Do any denominations read Matthew 24:5 as meaning believers in Christ using his good name to deceive many? Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. (Matthew 24:5, KJV)


This statement when commented on is usually understood as others coming and convincing people that they themselves are Christ. I have found no other interpretation for this statement.

What irks me is that Christ states that many come in his name.  Another example of this is how we are baptized in his name (Acts 2:38).

To clarify my question I will use the method of explanation provided by Susan below.

Scripture: "So many have come in my name."

This can be taken two ways:

It can be taken as:

To come in Jesus' authority, in the same manner Peter suggests a person should be baptized (Acts 2:38).

Or as:

I (person speaking the first person) am the Christ (and shall deceive many).

In many Protestant eschatological systems, secret Rapture enthusiasts tend to associate this verse as a false Christ proclaiming to be in fact Christ.

However, it may indicate people who are believers coming with a presumed authority, perhaps or perhaps not recognized by God, and spreading a false Gospel that leads others into deception.

Are there any denominations that see this statement as referring not to someone claiming to be Christ, but coming as a believer in Christ and using his good name to deceive many?
For many will come in my name, saying, "I am the Christ," and they will lead many astray. (Matt 24:5, ESV)


In addition to the account of Jesus' words in Matthew, we have parallel accounts in both Luke (21:8) and Mark (13:6). These both lack "the Christ", and the meaning of the claim is therefore somewhat less certain. The Lukan passage has occasionally been interpreted along the lines of what I think you're getting at:


  ἐγώ εἰμι (lit. "I [emphatic] am") has most often been taken to mean "I am the Christ," but by some to mean "[that] I am here" (announcing Jesus’ secret presence), or as a mark of prophetic possession in which the speaker becomes the mouthpiece of the deity... The predominant view is the correct one. (Nolland).   


Nolland does not explain here why "I am the Christ" is correct. (Here and elsewhere he refers us to his unpublished PhD dissertation, which apparently discusses at greater length the  incorrect interpretations.) However, in the Matthew passage this is clear from the Greek.  

Absence of ὅτι (*hoti)
The identification of the referent of "I" (imposter vs. Jesus) in Matthew's report of Jesus's citation of the words of the imposter rests on the distinction between direct and indirect speech. You probably realize that there are no quotation marks or commas in the original Greek of the New Testament. Instead, Greek has other ways to mark off reported speech. Unlike English, the language itself is unambiguous here.   

Most commonly, reported speech is introduced in Biblical Greek with a form of "to say", usually a participle ("saying..."). Direct speech may be introduced with or without hoti ("that"); however, in Koine Greek indirect speech requires this word.1,2  When it is absent (as here), the words immediately following the participle λεγοντες (legontes, "saying") are direct speech. The word legontes  may as well be translated (as it is in many modern versions): saying,"....". 

Commentaries on the Matthew passage agreeing that this refers to the claims of the deceiver to be the messiah include Nolland himself, France, A.B. Bruce,  Hagner, Plummer, Blomberg. I did not find any in disagreement. This interpretation is supported not only by the grammar but also by the context, where the claimants are again mentioned in verse 24:


  For false christs (pseudochristoi) and false prophets pseudoprophetai) will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.


It's hard to imagine that the pseudochristoi are envisioned as anything other than "bogus Messiahs" (BDAG).  

OP:


  In many Protestant Eschatological systems, secret Rapture enthusiasts tend to associat[e] this verse as a false Christ proclaiming to be in fact Christ.


Although it is clear from the passage that affectations of messiahship are in view, several commentators point out that "Christ" here is likely not a name (= Jesus Christ, impersonated) but rather a title (= the m/Messiah).


  The first "false alarm" is in the form of messianic claimants. A Christian reader, prompted by the specific mention of the parousia in v. 3, might think that those who will come "in Jesus’ name" claiming to be Messiah are claiming actually to be Jesus, returning at the end of the age. But the declaration "I am the Messiah" would not be the most natural way to make that claim; it sounds more like a would-be liberator presenting himself to the Jewish people for the first time. He would be coming "in Jesus’ name" not because he is impersonating Jesus but because he is claiming the role and title which properly belong to Jesus. (France)


And again,


  'In My Name' or 'on the basis of My Name'...means that a claim to the title of Messiah was the ground of their pretensions: it is not meant that they would call themselves 'Jesus.' (Plummer)


France and Plummer were both Anglican (the former ordained in the Church of England). It's not clear to me that any of the other commentators consulted would disagree with the quotes above, although it's true that many, particularly Carson, stress the eschatological nature of the claim in a way that France and Plummer do not. France does not deny that the claim is eschatological, but he does explicitly deny that this passage may be used as a pattern by which to work out eschatology, an idea which may resonate with the OP's concerns:


  It is remarkable how often occurrences such as those mentioned in these verses are appealed to by those who are trying to work out a pattern for eschatological events, whereas in fact they are mentioned here precisely in order to discourage such speculation and to assert that the events described are not part of an eschatological scenario, but rather routine events within world history which must not be given more weight than they deserve.   





1. This is the converse situation as English, where direct speech is more flexible (hence the OP's quandary), presumably due to the additional clarity offered by quotation marks.
 


2. The rule as described here a bit oversimplified, following the linked introductory grammar. It's actually possible to put an infinitive in that position to represent indirect speech (e.g. Matt 22:23: "saying not to-be resurrection" = "saying that there is no resurrection"). In our passage, though, "I am he" is a finite verb and can not have a subject other than the reported speaker. Of note, the clarity of this participle + quote construction is owed to Matthew's Semitizing style; ancient Greek (and, in fact, the parallel passages in Luke and Mark) generally used ὅτι to introduce both indirect and direct speech, making the distinction more complicated.