper clarification, but it would do just as good as me walking around saying I am a Confessional Presbyterian; the world would still lump me in with all Presbyterians including the PCUSA. I am speaking of changing something that never really got officially changed in the first place – it just happened. All non-Roman Catholics were labeled Protestants. How do we create a more clarifying designation apart from EOC, RCC, and Broad Evangelical Protestants? It would be an effort in futility.


I guess for me, it is just wishful thinking


----------



## Davidius (Jan 2, 2007)

ChristopherPaul said:


> That would certainly be a proper clarification, but it would do just as good as me walking around saying I am a Confessional Presbyterian; the world would still lump me in with all Presbyterians including the PCUSA. I am speaking of changing something that never really got officially changed in the first place – it just happened. All non-Roman Catholics were labeled Protestants. How do we create a more clarifying designation apart from EOC, RCC, and Broad Evangelical Protestants? It would be an effort in futility.
> 
> 
> I guess for me, it is just wishful thinking


----------



## govols (Jan 3, 2007)

Why would anyone want to go to a 2nd Baptist or 2nd "anything" or even worse, 3rd Baptist.

If they can't be 1st then why settle for 2nd best?


----------

