The Unique Move of God [Archive] - Page 2

UntoHim

05-26-2017, 02:12 PM

There is a difference between telling someone they can't leave a group and telling them they are wrong to leave a group. One could be abuse, the other could just be concern for your soul.

So a blood washed, born again believer has to worry about his soul if he leaves the Local Church of Witness Lee? And you guys wonder why anyone would call your little group a cult. Your statement here does reflect the misplaced, insidious fear that was instilled into the followers of Lee. This also reflects the cult-like attitude expressed by the president of the Living Stream Ministry, Mr. Benson Phillips, who boldly proclaimed:
“In any case, do not leave the Lord’s recovery. I can assure you that if you go away from the Lord’s recovery, you will have no way for the process of sanctification to go forward within you. Instead, you will just enter into a bankrupt situation. I know of no one who has left the Lord’s recovery and today is a great spiritual person on the earth. The sanctification process is carried out in the Lord’s recovery”
(The Ministry Magazine Vol. 8, No. 1 Page 189, first paragraph)

Yes, I do have this quote on speed dial, and yes it really comes in handy when some Local Churcher says something like you have...and then tries to walk it back with a blitzkrieg of Local Church "yeah, buts" and "out of context"s and "but not in the godhead" laughable garbage. According to brother Phillips the ONLY PLACE ON EARTH for the "process of sanctification" to "go forward" is in the Local Church of Lee movement. I know Benson. He said this because he means it. He means it because he believes it. He believes it because he sat at the feet of Witness Lee for decades. And what Benson has stated here reflects this notion that if you leave the Local Church of Witness Lee, at the very least, your spiritual life is over, and at worst you better be watching for that Steinway to fall on your head...or if you're really lucky it will only be a Wurlitzer:)

Yes, Witness Lee believed and taught that his ministry and his movement were "the Unique Move of God". He said it in soooo many words, and there is a very good reason why most former LC members will admit that they were afraid to leave because of fear....not fear of God but fear of man.
-

Cal

05-26-2017, 02:15 PM

-1

Right.

...... every post, every word, every action.

Alright. We get it. Thank you.

Cal

05-26-2017, 02:31 PM

“In any case, do not leave the Lord’s recovery. I can assure you that if you go away from the Lord’s recovery, you will have no way for the process of sanctification to go forward within you. Instead, you will just enter into a bankrupt situation. I know of no one who has left the Lord’s recovery and today is a great spiritual person on the earth. The sanctification process is carried out in the Lord’s recovery”
Benson Phillips (The Ministry Magazine Vol. 8, No. 1 Page 189, first paragraph)

Like you said, Drake. Every word. Above is an example of about 73 such words.

Drake

05-26-2017, 02:33 PM

Cal

05-26-2017, 02:40 PM

-2 Apparently not, Igzy.

-3 Untohim, so that is the underlying problem. You do not fear the judgement seat of Christ. Anything you say has no consequences because you are blood-washed.

What a tragedy.

Drake

Drake, now you are starting to troll. Please stop. You are only hurting yourself and your cause.

Evangelical

05-26-2017, 04:10 PM

I think every genuine Christian would be concerned if a person wants to leave their church. Whether Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, Presbyterian, Mormon, JW, or the Recovery. I think Catholic and Orthodox believe if a person leaves their church they are in danger of going to hell because it is "falling away from the faith", and they associate the church with the faith. Leaving the church is leaving "the faith".

Unlike them we do not consider "the church" and "the faith" to be the same thing, because "the faith" is not built upon this idea that we must hold to a certain apostolic tradition, so it is possible for a person to leave the church and still be saved. That is one point of difference.

I think some members here who have not been with the Recovery for "30 or 40 years" are not taking what current members (Drake, myself) are saying seriously. Which really proves they are arguing from perceptions and encounters they had in the past, rather than how things are today.

If I was to characterize the attitude of the church today I would say it leaned towards the side of indifference rather than the side of forcing me to stay against my will.

Before I joined the Recovery I could come and go as I pleased and no one said anything. It is still the same today. A number of people come and go, even people who have been with the Recovery longer than I.

The general attitude of most people is one of "where are you?" and "how are you doing?" rather than "you must not leave us, if you leave us something bad will happen to you". I have never encountered that attitude personally.

Drake

05-26-2017, 04:19 PM

Drake, now you are starting to troll. Please stop. You are only hurting yourself and your cause.

Igzy,

I am not trolling. I have no interest in that,

But seriously, you accuse me of being naive, ignorant, and in denial in a single post, lambast evangelical saying demeaning things and then when we push back you accuse him and I of trolling. Sorry Igzy, trolling is attacking people, that is what the group thinkers here do on a daily basis. That is what you and many others here engaged in.

UntoHim uses the precious blood of Christ to justify his berating and belittling of other christians as if all is well.. He is clean. That is how read it. I am challenging his idea but berating him as he does so frequently to others.

That thinking on UntoHims part, my friend, is a tragedy.... and it is not trolling to challenge it.

Drake

Drake

05-26-2017, 04:29 PM

Like you said, Drake. Every word. Above is an example of about 73 such words.

No exceptions Igzy.

Ohio

05-26-2017, 05:55 PM

-1

Right.

...... every post, every word, every action.

Yes, along with man-pleasing, endorsing unrighteousness, judging others.

Ohio

05-26-2017, 06:06 PM

Igzy,

I am not trolling. I have no interest in that,

But seriously, you accuse me of being naive, ignorant, and in denial in a single post, lambast evangelical saying demeaning things and then when we push back you accuse him and I of trolling. Sorry Igzy, trolling is attacking people, that is what the group thinkers here do on a daily basis. That is what you and many others here engaged in.

UntoHim uses the precious blood of Christ to justify his berating and belittling of other christians as if all is well.. He is clean. That is how read it. I am challenging his idea but berating him as he does so frequently to others.

That thinking on UntoHims part, my friend, is a tragedy.... and it is not trolling to challenge it.

Drake

Drake, we are not berating other Christians, but exposing bad teachings from bad shepherds, evil leaders, and those who usurp authority from God and damage His little ones. That is what you do not get. Benson Philips is held to a much higher standard, is he not?

And you are in denial like Igzy said, because you have witnessed many rotten things done by your leadership over the years, and yet you keep your head buried in the sand, as if pretending not to know the truth somehow justifies you.

Cal

05-26-2017, 07:28 PM

Igzy,

I am not trolling. I have no interest in that,

But seriously, you accuse me of being naive, ignorant, and in denial in a single post, lambast evangelical saying demeaning things and then when we push back you accuse him and I of trolling. Sorry Igzy, trolling is attacking people, that is what the group thinkers here do on a daily basis. That is what you and many others here engaged in.

UntoHim uses the precious blood of Christ to justify his berating and belittling of other christians as if all is well.. He is clean. That is how read it. I am challenging his idea but berating him as he does so frequently to others.

Trolling is twisting someone's words to say something other that what he or she clearly said.

And UntoHim plainly was not saying what you accused him of. What UntoHim said was that no membership in any church or lack thereof trumps the blood of Christ. There is absolutely no teaching or hint of teaching in the NT that suggests that a Christian need fear because he doesn't belong to a church founded by a person who claims that membership in his churches is required for sanctification.

That's what Lee taught and that's what Benson taught and it is a doctrine of demons. Period.

Drake, when I challenge you to be better I'm paying you a compliment, not putting you down.

You guys can do better. Life is too short to defend Benson's transparently indefensible BS. Find a better role model than that nut. Seriously.

Cal

05-26-2017, 07:37 PM

I think every genuine Christian would be concerned if a person wants to leave their church. Whether Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, Presbyterian, Mormon, JW, or the Recovery. I think Catholic and Orthodox believe if a person leaves their church they are in danger of going to hell because it is "falling away from the faith", and they associate the church with the faith. Leaving the church is leaving "the faith".

The general attitude of most people is one of "where are you?" and "how are you doing?" rather than "you must not leave us, if you leave us something bad will happen to you". I have never encountered that attitude personally.

I agree that most would be concerned if someone left their church and went into the world. But not if they just moved on to an another church. Not these days anyway.

Perhaps the general attitude of LCM believers is more tolerant today. But that just makes the point that the previous attitude, which has been witnessed to by example after example, was wrong and should be publicly denounced.

And I don't believe the LCM leadership has really repented from this attitude. Clearly Benson hasn't. And why a clearly crazy person like him is still allowed to be in leadership of that movement is beyond me.

It reminds me of the Catholic church. When I was a kid the attitude of Catholics was that you had to be a Catholic to "go to heaven." Most Catholics don't believe that any more, but the leadership has yet to fully denounce that attitude.

Why? I'm sure the reasons aren't noble. They probably fear a rash of lawsuits. Which I'm sure the LCM leaders do as well.

LCM leaders were plain wrong to pressure people to stay there, and if they don't realize that then they are plain stupid.

Not an attractive choice for them, but unfortunately the only viable ones.

A little brother

05-26-2017, 09:01 PM

Unlike them we do not consider "the church" and "the faith" to be the same thing, because "the faith" is not built upon this idea that we must hold to a certain apostolic tradition, so it is possible for a person to leave the church and still be saved. That is one point of difference.

I think some members here who have not been with the Recovery for "30 or 40 years" are not taking what current members (Drake, myself) are saying seriously. Which really proves they are arguing from perceptions and encounters they had in the past, rather than how things are today.

If I was to characterize the attitude of the church today I would say it leaned towards the side of indifference rather than the side of forcing me to stay against my will.

Evangelical, may be many members have not been with the Recovery for quite some years, but I am currently with the Recovery (though not a registered member of this forum). I know no other Christians who badmouth other denominations (or whatever you call it) like the way LCM does.

When you say the "attitude of the church today", I believe you are talking about the Recovery. If it is, let me remind you of the outlines in the training for elders and responsible ones in Fall 2015, just in case you weren't paying attention. No, it is not forcing people to stay for argument sake. But the attitude of the Recovery hasn't change a bit, if not getting worse.

(For other members here, sorry that I have to pollute this space with some of the LCM outlines)

C. For Paul, the present evil age was Judaism; for us today, the present evil age is deformed and degraded Christianity—1:4; Matt. 13:31-33, 44-46:
1. We need to realize how much we need to be delivered from the influence of religion in the present evil age.
2. The church is the living Body of Christ, but what surrounds us today is a religion—deformed and degraded Christianity—full of traditions, organizations, performances, and falsehoods; the Lord cannot accomplish His purpose in this situation.
3. We all need to be delivered from religion, from Christianity as the present evil age; we must come out of Babylon, and Babylon must come out of us—Ezra 1; Rev. 18:4; Zech. 3:1-4.
4. The history among us in the Lord’s recovery has been a history of coming out of Christianity—a history of coming out of and being outside of the present evil age—Gal. 1:4; Heb. 13:12-13.
5. Because the Lord’s recovery is different from today’s religion—deformed and degraded Christianity—it is impossible for there to be reconciliation between the recovery and Christianity—Matt. 13:31-33, 44-46; Rev. 18:4; 19:1-3, 7-9.
6. We need to maintain the gap between the Lord’s recovery and Christianity; the wider this gap is, the better, because it is a gap between us and the present evil age—Gal. 1:4.

Evangelical

05-27-2017, 01:44 AM

Thankyou for your input brother. I hope others here (Ohio!) note what you said about not forcing people to stay.

Ohio's over-the-top post here:

LSM's "oneness" is no different than Rome's use of force during its power days. It's the oneness enforced by the edge of a sword.

Personally I see nothing offensive in the outline posts. When I was in denominations I was not offended by those statements either, because there was an element of truth in them. They are stock standard beliefs in the Recovery and reading material.

The far majority of material in the LSM outlines, 99%, is not about badmouthing denominations at all. It is very much focused on Christ and revelation. Statements about denominations are used to show and contrast the difference between the religious Christianity and genuine Christianity. There is often a positive focus, for example, we would not say "what this denomination does is wrong" for the sake of it, we might say "isn't it a shame this denomination does not preach the gospel more or use the Bible more". In my mind it is balanced. There is also positive things said about denominations too. I have been involved in a number of discussions where what some denominations are doing is regarded positively, or one aspect of them is said to be "very good".

A little brother

05-27-2017, 02:46 AM

Thankyou for your input brother. I hope others here (Ohio!) note what you said about not forcing people to stay.

Personally I see nothing offensive in the outline posts. When I was in denominations I was not offended by those statements either, because there was an element of truth in them. They are stock standard beliefs in the Recovery and reading material.

The far majority of material in the LSM outlines, 99%, is not about badmouthing denominations at all.

You like to interpret things literally, don't you? It makes me wonder why you didn't notice the omission of "deformed" or "degraded" on Christianity in the last point of the outlines. Literally, "Christianity" covers both religious and genuine Christianity, right?

And thank you for admitting 1% of the LSM outlines can be about badmouthing. That could be a good start for you. I am quite sure you are familiar with 1Cor 5:6 "...Do you not know that a little leaven (1%?) leavens the whole lump? "

There is also positive things said about denominations too. I have been involved in a number of discussions where what some denominations are doing is regarded positively, or one aspect of them is said to be "very good".

Do you have some specific examples to share?

Ohio

05-27-2017, 06:12 AM

I think some members here who have not been with the Recovery for "30 or 40 years" are not taking what current members (Drake, myself) are saying seriously. Which really proves they are arguing from perceptions and encounters they had in the past, rather than how things are today.

I think some members here who live in isolated LC 's, knowing the LSM leadership only from long distance videos and highly edited books, really are arguing from grossly mistaken perceptions, rather than real life encounters with these men.

Ten years ago in the Great Lakes Area we watched them operate and saw their true colors. Their teachings on the oneness of the body were merely a farsical ruse to deceive the simple-minded. I watched them come into many LC's with their legal operatives, create wedges between the saints, instructing them to rebel against local eldership, work with dissidemts to file lawsuits, and in the end destroy the building work of God. Hundreds of godly men can attest to this.

One day LSM's wood, hay, and stubble works will be burnt.

Cal

05-27-2017, 09:06 AM

6. We need to maintain the gap between the Lord’s recovery and Christianity; the wider this gap is, the better, because it is a gap between us and the present evil age—Gal. 1:4.

Personally I see nothing offensive in the outline posts. When I was in denominations I was not offended by those statements either, because there was an element of truth in them. They are stock standard beliefs in the Recovery and reading material.

The far majority of material in the LSM outlines, 99%, is not about badmouthing denominations at all. It is very much focused on Christ and revelation. Statements about denominations are used to show and contrast the difference between the religious Christianity and genuine Christianity. There is often a positive focus, for example, we would not say "what this denomination does is wrong" for the sake of it, we might say "isn't it a shame this denomination does not preach the gospel more or use the Bible more". In my mind it is balanced. There is also positive things said about denominations too. I have been involved in a number of discussions where what some denominations are doing is regarded positively, or one aspect of them is said to be "very good".

The problem is that the LCM hammers the failings of Christianity and white-washes its own failings. This is exactly the opposite of what the Bible tells us to do.

If the LCM was half as interested in rooting out its own corruption as it was with pointing out "Christianity's" corruption there would be no need for this board. It's a classic example on a movement-wide scale of having a log in one's own eye and pointing out the splinter in everyone else's eyes.

I realized this can work both ways. Some of us are pretty demanding of the LCM. (But they should be able to take it. After all, they are "God's best," so they should have high standards. :D) But I can testify that I pray seriously to the Lord to guide what I write and to point out any hypocrisy in me. Having been in the LCM, I doubt they have the same care toward those they accuse with their "stock standard" condemnations.

What's most irksome is the way the LCM conveniently contrasts themselves with everyone else. They are the good guys, everyone else are the bad guys. Way, way too easy and nowhere near accurate. That outline that little brother posted could be paraphrased by this parable of Jesus's:

"The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other people--robbers, evildoers, adulterers--or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.....'

LCM Version: "The LCM stood by themselves and prayed: 'God we thank you that we are not like the rest of Christianity: Deformed, degraded, false--or even like this free group over there. We follow the 'one ministry' and the 'unique vision', we... blah, blah....'"

[And Jesus concluded]
"For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted."

Matt 18:11-12,14

Cal

05-27-2017, 09:22 AM

The whole problem with the LCM can be summarized as mistaking self-righteousness for holiness. It's the same disease that afflicted the Pharisees.

The Pharisees were absolutely strict in their interpretation of Scripture, and from one view you have to say they were "accurate." The problem is their spirit was all wrong. They missed the whole point.

The same thing can be said about the LCM. They pride themselves on their strict interpretation of the Scriptures and, like the Pharisees, from one point of view they can be said to be "accurate."

But their self-righteousness gives away that they are missing some important points.

Perhaps if they focused on that corruption they would have less time or even inclination to condemn everyone else.

Ohio

05-27-2017, 09:44 AM

(For other members here, sorry that I have to pollute this space with some of the LCM outlines)

C. For Paul, the present evil age was Judaism; for us today, the present evil age is deformed and degraded Christianity—1:4; Matt. 13:31-33, 44-46:
1. We need to realize how much we need to be delivered from the influence of religion in the present evil age.
2. The church is the living Body of Christ, but what surrounds us today is a religion—deformed and degraded Christianity—full of traditions, organizations, performances, and falsehoods; the Lord cannot accomplish His purpose in this situation.
3. We all need to be delivered from religion, from Christianity as the present evil age; we must come out of Babylon, and Babylon must come out of us—Ezra 1; Rev. 18:4; Zech. 3:1-4.
4. The history among us in the Lord’s recovery has been a history of coming out of Christianity—a history of coming out of and being outside of the present evil age—Gal. 1:4; Heb. 13:12-13.
5. Because the Lord’s recovery is different from today’s religion—deformed and degraded Christianity—it is impossible for there to be reconciliation between the recovery and Christianity—Matt. 13:31-33, 44-46; Rev. 18:4; 19:1-3, 7-9.
6. We need to maintain the gap between the Lord’s recovery and Christianity; the wider this gap is, the better, because it is a gap between us and the present evil age—Gal. 1:4.

This outline is absolutely pathetic! What a sloppy use of scriptures!

Have they not read the scripture, "with what judgment you judge you will be judged." (Matt 7.2)???

The writers of this outline have become blind and proud Laodiceans, having not a clue that the leadership in the Recovery itself is far worse than those they judge. They are the present evil age!!!

Where else could church leaders boondoggle their followers into investing into Daystar Motorhomes? (But, hey "investors," consider it an offering to God! Tennis "racket" anyone?)
Where else could a ministry regularly sue other publishers and justify their course of action by "appealing to Caesar?" (Sounds like the Pharisees, "we have no king but Caesar.)
Where else could a ministry be run by unsaved profligate family members, who have a history of molesting the interns. (And once again W. Lee assured us, "I'll handle this.")
Where else could a ministry have its own legal defense team to sue all member LC's who become too "independent?" (Yet advertise a system which alone maintains autonomous LC's, not like those evil denominations.)
Where else could leaders publicly slander and libel ex-co-workers like Ingalls, Mallon, Chu, Dong, So, etc. etc. yet it is they alone who are godly enough to bear the cross, and not sue in return. (Teflon LSM has escaped criminal and civil litigations for decades.)

Many of us left because LSM had become this "present evil age," and they have the nerve to condemn every other Christian in the body of Christ for far worse crimes than they have committed. (Romans 2.1-4)

Cal

05-27-2017, 02:33 PM

Many of us left because LSM had become this "present evil age," and they have the nerve to condemn every other Christian in the body of Christ for far worse crimes than they have committed. (Romans 2.1-4)

Careful, Ohio. My dear friend Drake will accuse you of "slander." :eek:

Evangelical

05-27-2017, 05:17 PM

You like to interpret things literally, don't you? It makes me wonder why you didn't notice the omission of "deformed" or "degraded" on Christianity in the last point of the outlines. Literally, "Christianity" covers both religious and genuine Christianity, right?

And thank you for admitting 1% of the LSM outlines can be about badmouthing. That could be a good start for you. I am quite sure you are familiar with 1Cor 5:6 "...Do you not know that a little leaven (1%?) leavens the whole lump? "

Do you have some specific examples to share?

To me they are statements of fact, so the criticism is warranted. Christianity indeed is full of full of traditions, organizations, performances, and falsehoods. We only need to look at the number of denominations that support or accept gay marriage and female pastors/priests.

There are plenty of times when Jesus badmouthed the religionists. In fact a number of the parables are thinly veiled slights and mockeries of them, to the amusement of his lowly audience.

I don't think we can get through genuine Christianity without exposing and saying something about the false. But in Witness Lee's ministry this is always in view of something more positive. "these things are dark, but here is light". Rather than criticizing for the sake of criticizing.

I think the topic outline is not about criticizing or badmouthing but about our deliverance, note the second point in the outline - "We need to realize how much we need to be delivered from the influence of religion in the present evil age."

If you don't think there's a need to be delivered from the "present evil age" or that this age is evil, then you may have been deceived by the anti-Christ spirit. I would encourage you to get back into fellowship with your brothers and sisters in the Recovery who are pursuing Christ.

Ohio

05-27-2017, 06:01 PM

Careful, Ohio. My dear friend Drake will accuse you of "slander." :eek:

Huh? I got some of this news from the Orange County Register.

Ohio

05-27-2017, 07:35 PM

To me they are statements of fact, so the criticism is warranted. Christianity indeed is full of full of traditions, organizations, performances, and falsehoods. We only need to look at the number of denominations that support or accept gay marriage and female pastors/priests.
Have you any idea how many "traditions, organizations, performances, and falsehoods" exist in the LC's? I have watched these multiply exponentially over the last 40 years. Give them as much time as some other denomination, and they will be just as bad or worse.

I don't think we can get through genuine Christianity without exposing and saying something about the false. But in Witness Lee's ministry this is always in view of something more positive. "these things are dark, but here is light". Rather than criticizing for the sake of criticizing.
That's the goal of this forum, we are not criticizing for the sake of criticizing, but we want to help both the leaders and the members in TLR.

I think the topic outline is not about criticizing or badmouthing but about our deliverance, note the second point in the outline - "We need to realize how much we need to be delivered from the influence of religion in the present evil age."
Witness Lee made "religion" the boogeyman, but religion is totally benign. James defines religion in 1.27: "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained." How is that evil? James' definition exactly matches the teachings of the Gospels.

If you don't think there's a need to be delivered from the "present evil age" or that this age is evil, then you may have been deceived by the anti-Christ spirit. I would encourage you to get back into fellowship with your brothers and sisters in the Recovery who are pursuing Christ.
Of course we need to be delivered from this present evil age. Why do you think I left TLR? It had become part of this evil age! Have you not read any of the posts on this forum? Do you think we made these stories up?

Are they really pursuing Christ? Or are they pursuing Lee's teachings and practices?

Cal

05-27-2017, 08:14 PM

To me they are statements of fact, so the criticism is warranted. Ct.Here are more statements of fact:

The LCM has a history of corruption, duplicity, abuse, finagling, cover-ups, hiding history, bullying, plotting, lying, double-talk, financial hanky-panky, even lawbreaking and various other nauseating instances of hypocrisy that would cause the paint to peel on Watchman Nee's coffin.

So in the interest of "balance" and "fairness," where is the LCM training outline on that fact, Mr. Fair and Balanced?

Good Lord, you must think we are idiots. :loopy:

Evangelical

05-27-2017, 09:18 PM

Have you any idea how many "traditions, organizations, performances, and falsehoods" exist in the LC's? I have watched these multiply exponentially over the last 40 years. Give them as much time as some other denomination, and they will be just as bad or worse.

That's the goal of this forum, we are not criticizing for the sake of criticizing, but we want to help both the leaders and the members in TLR.

Witness Lee made "religion" the boogeyman, but religion is totally benign. James defines religion in 1.27: "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained." How is that evil? James' definition exactly matches the teachings of the Gospels.

Of course we need to be delivered from this present evil age. Why do you think I left TLR? It had become part of this evil age! Have you not read any of the posts on this forum? Do you think we made these stories up?

Are they really pursuing Christ? Or are they pursuing Lee's teachings and practices?

I think you know that the term "religious" has nothing to do with that verse in James. Different contexts. Religion as opposed to personal relationship.

I'm glad you agree about deliverance from this present evil age. The next question is where is it to be found. The answer to that is, in the denominations. I don't think joining the denominations will help anyone escape from the evil age. If the TRL is part of it also, then where should we go? A good community church or house church?

Ohio

05-27-2017, 09:32 PM

I think you know that the term "religious" has nothing to do with that verse in James. Different contexts. Religion as opposed to personal relationship.

I'm glad you agree about deliverance from this present evil age. The next question is where is it to be found. The answer to that is, in the denominations. I don't think joining the denominations will help anyone escape from the evil age. If the TRL is part of it also, then where should we go? A good community church or house church?
If the Bible's definition of religion is not good enough for me, then why should I accept Lee's definition of religion.

Read Revelations.

The Lord calls overcomers in all seven churches.

The rest of Revelations also speaks of escaping the evil age.

Evangelical

05-27-2017, 09:34 PM

If the Bible's definition of religion is not good enough for me, then why should I accept Lee's definition of religion.

Read Revelations.

The Lord calls overcomers in all seven churches.

The rest of Revelations also speaks of escaping the evil age.

That's not Lee's definition.

This concept of religion versus personal relationship is well known in Christianity. Even Catholics have adopted this idea of personal relationship versus religion.

For example see here:

https://www.gotquestions.org/Christianity-religion-relationship.html

practically speaking, Christianity has a key difference that separates it from other belief systems that are considered religions. That difference is relationship.

Christianity is not a religion; it is a relationship that God

Christianity is not about signing up for a religion.

It is just generally accepted that Christianity is about a relationship with God not a religion. It has nothing to do with the verse in James, that's taken out of context. In fact, it's a good one for Catholics to use as it indicates that pure religion is to adopt a works-based theology. We can add to it that "faith without works is dead". And there we can construct what is essentially the Catholic view.

If you want further proof that your interpretation is out of context, consider Ellicotts bible commentary on this verse:

Pure religion . . .—It will be observed that by religion here is meant religious service. No one word can express this obvious interpretation of the original, taken as it must be in completion of the verse before; and certainly “religion” in its ordinary sense will not convey the right idea.

In other words, the verse is about religious service, and not a black and white definition of religion. You seem to have misinterpreted the word "religion" to mean religion in general, and so you do not have "the right idea".

So the verse should be interpreted as:

"pure religious service is....."

not as you have "religion is..."

A little brother

05-27-2017, 10:14 PM

It is just generally accepted that Christianity is about a relationship with God not a religion.

Exactly! Then why would the Recovery want to distance itself with Christianity as in "6. We need to maintain the gap between the Lord’s recovery and Christianity; the wider this gap is, the better, because it is a gap between us and the present evil age"?

Don't you see the hypocrisy there?
"Dear brothers in Christianity, we do love you. We are slapping at your face just to wake you up and let you know you are living in the present evil age. Oh, you need some help? Sorry, I am busy widening the gap between you and us."

Never forget why Jesus became a man and went among sinners in the first place.

Dear Evangelical, I think you can do better than using stock answers and tweaking terminology. Think hard, pray hard. Open your heart, turn to your spirit. Aim not at winning an argument. Aim at knowing our Lord and winning life. Care less about whether the teachings offend you, care about whether they offend God.

P.S. Be careful when you say the outlines are just "stock standard beliefs". The leading brothers say they are not just cut and paste from old standard messages. They are supposed to shed new light in every training. You might hurt their feelings.

Evangelical

05-27-2017, 10:28 PM

Exactly! Then why would the Recovery want to distance itself with Christianity as in "6. We need to maintain the gap between the Lord’s recovery and Christianity; the wider this gap is, the better, because it is a gap between us and the present evil age"?

Don't you see the hypocrisy there?
"Dear brothers in Christianity, we do love you. We are slapping at your face just to wake you up and let you know you are living in the present evil age. Oh, you need some help? Sorry, I am busy widening the gap between you and us."

Never forget why Jesus became a man and went among sinners in the first place.

Dear Evengelical, I think you can do better than using stock answers and tweaking terminology. Think hard, pray hard. Open your heart, turn to your spirit. Aim not at winning an argument. Aim at knowing our Lord and winning life. Care less about whether the teachings offend you, care about whether they offend God.

P.S. Be careful when you say the outlines are just "stock standard beliefs". The leading brothers say they are not just cut and paste from old standard messages. They are supposed to shed new light in every training. You might hurt their feelings.

I don't really get your point regarding hypocrisy.

For example, in preaching the gospel, we wish to save sinners in the world, and we also wish to distance ourself from the world as much as possible. It is not hypocrisy to want to distance ourself from the world the sinners live in, while wishing to save them. I don't see that as hypocrisy. That's how it's meant to be.

So, in regards to the Church, we wish to distance ourselves from the evil system utilized by Satan, yet we wish to save the people in the denominations.

I think it is fairly clear that when we speak of the evil we are not referring to the genuine believers but the evil system, as this quote shows:

"In every denomination, including the Roman Catholic Church, there are real, saved Christians. They are God's people belonging to the Lord. But the organization of the denominations in which they are is not of God. The denominational organizations have been utilized by Satan to set up his satanic system to destroy God's economy of the proper church life."

Witness Lee, "Message Thirty-Four" in The Life-Study of Genesis
(Anaheim: Living Stream Ministry, 1987), Vol. 1, p. 464

A little brother

05-27-2017, 10:49 PM

For example, in preaching the gospel, we wish to save sinners in the world, and we also wish to distance ourself from the world as much as possible. It is not hypocrisy to want to distance ourself from the world the sinners live in, while wishing to save them. I don't see that as hypocrisy. That's how it's meant to be.

May be you are too deep into the Recovery Version Bible to notice the obvious difference between in and conforming to this world.

John 17:15 (RcV) I do not ask that You would take them out of the world, but that You would keep them out of the hands of the evil one.

Romans 12:2 (RcV) And do not be fashioned according to this age, but be transformed by the renewing of the mind that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and well pleasing and perfect.

Romans 12:2 (NIV) Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

Evangelical

05-27-2017, 11:56 PM

May be you are too deep into the Recovery Version Bible to notice the obvious difference between in and conforming to this world.

John 17:15 (RcV) I do not ask that You would take them out of the world, but that You would keep them out of the hands of the evil one.

Romans 12:2 (RcV) And do not be fashioned according to this age, but be transformed by the renewing of the mind that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and well pleasing and perfect.

Romans 12:2 (NIV) Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

I'm not sure what your point is. Those reasons are precisely the reasons why we don't participate in the religious activities of the denominations.

For example, on the one hand, we wish to save Catholics, and we may meet Catholics at any occasion, which is being "in the world", but on the other hand, that doesn't mean we should join their mass, that would be "conforming to the world". We would not wish to close the gap between our Lord's Table meeting and the Catholic mass, for example, we would want to widen that gap. We would also want to widen the gap between their practice of praying to idols.

Similarly, to save sinners, we do not participate in their sin, so as to save them, yet we happily meet with them otherwise.

In the whole history of the Reformation, Luther et al, sought to "widen the gap" with the Catholic church. So most protestant denominations today are already "gap wideners". In fact it could be said that the Lutheran and Anglican churches are closer to the Catholic than say a baptist church, because they retain the liturgical nature and structure of the Catholics. And over history, the "gap widening" has continued as more and more denominations developed, with the Presbyterians, the Baptists, the brethren, the community and house churches etc.

This is my issue with the ecumenical movement - I think it is sort of hypocritical for individuals in free groups or baptist churches who wish to "close the gap" with Catholics, when the very church they are in exists to keep that gap as wide as possible. If we want to "close the gap" with Catholics then why not just join them.

Ohio

05-28-2017, 08:03 AM

That's not Lee's definition.

This concept of religion versus personal relationship is well known in Christianity. Even Catholics have adopted this idea of personal relationship versus religion.
You are changing the subject ... again ... to save yourself.

W. Lee made his ministry out of the attack on RELIGION. Read his book Christ v. Religion. He clearly states that religion has been the enemy of God for ... ever. He claims that religion killed the Lord Jesus. But the Bible never says that. The Bible identifies characteristics of the heart such as unbelief, hypocrisy, stubbornness, hardness of heart, un-repentance, man-pleasing, loving the glory of men, idolatry, etc. as the ingredients that oppose God and His people. The Bible has long lists of these evils in verses like Mark 7.20-23 or Galatians 5.19-21.

Religion is never mentioned in one of these lists. That is Lee's construct. He widened the Biblical definitions of evil to include all those outside of his little club. He called them all religion, claiming that all religion was against God and Christ. But the Bible never claims this. In fact James defines religion in 1.27: "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained."

In other words, James defines religion as keeping one's self from evil and devoting one's life to good works. I could list a thousand verses in the Bible which support James' definition of religion as positive. Religion is not our faith, but is the Christian's proper living in response to a healthy faith. Religion is not our personal relationship with the Lord, but is the fruit of our personal relationship with the Lord. Religion describes the daily living of a child of God walking in newness of life. There is nothing about religion which is evil of itself, as the Lord told the Pharisees, the brood of vipers, "The good man out of the good treasure brings forth good things, and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth evil things." (Mt 12.35)

It is Lee's pitifully poor exposition of scripture which makes religion evil, not the Bible. Lee used this self-serving construct to isolate his movement from the Body of Christ. Perhaps it's now time for you to reconsider your views about religion in general and about the greater body of Christ.

Ohio

05-28-2017, 10:12 AM

It is just generally accepted that Christianity is about a relationship with God not a religion. It has nothing to do with the verse in James, that's taken out of context. In fact, it's a good one for Catholics to use as it indicates that pure religion is to adopt a works-based theology. We can add to it that "faith without works is dead". And there we can construct what is essentially the Catholic view.

If you want further proof that your interpretation is out of context, consider Ellicotts bible commentary on this verse:

Pure religion . . .—It will be observed that by religion here is meant religious service. No one word can express this obvious interpretation of the original, taken as it must be in completion of the verse before; and certainly “religion” in its ordinary sense will not convey the right idea.

In other words, the verse is about religious service, and not a black and white definition of religion. You seem to have misinterpreted the word "religion" to mean religion in general, and so you do not have "the right idea".

So the verse should be interpreted as: "pure religious service is....." not as you have "religion is..."

Funny how you decided not to quote Lee's generally accepted definition of "religion" for scrutiny, but dig up Charles Ellicott's, who btw was a Bishop in the Anglican Church, which you have blasted endlessly since you have begun posting here. Setting the obvious irony aside, there are a few issues here ...

(1) How is my definition of "religion" from James 1.27 taken out of context?

(2) How does "religion" differ from "religious service?"
A. If religious service is interpreted as a meeting or church service,
then I would disagree, citing the context of James words.

B. If religious service is interpreted as our service to God in our daily life,
then I see no difference between James and Ellicott.

(3) How does Ellicot's comments about this verse alter our discussion? He cites the prior verse concerning "not bridling his tongue and deceiving his own heart." Couldn't we say that this verse (1.26) characterizes James entire epistle concerning the hypocrisies of a double-souled man?

In his footnote for this verse, Lee says "religious is from the Greek word threskos meaning ceremonial service and worship to God (implying the fear of God.)" We could thus rightly translate this verse to be, "If anyone considers himself a worshiper of God." I think that captures the sense of the original. So James is here addressing the attitudes of religious people who worship God, especially those religious folks whose version of religion conflicts with God's love and holy nature.

James provides spiritual feedback for those who have gone off course. He provides a sober warning to every child of God. His "faith tests" are sorely needed in TLR. Sadly the message of the epistle of James has been grossly dismissed by the leadership at LSM, who need it most.

A little brother

05-28-2017, 10:13 AM

In the whole history of the Reformation, Luther et al, sought to "widen the gap" with the Catholic church. So most protestant denominations today are already "gap wideners". In fact it could be said that the Lutheran and Anglican churches are closer to the Catholic than say a baptist church, because they retain the liturgical nature and structure of the Catholics. And over history, the "gap widening" has continued as more and more denominations developed, with the Presbyterians, the Baptists, the brethren, the community and house churches etc.

Interesting you bring this up. You are actually equating "gap widening" with divisions in the body of Christ. If this is what you see, you should find that the LC is no difference from all the other denominations you mentioned. It is just part of the downward spiral of divisions. And it is not the last as proven from the divisions within the LC in the last few decades.

Cal

05-28-2017, 10:18 AM

So, in regards to the Church, we wish to distance ourselves from the evil system utilized by Satan, yet we wish to save the people in the denominations.

As I've said before, it's hypocritical for you to distance yourself from the "evil system" of other groups while ignoring and excusing the evil system that exists within your own.

Like I said, if you guys were half as interested in rooting out the evil in your own group as you were in pointing out the evil elsewhere this board would be unnecessary.

Evangelical

05-28-2017, 04:09 PM

Interesting you bring this up. You are actually equating "gap widening" with divisions in the body of Christ. If this is what you see, you should find that the LC is no difference from all the other denominations you mentioned. It is just part of the downward spiral of divisions. And it is not the last as proven from the divisions within the LC in the last few decades.

There are right divisions and wrong divisions. A right division would be separating from the evil system. Do you think it is wrong to widen the gap between Catholicism, for example? I think it was Watchman Nee who wrote about being absolute for or against denominations, not sitting on the fence about the issue. We can only really aim to close the gap or widen the gap. If you are in the Recovery and want to close the gap with Catholicism then I think you're sitting on the fence about this and not being absolute. You have one foot in widening the gap yet on the other hand have one foot in closing the gap. So you're on the fence.

Evangelical

05-28-2017, 04:13 PM

You are changing the subject ... again ... to save yourself.

W. Lee made his ministry out of the attack on RELIGION. Read his book Christ v. Religion. He clearly states that religion has been the enemy of God for ... ever. He claims that religion killed the Lord Jesus. But the Bible never says that. The Bible identifies characteristics of the heart such as unbelief, hypocrisy, stubbornness, hardness of heart, un-repentance, man-pleasing, loving the glory of men, idolatry, etc. as the ingredients that oppose God and His people. The Bible has long lists of these evils in verses like Mark 7.20-23 or Galatians 5.19-21.

Religion is never mentioned in one of these lists. That is Lee's construct. He widened the Biblical definitions of evil to include all those outside of his little club. He called them all religion, claiming that all religion was against God and Christ. But the Bible never claims this. In fact James defines religion in 1.27: "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained."

In other words, James defines religion as keeping one's self from evil and devoting one's life to good works. I could list a thousand verses in the Bible which support James' definition of religion as positive. Religion is not our faith, but is the Christian's proper living in response to a healthy faith. Religion is not our personal relationship with the Lord, but is the fruit of our personal relationship with the Lord. Religion describes the daily living of a child of God walking in newness of life. There is nothing about religion which is evil of itself, as the Lord told the Pharisees, the brood of vipers, "The good man out of the good treasure brings forth good things, and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth evil things." (Mt 12.35)

It is Lee's pitifully poor exposition of scripture which makes religion evil, not the Bible. Lee used this self-serving construct to isolate his movement from the Body of Christ. Perhaps it's now time for you to reconsider your views about religion in general and about the greater body of Christ.

As I said before, this idea of Christ versus religion, that Lee wrote about, is a common one in Christianity. See the gotquestions article I posted.
I don't think the authors of that apologetic ministry would agree with your views on religion not being a problem:
Most religion, theistic or otherwise, is man-centered. Any relationship with God is based on man’s works.

If you disagree with this then clearly you don't believe that Christianity is a personal relationship with God and is not a religion. We cannot get to heaven by belonging or following to a religion, even the very best Christianity can't save us.

Evangelical

05-28-2017, 04:30 PM

Funny how you decided not to quote Lee's generally accepted definition of "religion" for scrutiny, but dig up Charles Ellicott's, who btw was a Bishop in the Anglican Church, which you have blasted endlessly since you have begun posting here. Setting the obvious irony aside, there are a few issues here ...

That's because you/others don't like me quoting Lee/Nee alone, so I go to outside, theological sources which prove you wrong. Just like on other discussions I consulted the works of NT Greek experts and theologians and proved people wrong about the role of women in the church.

(1) How is my definition of "religion" from James 1.27 taken out of context?

(2) How does "religion" differ from "religious service?"
A. If religious service is interpreted as a meeting or church service,
then I would disagree, citing the context of James words.

B. If religious service is interpreted as our service to God in our daily life,
then I see no difference between James and Ellicott.

It's out of context because you're talking about "Lee's definition of religion", and then quoting James to counter Lee's definition (which is really not his alone - see gotquestions article).

But James is not defining religion, he is talking about proper religious service. Let me remind you, that unless you are a Catholic, the gospel and Christian story is based upon the 4 gospels and Paul's writings, not James. The Catholic gospel revolves around the book of James, concerning good works for getting us to heaven, and practical service.

(3) How does Ellicot's comments about this verse alter our discussion? He cites the prior verse concerning "not bridling his tongue and deceiving his own heart." Couldn't we say that this verse (1.26) characterizes James entire epistle concerning the hypocrisies of a double-souled man?

In his footnote for this verse, Lee says "religious is from the Greek word threskos meaning ceremonial service and worship to God (implying the fear of God.)" We could thus rightly translate this verse to be, "If anyone considers himself a worshiper of God." I think that captures the sense of the original. So James is here addressing the attitudes of religious people who worship God, especially those religious folks whose version of religion conflicts with God's love and holy nature.

The verse in James is about practical service. It does not negate all that Lee and the gotquestions article says about Christ versus religion, because they are different matters.

James provides spiritual feedback for those who have gone off course. He provides a sober warning to every child of God. His "faith tests" are sorely needed in TLR. Sadly the message of the epistle of James has been grossly dismissed by the leadership at LSM, who need it most.

Witness Lee wrote that the religious service James talks about is very good and helpful for practical Christian perfection. But Paul wrote about God's New Testament economy concerning Christ living in us. There's no need for you to try and portray James as being opposed to "Christ versus religion" - it's not. Christ is versus religion and at the same time, the lessons in James for practical Christian perfection are very important.

Evangelical

05-28-2017, 05:02 PM

Just to make clear that Lee and Christianity in general say more or less the same thing:

Lee's book overview 'The calling of every believer is to come to the living person of Christ, leaving behind all religious forms and dead doctrines.'

Gotquestions says:
https://www.gotquestions.org/Christianity-religion-relationship.html

Religion is “the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.” In that respect, Christianity can be classified as a religion. However, practically speaking, Christianity has a key difference that separates it from other belief systems that are considered religions. That difference is relationship.

In that regard, Christianity is not a religion; it is a relationship that God has established with His children.

Recommended Resource: Checklist Jesus: A Journey from Religion to Relationship by Jeremy Walker

In Christian bookstores, I'm sure we will find a number of books emphasizing relationship over religion.

A little brother

05-28-2017, 05:23 PM

There are right divisions and wrong divisions. A right division would be separating from the evil system. Do you think it is wrong to widen the gap between Catholicism, for example?

No, there is no right divisions because there is only one body of Christ.

1 Cor 12:12 For even as the body is one and has many members, yet all the members of the body, being many, are one body, so also is the Christ.

What you said was like the eye saying it have no need of the hand.

1 Cor 12:20 But now the members are many, but the body one.
1 Cor 12:21 And the eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of you; nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.
1 Cor 12:22 But much rather the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary.

I think it was Watchman Nee who wrote about being absolute for or against denominations, not sitting on the fence about the issue. We can only really aim to close the gap or widen the gap. If you are in the Recovery and want to close the gap with Catholicism then I think you're sitting on the fence about this and not being absolute. You have one foot in widening the gap yet on the other hand have one foot in closing the gap. So you're on the fence.

Lee was not always right and Nee was not always right. Seems in your mindset Catholicism is the absolute evil given you resolute to compare with it all the time. Frankly, I don't know which is more evil in the eyes of God, external idolatry or secret idolatry.

Let me share with you some verses from Ezekiel 8. (BTW, don't waste time searching for explanation from RcV footnotes. There is not a single footnote from Lee. Not difficult to understand why.)

6 And He said to me, Son of man, do you see what they are doing, the great abominations that the house of Israel is committing here, that I should be far from My sanctuary? But you will yet see greater abominations.
7 Then He brought me to the entrance of the court; and I looked, and there was a hole in the wall.
8 And He said to me, Son of man, dig now through the wall. So I dug through the wall, and there was now an entrance.
9 And He said to me, Go and see the wicked abominations that they are committing here.
10 Thus I entered and looked, and there were every form of creeping thing and detestable beast and all the idols of the house of Israel, engraved on the wall all around.
11 And standing before them were seventy men of the elders of the house of Israel, with Jaazaniah the son of Shaphan standing among them, each with his censer in his hand and the smell of the incense cloud went up.
12 And He said to me, Do you see, son of man, what the elders of the house of Israel do in the dark, each in the room of his engraved images? For they say, Jehovah does not see us; Jehovah has forsaken the land.

Brother, dig deep into the wall of the Recovery.

Ohio

05-28-2017, 05:53 PM

There are right divisions and wrong divisions. A right division would be separating from the evil system. Do you think it is wrong to widen the gap between Catholicism, for example? I think it was Watchman Nee who wrote about being absolute for or against denominations, not sitting on the fence about the issue. We can only really aim to close the gap or widen the gap. If you are in the Recovery and want to close the gap with Catholicism then I think you're sitting on the fence about this and not being absolute. You have one foot in widening the gap yet on the other hand have one foot in closing the gap. So you're on the fence.

Such an extremist point of view, like many things both W. Nee and Evangelical have written. Wasn't Nee the one that got restored to the ministry without publicly repenting, and then immediately decided that all "absolute" members must hand over everything they owned to the ministry. Nee here was even more extreme than Karl Marx who felt that having all things common was more than adequate.

Some ex-members on this forum feel the same about the LC's as Nee did about denominations -- either build them up or tear them all down! Sounds great until one thinks about some of God's children who happen to live and serve there. (It's always easier to tear down some one else's house, isn't it?)

LSM operatives happened to take that same attitude about the GLA LC's about ten years ago, deciding on their own that these LC's were all filled with leprosy, and conveniently discovered some verses in Leviticus which supposedly justified tearing them down and replastering these GLA LC's. It was really just religious zeal run amok. Thank God we are a nation of laws.

Sometimes "sitting on the fence" is just another way of saying that one happens to love those on both sides. Unfortunately love is too often missing from the LSM vocabulary and leadership.

Ohio

05-28-2017, 06:00 PM

As I said before, this idea of Christ versus religion, that Lee wrote about, is a common one in Christianity. See the gotquestions article I posted.
I don't think the authors of that apologetic ministry would agree with your views on religion not being a problem:
Most religion, theistic or otherwise, is man-centered. Any relationship with God is based on man’s works.

If you disagree with this then clearly you don't believe that Christianity is a personal relationship with God and is not a religion. We cannot get to heaven by belonging or following to a religion, even the very best Christianity can't save us.
Clearly a nonsensical conclusion.

How do they say it? A fallacy of extremes?

Has anyone else told you how difficult it is to have a conversation with you?

Evangelical

05-28-2017, 06:47 PM

Clearly a nonsensical conclusion.

How do they say it? A fallacy of extremes?

Has anyone else told you how difficult it is to have a conversation with you?

It might be nice to discuss about how we can be half for a relationship with Christ and half for religion, but that mixture is not good in my view.

Evangelical

05-28-2017, 06:49 PM

No, there is no right divisions because there is only one body of Christ.

1 Cor 12:12 For even as the body is one and has many members, yet all the members of the body, being many, are one body, so also is the Christ.

What you said was like the eye saying it have no need of the hand.

1 Cor 12:20 But now the members are many, but the body one.
1 Cor 12:21 And the eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of you; nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.
1 Cor 12:22 But much rather the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary.

No right divisions? How would you characterize the Reformation then? Was Luther wrong to divide from Catholicism?

We cannot discuss this further unless you believe the Reformation was a "right division". If you believe it was a wrong division then we would be arguing for rejoining the Catholics wouldn't we?

A little brother

05-28-2017, 07:20 PM

No right divisions? How would you characterize the Reformation then? Was Luther wrong to divide from Catholicism?

We cannot discuss this further unless you believe the Reformation was a "right division". If you believe it was a wrong division then we would be arguing for rejoining the Catholics wouldn't we?

Are you so sure that Luther was right? Surely he didn't stand on the ground of locality of the church.

What is your authoritative source of truth? Lee, Nee, Reformation or the Bible? Where did the Bible say division of the body of Christ is right?

Evangelical

05-28-2017, 11:15 PM

Are you so sure that Luther was right? Surely he didn't stand on the ground of locality of the church.

What is your authoritative source of truth? Lee, Nee, Reformation or the Bible? Where did the Bible say division of the body of Christ is right?

I believe Luther was a genuine move of God in the Lord's Recovery. Yes, the Lutheran churches becoming state churches was disappointing in regards to the locality.

bible verses supporting division can be found here:

Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

This describes a group of God's people coming out of Babylon.

This verse describes separation from evil brethren:

1 Corinthians 5:9-13

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”

Ohio

05-29-2017, 05:29 AM

It might be nice to discuss about how we can be half for a relationship with Christ and half for religion, but that mixture is not good in my view.

Did you read my posts or the Bible?

According to you, the Lord's instruction to love God and love your neighbor is a horrible "mixture not good in your view."

Ohio

05-29-2017, 05:47 AM

I believe Luther was a genuine move of God in the Lord's Recovery. Yes, the Lutheran churches becoming state churches was disappointing in regards to the locality.

bible verses supporting division can be found here:

Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

This describes a group of God's people coming out of Babylon.

This verse describes separation from evil brethren:

1 Corinthians 5:9-13

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”
Evangelical your "stand" conflicts with scripture.

The Catholic church represented the one body of Christ. In Revelations the Catholic oneness church was typified by Thyatira, the fourth local church, one of the seven golden lampstands.

Jesus Himself called for overcomers in that church, and promised to reward them. He never instructed them to start a new division. How can you declare that a "right division."

Is it then not entirely hypocritical to condemn and quarantine Titus Chu for attempting to reform the local churches in his region, while extolling Martin Luther as the Minister of the Age for doing the same? Titus Chu was only "accused" of violating Recovery traditions established by Witness Lee, and not the scripture itself. At the Whistler Kangaroo Court, witnesses on behalf of LSM never presented any evidence that he should be "purged" according to your verses.

Evangelical

05-29-2017, 06:28 AM

Evangelical your "stand" conflicts with scripture.

The Catholic church represented the one body of Christ. In Revelations the Catholic oneness church was typified by Thyatira, the fourth local church, one of the seven golden lampstands.

Jesus Himself called for overcomers in that church, and promised to reward them. He never instructed them to start a new division. How can you declare that a "right division."

Is it then not entirely hypocritical to condemn and quarantine Titus Chu for attempting to reform the local churches in his region, while extolling Martin Luther as the Minister of the Age for doing the same? Titus Chu was only "accused" of violating Recovery traditions established by Witness Lee, and not the scripture itself. At the Whistler Kangaroo Court, witnesses on behalf of LSM never presented any evidence that he should be "purged" according to your verses.

The Catholic church, as a religion, has never represented the one body of Christ. It has always been a worldly mixture since Constantine. And I don't subscribe to any idea that the churches mentioned in the bible were all Catholic and headed up by Pope Peter. In previous discussions I recall you writing something about other Christians existing at the same time (anabaptists?) who were the genuine local church at the time and were persecuted by the Catholics. So I doubt you believe that either, so perhaps are just saying that for the purpose of making a point.

Anyhow, not seeming to agree with the Reformation puts you at odds with the majority of protestant evangelicals.

It's one thing to point out the wrong things with leadership, it's quite another to doubt the validity of the Reformation. Not that I have anything against Catholic people, we were even meeting together with some at one stage, they didn't really know how to read the bible as we would. The problem is the mixture, and they don't really believe in a personal relationship with God - not in the way a born again Christian would.

Ohio

05-29-2017, 07:31 AM

The Catholic church, as a religion, has never represented the one body of Christ. It has always been a worldly mixture since Constantine. And I don't subscribe to any idea that the churches mentioned in the bible were all Catholic and headed up by Pope Peter. Apparently you have no idea how similar you have become to the Catholic Church. They have always stood for the oneness of the body of Christ, just like LSM always claims to stand for the one body. Catholic means oneness. For the LSM publishing house to direct its member churches, is little different than the Vatican to direct its parishes. They both mandate that their member churches be the same in communion liturgy, reading material purchased from their approved bookstore, appearance, teachings, worship music, ministers/priests trained at their own seminaries, etc.

You may not like Peter as your first pope, but you have little problem with Paul as your first MOTA. Both the Catholics and the Recovery love to trace their lineage of leaders back to the 1st century.

Anyhow, not seeming to agree with the Reformation puts you at odds with the majority of protestant evangelicals.
This sounds kind of funny coming from you. Have you not read these published statements from LSM?
4. The history among us in the Lord’s recovery has been a history of coming out of Christianity—a history of coming out of and being outside of the present evil age
5. Because the Lord’s recovery is different from today’s religion—deformed and degraded Christianity—it is impossible for there to be reconciliation between the recovery and Christianity
6. We need to maintain the gap between the Lord’s recovery and Christianity; the wider this gap is, the better, because it is a gap between us and the present evil age
Evangelical, it's your leaders that wants lots of distance between them and the majority of protestant evangelicals, I guess, including yourself.

Cal

05-29-2017, 08:29 AM

Evangelical,

No offense, but the more you go on and on about things on this board the more I realize something went very, very wrong with the LCM. I will simply say that your attitude does not reflect the hearts of the men and women who started this movement in this country. I knew many of them and lived with some of them. Those people only cared for Christ. They really did. They did not express the spirit you do.

But over time, Lee took everything over and through his henchman molded the movement into his image instead of the Lord's. Many of those good brothers and sisters left, and some adapted. But sadly with many that simple pure love for the Lord and his Church was replaced by attitudes such as yours, minds and hearts so thick with knowledge and so puffed up by it that they don't even realize that their love for the Lord has been replaced by a love for their religion.

I think it's very, very sad. I don't think we will every get through to you. Only God can. I just pray he does.

But I would ask to you to try to focus a little less on doctrine and a little more on your love for the Lord and his people. You talk about oneness, but you don't seem like the type of person who could really be one with anyone, except someone who agrees with you on everything.

Sorry, just the testimony is all wrong if you ask me. I don't get it. I don't understand your values or what you are trying to accomplish with your life. Seems so empty, so clinical, so lacking in love and life. So pointless.

Evangelical

05-29-2017, 08:32 AM

Apparently you have no idea how similar you have become to the Catholic Church. They have always stood for the oneness of the body of Christ, just like LSM always claims to stand for the one body. Catholic means oneness. For the LSM publishing house to direct its member churches, is little different than the Vatican to direct its parishes. They both mandate that their member churches be the same in communion liturgy, reading material purchased from their approved bookstore, appearance, teachings, worship music, ministers/priests trained at their own seminaries, etc.

I think the bible teaches order in the church, not chaos, and a certain level of organization. But the church is not "an organization" like the Catholic church. There are things that the Catholic church gets right and it's very good that it stands for the oneness of the body. But then there's the issue of worldly mixture and human manufactured oneness.

You may not like Peter as your first pope, but you have little problem with Paul as your first MOTA. Both the Catholics and the Recovery love to trace their lineage of leaders back to the 1st century.

Every Christian can trace their lineage back to the apostles/disciples of the Bible. For Gentiles, that person would be mostly the apostle Paul who commenced the ministry to the Gentiles.

This sounds kind of funny coming from you. Have you not read these published statements from LSM?

Evangelical, it's your leaders that wants lots of distance between them and the majority of protestant evangelicals, I guess, including yourself.

Yes you've declared it to be hypocrisy but I still don't get why that means the Reformation should not have happened or was not God's move as you seem to be suggesting.

Evangelical

05-29-2017, 08:37 AM

A little brother

05-29-2017, 09:30 AM

Cal

05-29-2017, 10:18 AM

Sorry I missed that history - you are saying that the Recovery in the USA was started by people other than W. Lee ?

There were many seekers back then. Lee did no gospel work here. He just held forth the hope of a way to go on with the Lord in love and oneness. People were attracted to that. For the first 12-15 years it was very positive and general, not so much about Lee and his stuff.

But in the late 1970s he started to assert his power and influence more and more. People like Benson and Graver took over in Texas and ran off every "dissenter," meaning everyone who was not blindly for Lee. A friend of mine was an elder and simply asked that we not follow Lee exclusively, but be more open and general as we were taught by Lee himself in the beginning. The response was to force him out.

It really was like that book "Animal Farm." The leaders in the beginning promised a 'brave new world,' but in the end they treacherously terminated anyone they saw as a threat. Brothers were accused, tried in kangaroo courts and shipped out, like Boxer to the glue factory.

That was the end of the dream.

After the 70s the shell of being for oneness remained, but the reality of truly being for oneness was gone. All the talk about oneness just became a way, ironically, to justify separating from everyone else.

I never said anything about the Catholics or ecumenicism.

Ohio

05-29-2017, 10:29 AM

Yes you've declared it to be hypocrisy but I still don't get why that means the Reformation should not have happened or was not God's move as you seem to be suggesting.

You have missed my points. It's almost impossible to converse with you. I address some of your false conclusions, and you create more.

For example, I ask how can you espouse a lineage of MOTA's from Luther to Lee, and yet denounce the papal lineage of the Catholic church? Then you interpret that as me endorsing Catholicism and rejecting Protestantism, when the point is that the N.T. allows for no lineages. The thought of blood lineages is completely O.T. with the failed Aaronic and Davidic lines. They really only served to point us to Christ.

To equate the Recovery with the Reformation has many self-serving elements for Lee. Why choose Luther as the first MOTA? Because Lee's movement was decidedly The Unique Move of God. But was Martin Luther God's unique move? Was not God working in many areas? In fact, Luther was merely elevated to prominence because of German nobility. Nearly all the other reformers, lacking secular military might, were martyred. Did that make Luther more spiritual? The first MOTA? I think not.

Cal

05-29-2017, 10:47 AM

Brother, those two verses did not convince me there are right divisions. They told me the importance of oneness. Please continue to seek.

Well, again it depends on what you mean by "division." Division to me means animosity and unwillingness to fellowship, not the idea that one brother might feel led to do one thing and one another.

Where did we get the idea that one group of brothers in a city hold absolute authority over the rest of the Christians there about how they all should serve the Lord? Where do we get the idea that the Lord gives such wisdom and power so narrowly?

So let's say some Christians are meeting together in a city and several of the members feel to move to the other side of the city and start a new congregation. What could be the problem with that, and who has the power and authority to try to stop them?

So just because Christians feel to meet and serve in different ways does not mean they are divided by animosity. Animosity comes in, ironically, when one group tries to dictate to everyone else.

Again who has the authority to object and say that believers don't have the right to follow the Lord as they feel? This is the arrogance of the LCM. They think they have that right. So whenever someone doesn't go along with them, they cook up some way of calling that person divisive. But actually it is the LCM that is showing animosity and divisiveness by insisting that things be done their way.

So again, always question the premises and the definitions. What the LCM defines as "divisive" is simply anything they don't like and can't control. But it's a bogus definition and one that no one is obligated to recognize. They can live in their fantasy all they want. You don't have to listen to them and the unreasonableness they display makes my point.

The only thing that troubles me about them is they victimize the naive. Other than that they are simply annoying.

Evangelical

05-29-2017, 04:04 PM

You have missed my points. It's almost impossible to converse with you. I address some of your false conclusions, and you create more.

Luther initiated the Reformation, and can be considered the person God raised up to release the vision of the age. Just like God raised up the apostle Paul, and the Recovery started with Paul. All of the reformers with Luther would be considered part of the Recovery as well.

Evangelical

05-29-2017, 04:04 PM

Cal

05-29-2017, 04:46 PM

Igzy, how do you propose that we have fellowship with Catholics?

Easy, find common ground and stick to that.

Ohio

05-29-2017, 04:54 PM

A little brother

05-29-2017, 07:13 PM

Well, again it depends on what you mean by "division." Division to me means animosity and unwillingness to fellowship, not the idea that one brother might feel led to do one thing and one another.

I think we are on common ground. When I say there is no right divisions in the body of Christ, divisions to me are things like what 1 Cor 12 and Eph 4 mentioned:

The eye saying it doesn't need the hand
Viewing more feeble memebers of the body as dispensable
Not having Christ as the bond of peace

The only thing that troubles me about them is they victimize the naive. Other than that they are simply annoying.

I share the exact same feeling too. But one thing I did learn during this discussion with Evangelical is that when we accuse the LC leaders, we have to be careful not to fall into the same trap like how the LC accuses Catholics. We know that we are only accusing the wrong leadership but LC members may feel otherwise, especially when they don't see the problems as we do.

It is difficult. And that is why we need to turn to our Lord for help all the time.

I am very new to this forum, but I strongly believe this is a proof that ex-LC members still want to fellowship with existing members because of love. Although sometimes our emotion may take over and spark some flames. :xx:

TLFisher

05-29-2017, 08:39 PM

I think we are on common ground. When I say there is no right divisions in the body of Christ, divisions to me are things like what 1 Cor 12 and Eph 4 mentioned:

The eye saying it doesn't need the hand
Viewing more feeable memebers of the body as dispensable
Not having Christ as the bond of peace

A Little Brother, I believe you intended to say feeble members of the Body are indispensable.

TLFisher

05-29-2017, 09:09 PM

I am very new to this forum, but I strongly believe this is a proof that ex-LC members still want to fellowship with existing members because of love. Although sometimes our emotion may take over and spark some flames. :xx:
Yes, for some that is the case. For myself, it's the matter of quarantines I've tended to become emotional about. For all the turmoil that's existed in the local churches especially since the late 80's, with love and grace it could have been avoided. I've seen through a local community church how love any grace is disarming to potential problems.

A little brother

05-29-2017, 09:57 PM

A Little Brother, I believe you intended to say feeble members of the Body are indispensable.
Terry, thank you. I have corrected my typo. :p

Evangelical

05-29-2017, 11:02 PM

Easy, find common ground and stick to that.

And what aspect of the locality is not a common ground we have with the Catholics in our city ?

Evangelical

05-29-2017, 11:23 PM

Evangelical, I am grateful that we can start to go back to the Bible to dig out some truth together.

I would like to share one viewpoint first. In the Bible, there are different types of "languages". Some are plain descriptive ones on events and opinions as in Acts and the epistles. The other uses lots of symbols and types as in Revelation. Understanding the later is more difficult because it depends on how we interpret the symbols and types. Hope you agree that there is an element of guessing so we oftenly cannot be 100% sure.

Well I believe the bible interprets the bible. But agree that we cannot be 100% sure of anything.

So I started to first put away those preconceptions we learned from others on what the symbols and types mean, and go back to the texts themselves. Sometimes I find the messages are actually plain clear even without interpreting the symbols. May be there are further spiritual depths hidden in the symbols, but we should not ignore what is there in the plain text.

ok

So let's try this with your verses...

Let's firstly not care about what Babylon means. In Rev 18:4, who did the voice from heaven call upon? It was calling "my people", God's people. (Have to admit that I have interpreted the voice from heaven as God's voice though) The voice was calling all God's people not to be partaker of Babylon's sins. It did not intend to have any God's people being left behind. So this is not a call for division of God's people or the body of Christ. It is instead a call for oneness to walk away from the sins of Babylon, whatever it represents. If somehow because of that Babylon we part with our fellow brothers and sisters, then probably we are failing God's call.

I have a point to discuss in response. Firstly, I think it's a mistake to interpret this verse without considering what Babylon means, and will lead to wrong conclusions. It's like trying to interpret why the Israelites came out of Egypt without considering who Pharaoh or Egypt was.

Now my point:

Point 1: Coming out of Babylon (or anything) usually means physical separation, division.

Biblical insights: The Israelite's physically came out of Egypt and Babylon, Lot physically came out of Sodom, The early Christians physically left Jerusalem on heeding Christ's words. They all divided from something to obey God's voice.

For the sake of discussion, as you say, let's suppose it means walking away from the sins of Babylon, whatever that means. The next question is how do we walk away from the sins of Babylon and yet retain oneness with brothers and sisters in Christ who do not walk away from the sins of Babylon?

Example: In the case of the Catholic church, the false brothers could be the leaders, the rulers, and we cannot get away from them unless we physically leave. There may be a great many true brothers who decide to stay. So we must separate from them too, physically, though not spiritually.

I think it is obvious that not all true believers left the Catholic church with Luther. They chose to stay. But many left and joined Luther. So there is a division, but it is a right division because it is leaving a situation which cannot be fixed.

Who were the evil persons that Paul mentioned? They are "anyone who bears the name of brother" but "is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler".

Firstly, He might not be talking about true brothers - could be just people who claimed to be a brother. I think we have no issue purging false brothers and definitely this is not a division of the body of Christ.

And even in the very unlikely case some true brothers had sinned (and probably refused to repent after fellowship), Paul named the sins very specifically. The evil persons were to be purged, isolated, or even quarantined if you like this word. There was no mention of splitting up the Corinthian Church. He was definitely not asking the true brothers who had not sinned to walk away to set up a new Church. And there is no mention of having different opinions of what a Church should be as a sin and reason for the purging.

Brother, those two verses did not convince me there are right divisions. They told me the importance of oneness. Please continue to seek.

Let's see what the bible says about false brothers. Here is one verse:

Galatians 2:4
4 And this, because of the false brothers, brought in secretly, who stole in to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into Slavery under the law.

This is in no doubt in reference to Judaizers, or Christians who follow the law. Is this not Catholicism which follows good works to get to heaven?

Yet here, the churches in Galatia were genuine churches, with some false brothers in their midst.

Suppose a false brother established Roman Catholicism in the same city, and was named as Pope. Then, we have an entirely different situation, where it is a majority of false brothers and a lesser number of true brothers in their midst. We cannot say that the few true brothers should remain, to preserve a "oneness of the body" that does not really exist between the true and the false.

If 90% of the Catholic church are false brothers, including the leaders, then it makes no sense to ask the true brothers to remain to preserve a false unity with false brothers. In the case of Luther, he had no choice but to oppose it. He had to separate himself from it. Catholicism, is not part of the body of Christ.

In summary, I believe it is right to divide from the false, and wrong to divide from the true.

The issue with denominations is that they were or are often divisions between the true (e.g. baptist and presbyterian people being divided over opinions regarding baptism or salvation), whereas the reformation was division between the true (Bible followers, Luther, et al.) and the false (papal system).

But in reality, the first divisions came about when people decided to start denominations rather than going back to the common ground upon which all Christians can fellowship - the locality. Any two or more Christians can come together and fellowship if they live in the same place.

aron

05-30-2017, 01:45 AM

And that French sister Jeanne Guyon was the next MOTA after Luther?

It can hardly be over-emphasised that Watchman Nee's great influence was not brother JN Darby but sister J Penn-Lewis. Think of his book 'Spiritual Man'; a re-write of Penn-Lewis' 'War on the Saints'. How can a sister who can't give Sunday-morning lecture in a "normal local church" be the MOTA of God's recovery efforts?

And have a look at Wesley v/v Edwards v/v Whitefield. Who was MOTA? Or was there another, hidden, "work of recovery" going on while these three were a smokescreen, or even a deviation?

Is God not capable of chewing gum while walking down the street? Peter went to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles. Later John wrote his epistles and apocalypse. Who says one of them slavishly imitated the other? Or was abjectly servile to another's ministry?

aron

05-30-2017, 03:42 AM

And what aspect of the locality is not a common ground we have with the Catholics in our city ?
At the end of his ministry, Witness Lee told his closest followers, "We were wrong in the matter of receiving the brothers... not receiving them according to God." Our common ground is not geography but faith in Jesus Christ.

A little brother

05-30-2017, 07:15 AM

Point 1: Coming out of Babylon (or anything) usually means physical separation, division.

Biblical insights: The Israelite's physically came out of Egypt and Babylon, Lot physically came out of Sodom, The early Christians physically left Jerusalem on heeding Christ's words. They all divided from something to obey God's voice.

In your examples, ALL Israelites came out of Egypt (I am not sure about Babylon's case though). Lot's whole family came out of Sodom. That's what I referred previously as "all God's people" and why I said it is not division.

I think it is obvious that not all true believers left the Catholic church with Luther. They chose to stay. But many left and joined Luther. So there is a division, but it is a right division because it is leaving a situation which cannot be fixed.

I think you have forgotten “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

Anyway, I think your point on physical versus spiritual division is valid. I have been focusing more on the spiritual side (division in the body of Christ) along this discussion thread. I don't know enough about the reformation history. If Luther was still spiritually connected with the fellow true believers in the Catholic Church, that was not division in the body of Christ at all. If they were cutting out fellowship with the believers staying behind, than it would be wrong.

Let's see what the bible says about false brothers. Here is one verse:

Galatians 2:4
4 And this, because of the false brothers, brought in secretly, who stole in to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into Slavery under the law.

This is in no doubt in reference to Judaizers, or Christians who follow the law. Is this not Catholicism which follows good works to get to heaven?

Is this what Catholicism follows? Good works to get to heaven? I may not know enough about it. I did some searching and seems they say good works are result of grace by God and some believers will not become perfect in this life so they will have to go through purgatory.

Yet here, the churches in Galatia were genuine churches, with some false brothers in their midst.

Suppose a false brother established Roman Catholicism in the same city, and was named as Pope. Then, we have an entirely different situation, where it is a majority of false brothers and a lesser number of true brothers in their midst. We cannot say that the few true brothers should remain, to preserve a "oneness of the body" that does not really exist between the true and the false.

Then it was the "false brother" causing a wrong division in the first place if he did manage to deceive true brothers to join him.

If 90% of the Catholic church are false brothers, including the leaders, then it makes no sense to ask the true brothers to remain to preserve a false unity with false brothers. In the case of Luther, he had no choice but to oppose it. He had to separate himself from it. Catholicism, is not part of the body of Christ.

Again, don't mix up division in the body of Christ with division with false brothers.

I won't jump into that conclusion of Catholic Church not being part of the body of Christ. If it is not part of the body, then who are the overcomers in Thyatira according to Lee's interpretation of the seven churches in Revelation?

In summary, I believe it is right to divide from the false, and wrong to divide from the true.

The danger here is that we could have replaced God in judging right and wrong. You know what, if you subsitute "Catholicism" in your arguments with "LC" and "Luther/Reformation" with the members who separated with LC in the past few decades, you will see what they were thinking.

The issue with denominations is that they were or are often divisions between the true (e.g. baptist and presbyterian people being divided over opinions regarding baptism or salvation), whereas the reformation was division between the true (Bible followers, Luther, et al.) and the false (papal system).

But in reality, the first divisions came about when people decided to start denominations rather than going back to the common ground upon which all Christians can fellowship - the locality. Any two or more Christians can come together and fellowship if they live in the same place.

You may find LC is not that different from all other denominations. In fact, I think there are more fellowship between different denominations these days than those between LC and all others.

And LC didn't break up with denominations because they were evil false brothers. The reason was just that they had a different view on locality.

Aron has it right - our common ground is not geography but the faith in Jesus Christ.

Cal

05-30-2017, 07:29 AM

And what aspect of the locality is not a common ground we have with the Catholics in our city ?

Your contentiousness about it.

Ohio

05-30-2017, 08:47 AM

Luther initiated the Reformation, and can be considered the person God raised up to release the vision of the age. Just like God raised up the apostle Paul, and the Recovery started with Paul. All of the reformers with Luther would be considered part of the Recovery as well.

If LC'ers continue to espouse this idea, then they must admit that the Reformation was as much a socio-political coup d'etat as a spiritual "Unique Move of God." (I suppose similar things could be said of the decree by Cyrus the King of Persia to return to Jerusalem.) Were it not for the secular longings of the German nobility to be liberated from the bondage of Rome, there would not be the so-called Recovery with Martin Luther established as the first MOTA.

Truth is that church history tell us for centuries there had always been urgent reformers inside the RCC and genuine Christian communities outside the RCC. Papal emissaries had always been able to squash these "leperous rebels" either by excommunication, inquisition, deceit, open murder, or merely show of force. The collective cry of western humanity moved God to finally provide necessary military might to limit the Pope's reach.

It's so ironic how the Recovery loves to exalt Luther, their founding MOTA, and blame all his followers for "messing things up" and forming that first dreaded Lutheran church denomination, the so-called "daughter of the harlot." For many years in the LC's, I heard the same mantra about Witness Lee, the consummate MOTA -- how every one of his endless "moves" and "flows" emanated from the throne of God, but how his many followers constantly "messed things up."

OBW

05-30-2017, 04:38 PM

To me they are statements of fact, so the criticism is warranted. Christianity indeed is full of full of traditions, organizations, performances. . . .We will leave out the "falsehoods" because you are too.

So how is it that the statement that "Christianity is full of traditions" is evidence of anything diminished, degraded, unspiritual, etc.? I would suggest that the LRC is full of traditions. And not all of them are bad. Your Lord's table meeting is a decent tradition. It is observed according to a rather precise format, down to the bread made with bleached white flour. I realize that Ohio has made some real noise about that fact. But ignoring the hypocrisy surrounding the rhetoric and the fact of bleached white flour, it is not a problem. But for all that it is, it is not the formula proclaimed in the Bible. None of them are. Each method of doing it is simply a tradition.

So how is it that the statement that "Christianity is full of organizations" is evidence of anything diminished, degraded, unspiritual, etc.? All groups have organization. And when you break things down to finer levels, it is often seen that each has its own organization. Same for the LRC. There is nothing particularly in error with there being organization. And waving "holy water" over your organization by calling it a living organism does not change anything. Anyone can claim their organization is a living organism. There is nothing special about yours that is spoken positively of in the Bible to gain such special status or spoken negatively about anyone else to deny them similar status.

So how is it that the statement that "Christianity is full of performances" is evidence of anything diminished, degraded, unspiritual, etc.? By definition, if you do something, you perform. Just because you don't like someone else's actions, traditions, etc., does not transform their actions into something negative called "performance" while the actions, traditions, etc., that you like are not performances. The fact that you denigrate others over their ways, traditions, organization, etc. — all things that are not matters of the core of the faith — is evidence of a sectarian mind. The Methodists like their ways. The Baptists like their ways. The Anglicans like their ways. But to the best of my knowledge, none of the ways of any of these is definitionally void of truth, meaning, spirituality, etc. just because I don't like it. And the fact that I don't like it does not make it un-Christian, degraded, poor, "low gospel," etc.

Answer even one of those without reference to your preference of ways to do things. Do it strictly by reference to the scripture as defining either a set way that is being cast aside, or defining practices that are not acceptable. I daresay you cannot actually do either. You may think you can, but only by reference to your false teachings found in your third testament — the Collected Works of Witness Lee, along with the footnotes to your private Bible translation.

Evangelical

05-30-2017, 05:39 PM

Ohio

05-30-2017, 06:10 PM

At the end of his ministry, Witness Lee told his closest followers, "We were wrong in the matter of receiving the brothers... not receiving them according to God." Our common ground is not geography but faith in Jesus Christ.

That's stating the obvious, we are talking about Christians meeting together, of course they all have faith in Christ if they are Christian. Yet, that hasn't stopped multitudes of denominations forming has it?
So ... let me get this straight bro ... Witness Lee's repentance was not really a repentance because only "the obvious was stated." And if Witness Lee's repentance was truly a repentance, then we all would have to examine what he might have repented for concerning his treatment of other Christians, and all LCers know that that is impossible because all LCers know that Witness Lee's repentance could not really be a repentance, because he was today's MOTA, and everyone else had to repent to him for their failures in not receiving his ministry and submitting to his leadership.

Did I get that right Evangelical? Huh?

Evangelical

05-30-2017, 06:15 PM

In your examples, ALL Israelites came out of Egypt (I am not sure about Babylon's case though). Lot's whole family came out of Sodom. That's what I referred previously as "all God's people" and why I said it is not division.

For the sake of this discussion, I will assume you are right.

But I found that scholars, mostly Jewish I guess, believe not all came out of Egypt.

See this article for example:
http://www.torahmusings.com/2012/01/how-many-came-out-of-egypt/

This is an interesting discussion in itself.

I think you have forgotten “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

Anyway, I think your point on physical versus spiritual division is valid. I have been focusing more on the spiritual side (division in the body of Christ) along this discussion thread. I don't know enough about the reformation history. If Luther was still spiritually connected with the fellow true believers in the Catholic Church, that was not division in the body of Christ at all. If they were cutting out fellowship with the believers staying behind, than it would be wrong.

I have not researched this myself, but I'm guessing that Luther was not refusing Catholics, but Catholics may have refused him and other protestants. Over history, protestants have been more accepting of all believers, than the Roman Catholic etc who equate "the faith" with the structure and traditions of the church. But then I recall protestants may have fought and killed Catholics, so I could be wrong about this.

In regards to physical vs spiritual, many Christians are content to meet physically apart and believe in spiritual oneness. However Watchman Nee/Lee rejected the idea of visible/practical separation yet invisible unity. Nee wrote it was impractical, or an idealistic view of things. I believe that because of our invisible unity, we should meet in unity practically.

Is this what Catholicism follows? Good works to get to heaven? I may not know enough about it. I did some searching and seems they say good works are result of grace by God and some believers will not become perfect in this life so they will have to go through purgatory.

They don't believe in salvation by grace through faith alone in the same sense as Protestants. It is more faith with good works.

I won't jump into that conclusion of Catholic Church not being part of the body of Christ. If it is not part of the body, then who are the overcomers in Thyatira according to Lee's interpretation of the seven churches in Revelation?

I think only people are part of the body of Christ. People in the Catholic Church are part of the body of Christ. But the Catholic church as an organization or institution, I can't see how it can be considered to be part of the body.

The overcomers in Thyatira would be those in the Catholic church who have stood fast in her midst, or even come out of her (like Luther did). Nee/Lee recognized many genuine believers in the Catholic church.

You may find LC is not that different from all other denominations. In fact, I think there are more fellowship between different denominations these days than those between LC and all others.

Babylon is called "the great". It's large and very big. So, no surprise there.

And LC didn't break up with denominations because they were evil false brothers. The reason was just that they had a different view on locality.

Aron has it right - our common ground is not geography but the faith in Jesus Christ.

The faith in Christ is the spiritual aspect. The geography aspect is the physical aspect. Strangely, despite you and Aron saying that, the common ground is our faith in Jesus Christ, it seems odd that you might support denominations as well. Most denominations are based upon the faith in Jesus Christ, plus, plus, plus, plus.... and some very particular reasons why they have not merged together. Baptist and Presbyterian for example, very similar, yet remain content to retain individual identities.

LC didn't "break up" with anyone. It is a group of people that came out of denominations, to practice the church life. It is equivalent to the Israelites coming out of Egypt, the place of bondage. More of an escape than a breakup.

Cal

05-30-2017, 07:21 PM

Ohio

05-30-2017, 08:09 PM

Evangelical

05-30-2017, 09:06 PM

Evangelical,

I want to thank you. Because the more you post the more I feel good about being out of the LCM. And the more you post the more the testimony of what's wrong with the LCM is demonstrated.

God is good. Thank you, Lord, for exposing this ridiculous parody of a movement through this well-meaning, but over-talkative and ultimately cluelessly tone-deaf brother. Amen.

I don't mean to be cruel, Ev. But it is like watching a train wreck over and over in slow motion.

:lurk5:

Now you're sounding like the Pharisee here.. "dear God, thank you that i'm not like Evangelical".

I don't know why you deny that our geography, or proximity to each other is a common ground for meeting.

I guess when people are blinded by religion and denominationalism, the concept of meeting with Christians because they are near them is a strange concept.

Koinonia

05-30-2017, 09:44 PM

Evangelical

05-30-2017, 09:49 PM

Evangelical, your question was:

Now you have conflated fellowship with meetings and implied that you are only able to have fellowship with someone who attends your meetings.

Hi Koinonia,

No, I am not using the word meeting in the sense of "the Lord's table meeting", but in general.

But on that point, I believe that meeting and fellowship are the same thing.

It is the denominations /organizations of man that believe a meeting or church service is one thing, and fellowship is what happens after over a cup of coffee. Of course no fellowship happens during the service, because everyone's gaze is fixed on the pastor who is doing all the functioning.

A little brother

05-30-2017, 10:23 PM

Koinonia

05-30-2017, 10:33 PM

Hi Koinonia,
But on that point, I believe that meeting and fellowship are the same thing.

How sad...

Evangelical

05-30-2017, 10:44 PM

Don't other donominations also have groups meeting by geographical locations? So you say that is not locality and only LC is on the ground of locality? What about the fellowship/meetings/trainings at Anaheim in which saints from different locality join? Is that violation of locality?

Be careful being too sure about what you see. I think all of us should be reminded by Jesus' words...

John 9:41 Jesus said to them, If you were blind, you would not have sin; but now that you say, We see; your sin remains.

Yes they do, but the locality is not the only ground, but the denomination they are part of. That's why a baptist church for example, won't join with a presbyterian church next door to it.

Saints from different localities can join together. Everyone is part of the one church. There's no law that says we cannot join together from different localities. In fact, that is encouraged.

Now you have confused youself between Egypt and Babylon. They are supposed to be different in Lee's interpretation.

I'm not confused at all. In both Egypt and Babylon, the people of God came out , to go into Jerusalem. Maybe you need to brush up on your Jewish history.
Remember that before the Israelites came out of Babylon, they first had to come out of Egypt. They are different in some aspects. But both examples of God's people coming out, to go into Jerusalem. Both examples suffice for the purpose of this discussion.

Evangelical

05-30-2017, 10:44 PM

How sad...

How is the Lord's Table meeting not fellowship?

A little brother

05-30-2017, 10:57 PM

Yes they do, but the locality is not the only ground, but the denomination they are part of. That's why a baptist church for example, won't join with a presbyterian church next door to it.

Saints from different localities can join together. Everyone is part of the one church. There's no law that says we cannot join together from different localities. In fact, that is encouraged.

Neither will an LC brother join with a Baptist church next door to it. And you say it is locaility. What is the actual difference?

I'm not confused at all. In both Egypt and Babylon, the people of God came out , to go into Jerusalem. Maybe you need to brush up on your Jewish history.
Remember that before the Israelites came out of Babylon, they first had to come out of Egypt. They are different in some aspects. But both examples of God's people coming out, to go into Jerusalem. Both examples suffice for the purpose of this discussion.

Oh sorry, you were talking about history? Jerusalem did not exist at all when the Israelites left Egypt.

I suggest you brush up (or better not) on Lee's teachings. According to him, Egypt is the world and Babylon is religion. There is a difference between coming out of the world and religion.

Evangelical

05-30-2017, 11:42 PM

Neither will an LC brother join with a Baptist church next door to it. And you say it is locaility. What is the actual difference?

It's a denomination. We are just Christians. And before you say they are "just Christians too". Then I ask you, why do they call themselves Baptists or Baptist Christians.

Oh sorry, you were talking about history? Jerusalem did not exist at all when the Israelites left Egypt.

I would not say "at all". Jerusalem was a Canaanite city, inhabited by Jebusites, a Canaanite tribe, though it was called by a different name. So it definitely existed.

Jerusalem is mentioned in the Old Testament as far back as Malchizedek the king of Shalem (pre-Jerusalem), who met Abraham. Abraham renamed Shalem to Yireh, which became known as Yirehshalem (in Hebrew), or Jerusalem. But you'd have to know something about Jewish history and word origins to know this. What's it mean ? I forget, great city, or great city of peace.

I suggest you brush up (or better not) on Lee's teachings. According to him, Egypt is the world and Babylon is religion. There is a difference between coming out of the world and religion.

Umm, not quite "world versus religion". Lee portrays them both as examples of the world. Both are examples of the world. Lee says Egypt signified the world of enjoyment. Babylon the world of rebellion and idol worship.

The church in Pergamos was the worldly church, the church in Egypt. ~ Life-study of Revelation, message 16.

Lee writes "in God's view, the world is first Egyptian and then Babylonian."
Life-study of Jeremiah - message 38.

They are both examples of God's people coming out of the world. They are both places where God's people were enslaved. The religious world is afflicted by both worldly enjoyments and rebellion and idol worship. So a bit of both Egypt and Babylon I would say.

Moses and the Israelites came out of Egypt into the land of Canaan where the city of Jerusalem was (though called by a different name at the time).
Jerusalem was once a pagan city, before it became "Israelite" or "Jewish".

Since we are discussing this, should I mention Assyria as well?

Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, symbolize three things God's people had to come out of.

God's people were carried away into captivity into those three. Those three symbolize different types of churches/denominations - ones with worldly enjoyment, ones with idol worship. All three had to return, or be "recovered" back to Jerusalem.

Anyway, I appreciate some discussion about Lee's teachings. But you're only covering one aspect of Lee's teaching. I know that the message to "come out" applies equally to Egypt as it does to Babylon. When you've been through as many life studies as I have, you tend to pick up on things others may not have.

A little brother

05-31-2017, 12:42 AM

It's a denomination. We are just Christians. And before you say they are "just Christians too". Then I ask you, why do they call themselves Baptists or Baptist Christians.

Really? The Christians in the denominations I know just call themselves Christians. It is only when they were asked which Church do they come from that they provide more details. Probably only outsiders with a denominational mind will call them that by default.

May be this is not much different from the LC saints saying they are in the Lord's Recovery.

Umm, not quite "world versus religion". Lee portrays them... both as examples of the world. Both are examples of the world. Lee says Egypt signified the world of enjoyment. Babylon the world of rebellion and idol worship.

It is really not my intent to discuss Lee's teaching here. But couldn't help to ask just one more question. What do you mean by world of enjoyment? World of all sorts of enjoyment? Does enjoyment of Christ count? Or you are saying worldly enjoyment? So Egypt means world of wordly enjoyment? Doesn't it sound weird?

Have to say I am quite tired of Lee's terminology system.

Evangelical

05-31-2017, 04:51 AM

Really? The Christians in the denominations I know just call themselves Christians. It is only when they were asked which Church do they come from that they provide more details. Probably only outsiders with a denominational mind will call them that by default.

May be this is not much different from the LC saints saying they are in the Lord's Recovery.

But the church, the group of people that meet in the baptist church, does not just call itself Christian. It's called the Baptist church, for example. Not the Christian church, or just "the church". God's church has no name. Man's church has names.

It is really not my intent to discuss Lee's teaching here. But couldn't help to ask just one more question. What do you mean by world of enjoyment? World of all sorts of enjoyment? Does enjoyment of Christ count? Or you are saying worldly enjoyment? So Egypt means world of wordly enjoyment? Doesn't it sound weird?

Have to say I am quite tired of Lee's terminology system.

Worldly enjoyment would be enjoyment in worldly things other than Christ. The Israelites desired to go back to Egypt to eat lots of bread and meat when they were in the desert.

So , bringing this back to topic. The Israelites leaving Egypt was God's unique move. There was no such thing as different groups within the Israelites doing their own move. If they were all demonationalized (pun intended), we can imagine each group would have their own Moses. The baptist Moses, the Catholic Moses, etc. Each would have come out of Egypt in their own way and own time.

Ohio

05-31-2017, 05:23 AM

Evangelical

05-31-2017, 05:31 AM

In the Recovery, the only "common ground" for meeting is the books and teachings of LSM.

Oh you can quote me dozens of niceties from WL's vast online resources, but having lived through their quarantines, I know better how agents from LSM operate.

It was worse than hypocritical.

You're like Martin Luther, who went through so much with the Catholic Church.

A little brother

05-31-2017, 06:07 AM

So , bringing this back to topic. The Israelites leaving Egypt was God's unique move. There was no such thing as different groups within the Israelites doing their own move. If they were all demonationalized (pun intended), we can imagine each group would have their own Moses. The baptist Moses, the Catholic Moses, etc. Each would have come out of Egypt in their own way and own time.

After all these discussions, you came back saying there is no such thing as different groups. So I assume you agree with my earlier point that all God's people should act together and there is no right division. :D

I think you are confronting with too many different conversations in this thread. So probably it is time to end ours given each of us has expressed enough viewpoints already.

It would leave you some time to think more deeply before reponding to the other members' posts.

Thanks and hope we both got something out of this discussion. :)

Evangelical

05-31-2017, 06:59 AM

After all these discussions, you came back saying there is no such thing as different groups. So I assume you agree with my earlier point that all God's people should act together and there is no right division. :D

I think you are confronting with too many different conversations in this thread. So probably it is time to end ours given each of us has expressed enough viewpoints already.

It would leave you some time to think more deeply before reponding to the other members' posts.

Thanks and hope we both got something out of this discussion. :)

I think there's no right division between true believers. But there is a right division between true and false. So, we can agree on something.

Anyway, thanks for the consideration, and if you need a hand with any discussion, let me know. Discussion about Lee/Nee or anything gives me a chance to dust off the old book shelf.

Cal

05-31-2017, 07:29 AM

Now you're sounding like the Pharisee here.. "dear God, thank you that i'm not like Evangelical".

I don't know why you deny that our geography, or proximity to each other is a common ground for meeting.

I guess when people are blinded by religion and denominationalism, the concept of meeting with Christians because they are near them is a strange concept.

I'm just trying to help you. You represent a tiny minority of opinion, yet you insist you are right and brush aside every reasonable objection to your claims. That is not rational or sober.

And please don't put words in my mouth. I never denied geography plays a part in who we meet with. I just said you don't have a right to enforce it on others according to your interpretation of it.

It's flat crazy, Evangelical, for you to think you and only you and your little band are doing things right. That's the kind of things nutty cults believe. It's you who are out of whack with the Body of Christ.

I simply do not believe that 2000 years after Christ was here on earth, that at this late date God finally was able to raise up a little crew who finally after all these years see what church is supposed to be and are the only ones doing it right, and that his command to them is to stay away from everyone else and tell them how wrong they are.

I really do not believe that is what God is telling you guys to do. Like I said, your way of rationalizing your exclusivism is the same way nutty us-only cults have done it down through history. It makes sense in your tightly-spinning world, but not to more sober minds.

Rational objection after rational objection to your arguments have been given from all quarters here. Your response is not to honestly engage most of them, but to either brush them aside, mischaracterize them or engage in other sophistry. Any reasonable person here sees it, but you seem oblivious to it.

Are you really expecting people to believe that a person who reasons as carelessly as you do holds the keys to light and truth? Dream on. You are wasting your time.

If you like the LCM, fine. Tell us all about how you like it. But please cease with the crappy arguments for it. They don't hold water. This has been show again and again, ad nauseum.

Cal

05-31-2017, 09:24 AM

Here is the choice before you, Evangelical. You can join the community of grown-ups who have the humility and sobriety to admit they don't have all the answers, that there is good and bad in most every Christian work, that all of us need God's mercy, and we all should work together and help each other.

Or you can remain in the nutty fringe who claims to have the secrets keys to all insight, who have a corner on truth and light, and who are qualified to sit in judgment of everyone else, who despite their history of minuscule numbers and feeble growth believe they are the vanguard of a brave new world God is building with them at his right hand.

Groups in the latter category have come and gone down through history. They never amount to much. The LCM is just another instance. This is doesn't mean the LCM doesn't have some good things. Like I said, there is good in most all Christian works. But you are not all that you think you are and you are certainly not qualified to demand the rest of the Church do things you way. And it's really getting old listening to you assume you are.

And it's getting old hearing you repeat arguments that have been refuted over and over here. One definition of insanity is doing the same thing expecting different results. I don't think you are insane but sometimes it's hard to tell.

Why not let your pet beliefs go and try to find common ground here? That would go a lot farther toward softening people to the LCM than any of your, let us say, shaky arguments and stubborn opinions will.

Koinonia

05-31-2017, 09:52 AM

How is the Lord's Table meeting not fellowship?

I did not say such a thing.

You said that "meeting and fellowship are the same thing." Do you actually believe this? It is not bad by any means to have meetings, but they are a construct just as much as the "services" you decry. Same concept; different words, different format.

Fellowship is communion with God and with His people. Meetings may or may not have anything to do with it.

Evangelical

05-31-2017, 04:39 PM

I did not say such a thing.

You said that "meeting and fellowship are the same thing." Do you actually believe this? It is not bad by any means to have meetings, but they are a construct just as much as the "services" you decry. Same concept; different words, different format.

Fellowship is communion with God and with His people. Meetings may or may not have anything to do with it.

All meetings in the local church whether home meeting or group meeting involve fellowship with God and His people.

Only if a meeting had no prayer or singing or interaction could you say a meeting is not fellowship.

OBW

05-31-2017, 05:16 PM

Only if a meeting had no prayer or singing or interaction could you say a meeting is not fellowship.And on that point we can generally agree. But whether or not the fellowship is really about "church" and therefore we are talking about when the church meets (assembles), or is just about a get together to chit-chat, watch a baseball game, eat bar-b-q, or any other activity, then that is the difference.

Now I am quick to point out that everything about the life of a Christian should be spiritual. That does not mean that it is all about prayer, "fellowship" with other believers, learning from the word, etc. It means that our life is ordered around Christ in all that we do. We are the best doctors, nurses, accountants, programmers, engineers, short-order cooks, truck drivers, trash haulers, farmers, day laborers, etc., that we can be because we serve our employers (masters) as serving Christ. We are the most honest customers and vendors in the marketplace. We are quick to help those in need, and slow to say anything bad about anyone (outside of any truth that must be said — and that is not license to lay down biblical truth on everyone who is a sinner).

That is our life. And when we get together to meet as Christians, we are quick to admit our own faults and pray for forgiveness (not just assume that we have grace and move on). We focus on God in our worship, not on ourselves.

So while there is always "fellowship" in a meeting of Christians, it is still rational to assume that when someone says "fellowship" in the context of a meeting of Christians, it is intended to refer to their Christ-facing thoughts, actions, talk, and issues, and not just everything simply because everything is "fellowship."

I also would agree that a meeting without interaction is not fellowship. But that is a rather unique (if it has ever actually happened) situation to be making a comment about. What were you really trying to say? Just to be at odds on yet another point? That seems to be your MO.

Evangelical

05-31-2017, 07:00 PM

I'm just trying to help you. You represent a tiny minority of opinion, yet you insist you are right and brush aside every reasonable objection to your claims. That is not rational or sober.

And please don't put words in my mouth. I never denied geography plays a part in who we meet with. I just said you don't have a right to enforce it on others according to your interpretation of it.

It's flat crazy, Evangelical, for you to think you and only you and your little band are doing things right. That's the kind of things nutty cults believe. It's you who are out of whack with the Body of Christ.

I simply do not believe that 2000 years after Christ was here on earth, that at this late date God finally was able to raise up a little crew who finally after all these years see what church is supposed to be and are the only ones doing it right, and that his command to them is to stay away from everyone else and tell them how wrong they are.

I really do not believe that is what God is telling you guys to do. Like I said, your way of rationalizing your exclusivism is the same way nutty us-only cults have done it down through history. It makes sense in your tightly-spinning world, but not to more sober minds.

Rational objection after rational objection to your arguments have been given from all quarters here. Your response is not to honestly engage most of them, but to either brush them aside, mischaracterize them or engage in other sophistry. Any reasonable person here sees it, but you seem oblivious to it.

Are you really expecting people to believe that a person who reasons as carelessly as you do holds the keys to light and truth? Dream on. You are wasting your time.

If you like the LCM, fine. Tell us all about how you like it. But please cease with the crappy arguments for it. They don't hold water. This has been show again and again, ad nauseum.

Your post is more persuasive than your others, and you don't have to remind me that we are a tiny minority of opinion, as if that really mattered anyway. You seem worried that God really is telling us to do these things, and you might be wrong. But don't worry, remember Lee's messages about the peaks of Jerusalem and the higher peaks? We try to be the higher peak, but it doesn't mean people in other churches aren't peaks.

I think that God works purposefully with one group at a time, as He so often has according to the Bible (whether Old Testament or New). I don't think God raised up thousands of denominations in a scatter gun approach.

In the history of the Bible, we should consider which of these two propositions are more likely:

1) God raising up a group of people, even a minority to do His will, in these last days - I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and say this may not be us, and we fall into category 2) as many here believe.
2) God raising up thousands of groups, who all do different things in different ways and call themselves by different names - hopefully we can agree on this.

Someone has to be Babylon the Great, and someone has to be the genuine church. I mean, we can't all be the genuine church now can we, otherwise Revelation would be wrong. How can Revelation tell us to "come out of her" if the "her" does not even exist. But I think we can see that "her" every time we see a statue of Mary or a TV evangelists promise of quadruple financial blessing.

I think we need to try to be the people in category 1). The minority who do His will. Normally that will put us at odds with our church, as typically they are comprised of people settled and comfortable in the status quo.

Evangelical

05-31-2017, 07:09 PM

And on that point we can generally agree. But whether or not the fellowship is really about "church" and therefore we are talking about when the church meets (assembles), or is just about a get together to chit-chat, watch a baseball game, eat bar-b-q, or any other activity, then that is the difference.

Now I am quick to point out that everything about the life of a Christian should be spiritual. That does not mean that it is all about prayer, "fellowship" with other believers, learning from the word, etc. It means that our life is ordered around Christ in all that we do. We are the best doctors, nurses, accountants, programmers, engineers, short-order cooks, truck drivers, trash haulers, farmers, day laborers, etc., that we can be because we serve our employers (masters) as serving Christ. We are the most honest customers and vendors in the marketplace. We are quick to help those in need, and slow to say anything bad about anyone (outside of any truth that must be said — and that is not license to lay down biblical truth on everyone who is a sinner).

That is our life. And when we get together to meet as Christians, we are quick to admit our own faults and pray for forgiveness (not just assume that we have grace and move on). We focus on God in our worship, not on ourselves.

So while there is always "fellowship" in a meeting of Christians, it is still rational to assume that when someone says "fellowship" in the context of a meeting of Christians, it is intended to refer to their Christ-facing thoughts, actions, talk, and issues, and not just everything simply because everything is "fellowship."

I also would agree that a meeting without interaction is not fellowship. But that is a rather unique (if it has ever actually happened) situation to be making a comment about. What were you really trying to say? Just to be at odds on yet another point? That seems to be your MO.

I recall attending liturgical church services when I was young, I didn't have much to do, it was quite boring, no one really to talk to. Just because I heard a pastor's sermon or went to church does not mean I had fellowship. I had some fellowship with God, but I could have done that at home. That's the difference between a service and a meeting I guess. A service is like going to the dentist.You sit on the chair and the dentist does things with you. But fellowship would be like going for a coffee. The Lord's table meeting is a kind of a feast, a meal, where everyone participates and enjoys. The denominational church services, the masses and communions, are like going to the dentist for a spiritual checkup, scale and clean.

In fact, things are so bad in the denominations, that the good ones will schedule small group meetings during the week to make up for the fellowship they did not have on Sunday. The Sunday service is the ritualistic "must do", and the small groups are where the real fellowship is said to happen. They've taken a page out of the "home church" groups on that one, keeping the Sunday service but adding some house meetings as well. Many denominations don't really do the house meetings at all. The Recovery is basically built on home meetings, rather than church services, it puts fellowship number 1, over ritualistic church services.

Cal

05-31-2017, 10:05 PM

Your post is more persuasive than your others, and you don't have to remind me that we are a tiny minority of opinion, as if that really mattered anyway. You seem worried that God really is telling us to do these things, and you might be wrong. But don't worry, remember Lee's messages about the peaks of Jerusalem and the higher peaks? We try to be the higher peak, but it doesn't mean people in other churches aren't peaks.

I think that God works purposefully with one group at a time, as He so often has according to the Bible (whether Old Testament or New). I don't think God raised up thousands of denominations in a scatter gun approach.

God does't raise up denominations. He raises up people and those people eventually coalesce into something he can more or less use, or not use, as the case may be. It's simply human nature to arrange ourselves along the lines of what makes the most sense to us, which gives us all the different flavors of groups.

Where we go wrong is when we start deciding to the extreme that what makes sense for us has to make sense for everyone else. That's why the whole idea behind the generality of the "unity of the faith" exists. Our unity is not in the details. It's in the general faith. And the faith does not include things like the local ground, or someone's proprietary idea of unity.

The LCM would be a good idea if it weren't such a bad idea. By that I mean in abstract theory it sounds good. But in application the flaws in the theory become apparent, as when you resort to invalid reasoning techniques to try to "prove" you are right. If you were right you wouldn't have to do that. But you do it over and over and I think you know it. Everyone else here does.

You are like Lee in that you think there is a practical mental construct, a theory of how to do church life, that can be applied to everyone. The problem is it's too specific and you eventually succumb to forcing unreasonable ideas on people in the name of "oneness," like expecting everyone to join the Recovery. In short, your theory doesn't work. And I definitely do not think God intended it to work because the end result really is something like Catholicism, where one organization presumes to speak for God to everyone. That always results when an elite few feel they have all the answers, which always issues in corruption and abuse, which is exactly what happened in Catholicism and in the LCM.

So what does God do? He continues to raise up people, who continue to coalesce into groups which he can use to one extent or another, or not use, as the case may be. Some of these fade away, some thrive and serve him well, others turn into religious institutions, or worse. But of none of them does he say, this is my unique place, better than all the rest. And even if he did think that, he'd never let us know, because it would go to our heads and make us presumptuous about what we could dictate to others, as it did with Catholicism and the LCM.

And the cycle repeats, over and over. History shows that. So in a sense God does scatter shoot. Absolutely he does. That's what the picture of the seed sower shows us. We never know where he is going to appear next, or who he is going to anoint next, or even exactly how we fit in. We just follow him and try to be faithful while we are here. And we let out a long and relieved sigh of humility and admit we don't have the perfect theory of anything.

Koinonia

05-31-2017, 10:12 PM

All meetings in the local church whether home meeting or group meeting involve fellowship with God and His people.

Even if that were true, it does not mean that "meetings = fellowship."

Only if a meeting had no prayer or singing or interaction could you say a meeting is not fellowship.

I never said "a meeting is not fellowship." The whole concept is silly in the first place. Saying meetings are fellowship because we have fellowship in meetings is like saying the meeting hall is the church because we experience church in the meeting hall.

You are exposing yourself as believing the same things for which you criticize others.

Evangelical

05-31-2017, 10:13 PM

God does't raise up denominations. He raises up people and those people eventually coalesce into something he can more or less use, or not use, as the case may be. It's simply human nature to arrange ourselves along the lines of what makes the most sense to us, which gives us all the different flavors of groups.

Where we go wrong is when we start deciding to the extreme that what makes sense for us has to make sense for everyone else. That's why the whole idea behind the generality of the "unity of the faith" exists. Our unity is not in the details. It's in the general faith. And the faith does not include things like the local ground, or someone's proprietary idea of unity.

The LCM would be a good idea if it weren't such a bad idea. By that I mean in abstract theory it sounds good. But in application the flaws in the theory become apparent, as when you resort to invalid reasoning techniques to try to "prove" you are right. If you were right you wouldn't have to do that. But you do it over and over and I think you know it. Everyone else here does.

You are like Lee in that you think there is a practical mental construct, a theory of how to do church life, that can be applied to everyone. The problem is it's too specific and you eventually succumb to forcing unreasonable ideas on people in the name of "oneness," like expecting everyone to join the Recovery. In short, your theory doesn't work. And I definitely do not think God intended it to work because the end result really is something like Catholicism, where one organization presumes to speak for God to everyone. That always results when an elite few feel they are in control, which always results in corruption and abuse, which is exactly what happened in Catholicism and in the LCM.

So what does God do? He continues to raise up people, who continue to coalesce into groups which he can either use to one extent or another, or not use. Some of these fade away, some thrive and serve him well, others turn into religious institutions, or worse. But of none of them does he say, this is my unique place, better than all the rest. And even if he did think that, he'd never let us know, because it would go to our heads and make us presumptuous about what we could dictate to others, as it did in Catholicism and the LCM.

And the cycle repeats, over and over. History shows that. So in a sense God does scatter shoot. Absolutely he does. We never know where he is going to appear next, or who he is going to anoint next, or even exactly how we fit in. We just follow him and try to be faithful while we are here, and admit we don't have the perfect theory of anything.

I think what you say is true of every revival in history that has ever happened. So if we want to be in God's current move, we really need to be looking for that. What do you think? Should we stay where we are and wait for God's move, or should we seek God's move in other groups?

Cal

05-31-2017, 10:42 PM

I think what you say is true of every revival in history that has ever happened. So if we want to be in God's current move, we really need to be looking for that. What do you think? Should we stay where we are and wait for God's move, or should we seek God's move in other groups?

God is moving in all kinds of venues. Like I said, once you start believing you are exclusively in the one unique current move of God you've erred. The unique move of God is to bring people to himself through Jesus and build them up together in his kingdom by the Holy Spirit. That can happen in a lot of ways and that's what you need to look for. It could be happening in your living room tomorrow if you wanted it to be. That's the beauty of it.

God's Spirit will eventually produce the oneness you are looking for. Paul predicted that when he said "until we all arrive at the unity of the faith." But you can't force it. You can't expect people to conform to your definition of it. You have to take oneness where you can get it, and look for it to grow and spread.

A little brother

05-31-2017, 10:54 PM

I think what you say is true of every revival in history that has ever happened. So if we want to be in God's current move, we really need to be looking for that. What do you think? Should we stay where we are and wait for God's move, or should we seek God's move in other groups?
Evangelical, I couldn't help jump in again given this is touching a new topic.

"Current move" or "divine stream" whatever you like to call, it is not limited to a single group (unless that single group is the body of Christ as a whole). God holds the seven stars in His right hand and walks among the seven golden lampstands. He can certainly multitask beyond human imagination.

Some churches may be more pleasing to God and some less, but all are blessed with promises to the overcomers. God didn't tell members of the seven churches to move to somewhere else so this is probably not the best formula to become an overcomer.

Evangelical

06-01-2017, 04:12 AM

Evangelical, I couldn't help jump in again given this is touching a new topic.

"Current move" or "divine stream" whatever you like to call, it is not limited to a single group (unless that single group is the body of Christ as a whole). God holds the seven stars in His right hand and walks among the seven golden lampstands. He can certainly multitask beyond human imagination.

Some churches may be more pleasing to God and some less, but all are blessed with promises to the overcomers. God didn't tell members of the seven churches to move to somewhere else so this is probably not the best formula to become an overcomer.

Each church mentioned covered a whole city. So presumably each group Jesus spoke to was a "denomination". Most likely the way the people overcame, was to leave one denomination and join the local church in the city.

Cal

06-01-2017, 07:03 AM

Each church mentioned covered a whole city. So presumably each group Jesus spoke to was a "denomination". Most likely the way the people overcame, was to leave one denomination and join the local church in the city.

Sheer speculation. You can't leave the one local church in the city, just like you can't leave the universal church. There is no teaching that says anyone in the NT "met as the church in the city." This is not a biblical teaching. There is no teaching that says those who meet in other groups, even with names, were not a part of the church in the city.

The church in the city exists. But the Bible never says if you don't meet as the church in the city you have separated yourself from it. Just as the Bible never says that if you don't meet as the universal church you have separated yourself from it.

There is no place in the NT where a group of Christians are identified as not being part of the church. John mentions people leaving, but it's pretty clear he is speaking about people that tried to join the church and weren't true believers to begin with.

Again, for you to insist on your interpretation of oneness, to call others divisive for not conforming to such a speculative model is a worse kind of division than what you imagine they are committing.

You need to understand the the LCM model of locality was specifically designed so that the Nee/Lee group could declare that they were the church and that other groups were not the church. It was not designed to produce oneness. It was designed so that they could say they were for oneness while conveniently feeling justified to exclude who they wanted to exclude. But the justification they use for their model is extremely speculative, which is precisely why the model has been rejected by the larger Body of Christ over and over and over.

Koinonia

06-01-2017, 08:29 AM

Each church mentioned covered a whole city. So presumably each group Jesus spoke to was a "denomination". Most likely the way the people overcame, was to leave one denomination and join the local church in the city.

This is reckless speculation. And it doesn't even make sense. If the church in Sardis was a "denomination," then why did the Lord refer to it as "the church in Sardis"?

OBW

06-01-2017, 04:16 PM

I recall attending liturgical church services when I was young, I didn't have much to do, it was quite boring, no one really to talk to. Just because I heard a pastor's sermon or went to church does not mean I had fellowship. I had some fellowship with God, but I could have done that at home. That's the difference between a service and a meeting I guess. A service is like going to the dentist.You sit on the chair and the dentist does things with you. But fellowship would be like going for a coffee. The Lord's table meeting is a kind of a feast, a meal, where everyone participates and enjoys. The denominational church services, the masses and communions, are like going to the dentist for a spiritual checkup, scale and clean.

In fact, things are so bad in the denominations, that the good ones will schedule small group meetings during the week to make up for the fellowship they did not have on Sunday. The Sunday service is the ritualistic "must do", and the small groups are where the real fellowship is said to happen. They've taken a page out of the "home church" groups on that one, keeping the Sunday service but adding some house meetings as well. Many denominations don't really do the house meetings at all. The Recovery is basically built on home meetings, rather than church services, it puts fellowship number 1, over ritualistic church services.Actually, the things about the liturgical service that you didn't like are the main reasons that we gather together as the church in the larger sense. It is not to have lively conversation among ourselves. It is not to have anyone "really to talk to." That is for sometime else. You want to denigrate small groups? Then don't you ever go over to another Christian's house for anything that resembles Christian fellowship.

The larger meeting is not for the kind of fellowship that you so mournfully sought in that liturgical service. But that is the kind of fellowship that would get a stern eye from an elder (even in the LRC) for disturbing the meeting.

To suggest that fellowship is #1 is probably a mistake. If you look at Acts, you find that they "continued" in the temple for teaching of the apostles, then from house to house in breaking of bread, etc. Without the teaching of the apostles, there is nothing to fellowship in the houses. It becomes an opportunity for the uninformed to discuss what they know little or nothing about.

The larger meetings are prime. They are the gathering.

But if you don't think the larger meetings are so important, then you probably don't think that the formulaic church is really that important. You don't actually meet that way. At least not as the main thing (according to you). So if that is just a side thing, or the lesser thing, then why is it so important?

Besides, if you think that other groups (not the LRC) have home meetings because "things are so bad," then why do you say that the LRC is mainly centered around home groups? Based on your analysis, the reason must be that things are so bad in the larger group.

As for "ritualistic church services," are you blind to the fact that each of your "services" is just as ritualistic? There is even a printed order of service for many of them. And the primary one that does not have one (that would be the Lord's table meeting) is so well orchestrated that if someone suggests a song from the wrong grouping at the wrong time, someone immediately jumps up to change it to a proper one. You herald the joy in this meeting. I will admit that there is a kind of joy in it. But it is, at its best, a way to do it. And the presumption of joy being required is a preference of style. And to some, it may seem to be inconsistent with the kind of reverence and praise that "remembering" the death of Christ and what that means to us should entail. Some would suggest that while it is definitely a benefit to us, to be so outward in joy is to think of it more in terms of me than in terms of the sacrifice that it was. The God of the universe died in my place. That should be sobering. We should constantly have a realization of the weight of guilt that should still be ours but is not. Yes, there is joy in that fact. But if it is too great, it suggests that we have little appreciation for the death we are supposed to remember, and too much appreciation for our freedom from whatever that was.

Moving on.

For many of your meetings, there is no longer any choice of song. It has been preordained in writing from Anaheim. After that, the content of the meeting is similarly preordained — in writing.

You have a rather complex liturgy. May not seem like one when you compare it to the kind that is well thought out by real theologians, but it is liturgy. And it is just a regimented as all the others. The only thing it does not control is what comes out of the mouth of someone who "prophesies" in one of the meetings. But if that gets too far off, there are ways that it is dealt with. In the LRC I've seen everything from groaning and bowed heads, to stern looks by elders, to even one standing and shooing the person back into their seat.

Evangelical

06-01-2017, 06:11 PM

The church in the city exists. But the Bible never says if you don't meet as the church in the city you have separated yourself from it. Just as the Bible never says that if you don't meet as the universal church you have separated yourself from it.

If the word church means 'ekklesia' or assembly, which it does. Then technically, if one does not join the assembly in their city, they have separated themselves from the church in their city.

Evangelical

06-01-2017, 06:17 PM

Actually, the things about the liturgical service that you didn't like are the main reasons that we gather together as the church in the larger sense. It is not to have lively conversation among ourselves. It is not to have anyone "really to talk to." That is for sometime else. You want to denigrate small groups? Then don't you ever go over to another Christian's house for anything that resembles Christian fellowship.

The larger meeting is not for the kind of fellowship that you so mournfully sought in that liturgical service. But that is the kind of fellowship that would get a stern eye from an elder (even in the LRC) for disturbing the meeting.

To suggest that fellowship is #1 is probably a mistake. If you look at Acts, you find that they "continued" in the temple for teaching of the apostles, then from house to house in breaking of bread, etc. Without the teaching of the apostles, there is nothing to fellowship in the houses. It becomes an opportunity for the uninformed to discuss what they know little or nothing about.

The larger meetings are prime. They are the gathering.

But if you don't think the larger meetings are so important, then you probably don't think that the formulaic church is really that important. You don't actually meet that way. At least not as the main thing (according to you). So if that is just a side thing, or the lesser thing, then why is it so important?

Besides, if you think that other groups (not the LRC) have home meetings because "things are so bad," then why do you say that the LRC is mainly centered around home groups? Based on your analysis, the reason must be that things are so bad in the larger group.

As for "ritualistic church services," are you blind to the fact that each of your "services" is just as ritualistic? There is even a printed order of service for many of them. And the primary one that does not have one (that would be the Lord's table meeting) is so well orchestrated that if someone suggests a song from the wrong grouping at the wrong time, someone immediately jumps up to change it to a proper one. You herald the joy in this meeting. I will admit that there is a kind of joy in it. But it is, at its best, a way to do it. And the presumption of joy being required is a preference of style. And to some, it may seem to be inconsistent with the kind of reverence and praise that "remembering" the death of Christ and what that means to us should entail. Some would suggest that while it is definitely a benefit to us, to be so outward in joy is to think of it more in terms of me than in terms of the sacrifice that it was. The God of the universe died in my place. That should be sobering. We should constantly have a realization of the weight of guilt that should still be ours but is not. Yes, there is joy in that fact. But if it is too great, it suggests that we have little appreciation for the death we are supposed to remember, and too much appreciation for our freedom from whatever that was.

Moving on.

For many of your meetings, there is no longer any choice of song. It has been preordained in writing from Anaheim. After that, the content of the meeting is similarly preordained — in writing.

You have a rather complex liturgy. May not seem like one when you compare it to the kind that is well thought out by real theologians, but it is liturgy. And it is just a regimented as all the others. The only thing it does not control is what comes out of the mouth of someone who "prophesies" in one of the meetings. But if that gets too far off, there are ways that it is dealt with. In the LRC I've seen everything from groaning and bowed heads, to stern looks by elders, to even one standing and shooing the person back into their seat.

Don't confuse what I'm saying to mean there should be a total lack of order. We do things in an orderly way. But I don't think anyone in their right mind would try to equate our type of meeting with a Catholic or Orthodox or Lutheran liturgy.

A lot of what you say is untrue. Typically the choice of song is decided on the spur of the moment by anyone in the meeting. Most things are not prepared beforehand, except what morning revival we are doing that week.

Cal

06-01-2017, 06:27 PM

If the word church means 'ekklesia' or assembly, which it does. Then technically, if one does not join the assembly in their city, they have separated themselves from the church in their city.

The Bible never says we need to "join" the church in the city. We are the church in the city. And we certainly don't need to join the LCM just because it calls itself the church in the city. That is completely specious logic.

As I said the whole LCM model is a trick designed to coerce people into considering the LCM the church in the city. The point is not to produce oneness, the point is to empower the LCM. But we all are the church in the city, just like we are all the universal church. You don't have to call yourself the universal church or join it to be it.

There is no evidence from the NT that all the Christians in a city met together, considered themselves all part of the same "practical church" or were all under the same group of leaders. It is just not specified that way.

Again this is why most everyone rejects the LCM locality model. There is no biblical foundation for it. It borne from trying to create a rigid binding model from vague non-binding verses.

You simply have no ground or right to try to hold people to it. And the ground you give to the devil in people by making them feel guilty about it you will be accountable for.

A little brother

06-01-2017, 07:26 PM

Each church mentioned covered a whole city. So presumably each group Jesus spoke to was a "denomination". Most likely the way the people overcame, was to leave one denomination and join the local church in the city.

Don't you find it a bit too convenient? When it comes to justifying locality, Jesus was addressing the whole church in the city. When it comes to blames, Jesus spoke only to "denomination"?

One of the most dangerous attitudes in studying God's Word is believing "I" am saved so the blessings are for "ME" and the blames/curses are for "OTHERS".

Cal

06-01-2017, 08:02 PM

Evangelical

06-02-2017, 12:43 AM

Don't you find it a bit too convenient? When it comes to justifying locality, Jesus was addressing the whole church in the city. When it comes to blames, Jesus spoke only to "denomination"?

One of the most dangerous attitudes in studying God's Word is believing "I" am saved so the blessings are for "ME" and the blames/curses are for "OTHERS".

I can show you a few examples.

For example, this verse:

which said: "Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea."

One church per city.

Can you count to seven? Only 7 churches. I can almost guarantee that If you were to ask any pastor of any denomination today, how many churches there are in their city, they would not say "one". They would say the Catholic, the Lutheran, the baptist.. at least 3, 5, 10 or 20 churches in my city. I will show in a minute how the bible says a Catholic church is not a real church.

This verse indicates a denomination in that city:

Rev 2:15 "Likewise, you also have those who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans."

This is obviously the denominations in that city with priest-clergy distinctions. As Nico-laitan means ruler over the people.

Here Jesus said he's coming to their city, to fight against those in the Nicolaitan denomination in their city:

Rev 2:16 Repent therefore! Otherwise, I will soon come to you and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

Here is another:

Rev 2:20 Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols.

In this city, there was a Catholic church, that's who Jezebel represents.

A good theologian like Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible makes this clear:

By her is meant the apostate church of Rome, comparable to Jezebel, the wife of Ahab; as she was the daughter of an Heathen, so is Rome Papal the daughter of Rome Pagan; and as she was the wife of Ahab, and therefore a queen, so the whore of Babylon calls herself; and as Jezebel was famous for her paintings, so the church of Rome for her pretensions to religion and holiness, and for the gaudiness of her worship; and as she was remarkable for her idolatry, whoredoms, witchcrafts, and cruel persecution of the prophets of the Lord, and for murder, and innocent blood she shed; so the church of Rome, for her idolatrous worship of images, for her whoredoms, both in a literal and spiritual sense, and for the witchcrafts, magic, and devilish arts many of her popes have been addicted to, and especially for her barbarities and cruelties exercised upon the true professors of Christ

So it means that if our city is like Thyatira with a Catholic church in it, Jesus is against that Catholic church in our city. So we better avoid that one.

Having dealt with the Catholics, Jesus then talks about the "rest of you in Thyatira", These would be the ones who just meet on the ground of locality and not because they are Roman Catholic:

Rev 2:24

Now I say to the rest of you in Thyatira, to you who do not hold to her teaching and have not learned Satan's so-called deep secrets, 'I will not impose any other burden on you,

We can see that Jesus is treating the whole city as a church. He never talks about multiple churches in the city, nor does he say "churches of Thyatira". There is only one church, and that can be only one true group of followers in any city. Not the denominations that follow Nicolai, Judaism, or Jezebel.

Someone on here before was saying how they believe that all churches in a city are a true expression of the body of Christ.

This is a false idea because Jesus is clear he is only happy with a small group of people in Sardis:

Revelation 3:4 Yet you have a few people in Sardis who have not soiled their clothes. They will walk with me, dressed in white, for they are worthy.

These few people in Sardis are the true expression of the body of Christ. The others are not. These are the true church.

In the city of Philadelphia, there is a denomination of Judaizing Christians. Jesus never treats them as just another church in the city:

Revelation 3:9 Behold, I will make those of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie—behold, I will make them come and bow down before your feet, and they will learn that I have loved you.

Presumably, the ones that were right in His eyes were the ones that did not divide into a denomination of Rome or a denomination of Judaizers.

In Summary

The churches that Jesus addressed were city wide, comprising all believers in each city.
There were some groups within those cities who departed from Christ - the Nicolaitans, the Judaizers, the Jezebels (Catholics, by any good bible commentator's reckoning), etc.
Jesus nowhere talks about "true believers" in the midst of the Nicolaitans or the Judaizers or the Jezebels. He will deliver some kind of punishment to these, and that is why the bible says "come out" (Revelation 18:4).

So if we think that when God sends an angel to deal with the Catholic church, he is going to skip over the "true believers" in her midst ? No, it will be like Lot, or the angel of Death in Egypt, or like the Christians fleeing the Romans in Jerusalem. For any who do not leave, and heed the call, they suffer the punishment.

As someone said before.. all of God's people came out. It is not a possible for a true believer to stay in the Catholic church for very long, for example.

A little brother

06-02-2017, 04:18 AM

In Summary

The churches that Jesus addressed were city wide, comprising all believers in each city.
There were some groups within those cities who departed from Christ - the Nicolaitans, the Judaizers, the Jezebels (Catholics, by any good bible commentator's reckoning), etc.
Jesus nowhere talks about "true believers" in the midst of the Nicolaitans or the Judaizers or the Jezebels. He will deliver some kind of punishment to these, and that is why the bible says "come out" (Revelation 18:4).

So if we think that when God sends an angel to deal with the Catholic church, he is going to skip over the "true believers" in her midst ? No, it will be like Lot, or the angel of Death in Egypt, or like the Christians fleeing the Romans in Jerusalem. For any who do not leave, and heed the call, they suffer the punishment.

As someone said before.. all of God's people came out. It is not a possible for a true believer to stay in the Catholic church for very long, for example.

Don't want to make this discussion too lenghy so I'll try keep it short.

I think you have confused the tares with the wheat and you are trying to burn the whole field because you see tares.

Jesus didn't seem to consider Jezebel a member of the Church in Thyatira. The letter was to addressed to the believers ("you") who tolerated Jezebel ("her"). So I would not hastily say Jezebel equals the whole Catholic Church or "denominations".

Every church which received the letter was already a called-out assembly by definition of "church". Some of their members were being deceived by false believers who sneaked into the assembly.

In the letters, Jesus was focusing on His people and warned them, especially the deceived ones, according to their deeds.

In the letters Jesus asked His people to repent, to be faithful and to hold fast (didn't find any "come out" here). Probably this is what we should focus more too.

Evangelical

06-02-2017, 05:35 AM

The Bible never says we need to "join" the church in the city. We are the church in the city. And we certainly don't need to join the LCM just because it calls itself the church in the city. That is completely specious logic.

As I said the whole LCM model is a trick designed to coerce people into considering the LCM the church in the city. The point is not to produce oneness, the point is to empower the LCM. But we all are the church in the city, just like we are all the universal church. You don't have to call yourself the universal church or join it to be it.

There is no evidence from the NT that all the Christians in a city met together, considered themselves all part of the same "practical church" or were all under the same group of leaders. It is just not specified that way.

Again this is why most everyone rejects the LCM locality model. There is no biblical foundation for it. It borne from trying to create a rigid binding model from vague non-binding verses.

You simply have no ground or right to try to hold people to it. And the ground you give to the devil in people by making them feel guilty about it you will be accountable for.

I think you're speaking from the point of view of the universal church, not the practical local church. In that sense you are right. It is like we believe that all believers are the church in the city.

But practically suppose there are 100 believers in the city who never meet each other. We cannot call that a practical local church. This idea is not practical. A local church only exists when the ekklesia is present, the assembly. If there is no assembly, there's no local church in a practical sense.

I think we are not the church in the city, unless we meet as the church in the city. For example, if 100 Christians get together to watch a game, that is not a church, that is a group of people gathering for sport. If 100 Christians get together to celebrate the Catholic mass, technically that is not a church but a group of people gathering for the Catholic mass.

I think the early church history shows that each territory or city had elders or bishops, and the church administration was very much territorial in nature. Titus 1:5 says "For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city". They were thinking about the territorial boundaries of the church. Not denominational boundaries or boundaries based upon teachings and doctrines.

Cal

06-02-2017, 08:25 AM

I think you're speaking from the point of view of the universal church, not the practical local church. In that sense you are right. It is like we believe that all believers are the church in the city.

But practically suppose there are 100 believers in the city who never meet each other. We cannot call that a practical local church. This idea is not practical. A local church only exists when the ekklesia is present, the assembly. If there is no assembly, there's no local church in a practical sense.

Again, this is not a teaching of the Bible. "Practical church" is an LCM invention. And the Bible never says there has to be a "practical assembly" for the church to be present. This is not a biblical idea but a product of human reasoning.

The idea is a Lee/LCM invention which though interesting is in the end not biblical or even "practical." And it never was intended to be. The idea was invented so that the LCM could claim to be the church to the exclusion of all others.

"Practical church" is just another LCM circular argument. They define the idea in such a way so that only they qualify to fulfill it. But the Bible doesn't mention it or require it. The Bible just says assemble together. It never states that all the members in the city have to assemble together or claim allegiance to the same organization, movement, apostle or leader.

Sorry, there is just not enough Biblical backing for you to insist others conform to this idea. Continuing to do so is itself contentious and divisive.

OBW

06-02-2017, 09:30 AM

Don't confuse what I'm saying to mean there should be a total lack of order. We do things in an orderly way. But I don't think anyone in their right mind would try to equate our type of meeting with a Catholic or Orthodox or Lutheran liturgy.No, they would not confuse the two. But only because the outward form is so different. But a closer look would reveal that you have a modern liturgy that you stick to is a serious way.

Please understand that I am not saying that you are brought down by it. But neither are you lifted up because you think your liturgy is better than theirs. Your liturgy doesn't eat Ken-L-Ration and is therefor better. It is just different.

To borrow from the words of God himself . . .

You search the scripture to find ways to separate yourself from my servants but you do not truly come to me, the only source of unity and oneness — oneness in which you do not seek to find separation.

This is the quest in which you are so seriously engaged as you seek to define a "unique move or God" that excludes others and leaves only yourselves within that move.

A lot of what you say is untrue. Typically the choice of song is decided on the spur of the moment by anyone in the meeting. Most things are not prepared beforehand, except what morning revival we are doing that week.Actually, I have it on pretty good authority that outside of the Lord's table, the number of meetings that are not taken over as "ministry station meetings" has been decimated. And in those meetings they specify the song — generally only one — and the content of the meeting.

Yes, in the Table meeting you are free to call a song. But it is generally enforced as being according to a pattern of progress. I can no longer quote the whole of it, but it is fairly-well established. Deviate very far and it will be corrected. Deviate just a little and they might let it pass, but expect a lecture afterward on the "official" (even though the term will not be used) flow of the Table meeting. I spent many years there and have seen it all first hand. And I have a pretty close relationship with some who are still there and occasionally comment on things like this.

But having admitted that your "morning revival" is prepared beforehand, would you scoff at those who read each day's passages from a lectionary that is in a 2 or 3 year cycle? Would you declare that using suggested readings by the pastor from the Sunday sermon is something sub-par. That would seem to fit well with the notion of learning in the temple then fellowshipping through the week.

But the expectation that you would find reason to demean either as deficient and evidence that they are not participating in the body of Christ (your group, it would seem from your rhetoric) is pretty consistent with your MO.

OBW

06-02-2017, 09:32 AM

Sorry, there is just not enough Biblical backing to for you to insist others conform to this idea. Continuing to do so is itself contentious and divisive. Amen, Amen, and Amen.

Evangelical

06-02-2017, 02:14 PM

And the Bible never says there has to be a "practical assembly" for the church to be present. This is not a biblical idea but a product of human reasoning.

The idea is a Lee/LCM invention which though interesting is in the end not biblical or even "practical." And it never was intended to be. The idea was invented so that the LCM could claim to be the church to the exclusion of all others.

Church is about assembling together to do certain things (the lord's table, etc) , so if we don't have that, there is really no church to speak of.

This idea of a practical church was not invented by Lee, it's just common sense to most people I would say.

I don't think many in denominations who actually "plant churches" would agree with you - they wouldn't bother to "plant churches" if they thought that an area without practical assembly already had a church present.

Evangelical

06-02-2017, 02:22 PM

No, they would not confuse the two. But only because the outward form is so different. But a closer look would reveal that you have a modern liturgy that you stick to is a serious way.

Please understand that I am not saying that you are brought down by it. But neither are you lifted up because you think your liturgy is better than theirs. Your liturgy doesn't eat Ken-L-Ration and is therefor better. It is just different.

To borrow from the words of God himself . . .

You search the scripture to find ways to separate yourself from my servants but you do not truly come to me, the only source of unity and oneness — oneness in which you do not seek to find separation.

This is the quest in which you are so seriously engaged as you seek to define a "unique move or God" that excludes others and leaves only yourselves within that move.

If you want to define liturgy as anything we do every week that is routine or common, such as arriving at 9 am for the meeting every Sunday, then I guess it is a liturgy.

But I use the normal use of the term liturgy to refer to the churches which are known as conducting "liturgical church services".

Actually, I have it on pretty good authority that outside of the Lord's table, the number of meetings that are not taken over as "ministry station meetings" has been decimated. And in those meetings they specify the song — generally only one — and the content of the meeting.

Yes, in the Table meeting you are free to call a song. But it is generally enforced as being according to a pattern of progress. I can no longer quote the whole of it, but it is fairly-well established. Deviate very far and it will be corrected. Deviate just a little and they might let it pass, but expect a lecture afterward on the "official" (even though the term will not be used) flow of the Table meeting. I spent many years there and have seen it all first hand. And I have a pretty close relationship with some who are still there and occasionally comment on things like this.

But having admitted that your "morning revival" is prepared beforehand, would you scoff at those who read each day's passages from a lectionary that is in a 2 or 3 year cycle? Would you declare that using suggested readings by the pastor from the Sunday sermon is something sub-par. That would seem to fit well with the notion of learning in the temple then fellowshipping through the week.

But the expectation that you would find reason to demean either as deficient and evidence that they are not participating in the body of Christ (your group, it would seem from your rhetoric) is pretty consistent with your MO.

That sounds like a unique sort of church in the Recovery. Most churches I believe have any member calling the songs and piano players struggling to catch up or remember the tune...and when in doubt, leave the piano out!

I'm not sure what you mean by "admitting that our morning revival is prepared beforehand". This implies that I tried to hide that morning revivals are prepared beforehand because they form part of our liturgy, but I was not. This should be obvious, everyone knows they are prepared beforehand, so I was admitting nothing.

But where you err is by suggesting that the morning revivals are part of some liturgical service - they are not. We do not use the morning revival for the "church service". The morning revival is not a feature of the Lord's Table meeting and we do not read it off by rote in a service.

This is in contrast to denominations where liturgical churches have a specially crafted "order of service" that is prepared beforehand and even tells you what exact words to say when you pray in exactly the same order every week. The morning revival is just our devotional which is used during the prophesying meeting, but even though the outline is prepared and we may all read that together, people are free to express themselves, plus we have different morning revivals every few weeks, which as another thread no here indicates -is how LSM make their money.

Cal

06-02-2017, 06:32 PM

Church is about assembling together to do certain things (the lord's table, etc) , so if we don't have that, there is really no church to speak of.

Every church I know of has communion of some sort.

This idea of a practical church was not invented by Lee, it's just common sense to most people I would say.

If it is common sense then why do the vast majority of Christians disagree with your version of "practical?"

Church life experiences of course are practical. But as per typical LCM equivocation, you define "practical" to mean what you want it to mean, when, of course, it could be defined a lot of ways.

This is such a common rhetorical tactic of the LCM that it makes one's head swim, which I suppose is the point. Here is how they do it:

Take a common term, like "practical."
Make note of the general definition.
Then make a proprietary definition.
Use the term in an acceptable way using the general definition. For example, say "the church must be practical." Most will nod in agreement.
Then pull out the proprietary definition. For example, say "because the church must be practical it must do A, B and C," (which are all according to the proprietary definition, not the general definition).
Then go for the kill and declare, "The LC is the only true church because it has A, B and C!"
Welcome dupes that fall for such specious logic into the fold of the faithful.

Do this over and over with various terms, like "church," "oneness," "Spirit," "division," "building," "function," "opinion," "gift," "move," "ministry," etc, and you have something that operates rhetorically like the LCM, e.g. in a deceptive and equivocating manner.

Cal

06-02-2017, 07:08 PM

Some examples of LCM proprietary definitions serving their equivocation:

Division: Division means separating yourself from other Christians because of animosity and a desire to avoid having to deal with them. To the LCM division means not meeting on the "local ground" and/or taking a name. Neither of these definitions are common or biblical.

Ministry: Ministry means a spiritual gift which is used to build up others. Paul said in 1 Cor 12:5 that there are many ministries. To the LCM ministry refers to their concept of God's "one ministry from the throne," which eventually equates to Witness Lee's ministry and no other. There is no mention of such a thing in the Bible.

Opinion: Opinion is a personal and subjective point of view based on many cognitive factors. Everyone has opinions and the Bible never says they are by nature bad. To the LCM opinion is "the expression of the self," and hence fallen and evil. Actually this was Lee's definition to intimidate anyone who might dare disagree with him.

Feel free to add others.

Cal

06-02-2017, 07:34 PM

But where you err is by suggesting that the morning revivals are part of some liturgical service - they are not. We do not use the morning revival for the "church service". The morning revival is not a feature of the Lord's Table meeting and we do not read it off by rote in a service.

Pray-reading the HWMR is not rote? I would think by this time it is very rote and non-spontaneous. If it isn't by now it eventually will be.

I suppose calling something "liturgy" is simply admitting that the service has become somewhat rote. Whereas the LCM of course lives in denial about that for the sake of never, ever having to admit they have anything that could be called liturgy, because that's what those fallen religious groups do. But not us, cuz we special. :loopy:

Evangelical

06-02-2017, 10:19 PM

Every church I know of has communion of some sort.

If it is common sense then why do the vast majority of Christians disagree with your version of "practical?"

Church life experiences of course are practical. But as per typical LCM equivocation, you define "practical" to mean what you want it to mean, when, of course, it could be defined a lot of ways.

This is such a common rhetorical tactic of the LCM that it makes one's head swim, which I suppose is the point. Here is how they do it:

Take a common term, like "practical."
Make note of the general definition.
Then make a proprietary definition.
Use the term in an acceptable way using the general definition. For example, say "the church must be practical." Most will nod in agreement.
Then pull out the proprietary definition. For example, say "because the church must be practical it must do A, B and C," (which are all according to the proprietary definition, not the general definition).
Then go for the kill and declare, "The LC is the only true church because it has A, B and C!"
Welcome dupes that fall for such specious logic into the fold of the faithful.

Do this over and over with various terms, like "church," "oneness," "Spirit," "division," "building," "function," "opinion," "gift," "move," "ministry," etc, and you have something that operates rhetorically like the LCM, e.g. in a deceptive and equivocating manner.

I was not really thinking of a propriety definition of the word practical. You seemed to confuse the difference between the universal and the local churches so I was addressing that.

Evangelical

06-02-2017, 10:22 PM

Pray-reading the HWMR is not rote? I would think by this time it is very rote and non-spontaneous. If it isn't by now it eventually will be.

I suppose calling something "liturgy" is simply admitting that the service has become somewhat rote. Whereas the LCM of course lives in denial about that for the sake of never, ever having to admit they have anything that could be called liturgy, because that's what those fallen religious groups do. But not us, cuz we special. :loopy:

We pray read the bible, never heard of praying reading the HWMR, that doesn't sound right does it? That's not something I would agree with.

Ohio

06-03-2017, 04:15 AM

We pray read the bible, never heard of praying reading the HWMR, that doesn't sound right does it? That's not something I would agree with.

So you reject PSRP?

Cal

06-03-2017, 09:24 AM

I was not really thinking of a propriety definition of the word practical. You seemed to confuse the difference between the universal and the local churches so I was addressing that.

Your definition of local church is proprietary as well. You define it so that only groups in your movement qualify.

There are many groups meeting "as the church in the city." The International Church of Christ meets as one church per city. And there are others. But the LCM always manages to find a reason to invalidate them all and not recognize them as churches. The only local churches it recognizes are those loyal to LSM. Very convenient.

This is strong evidence that the locality doctrine does not produce oneness. It only produces an environment where groups fight over the "prize" of getting to be the "one church in the city." In other words it produces more division, while each presumptively "genuine local church" turn its nose up at the other "pretenders."

So it's really nothing more than another "our doctrines are better than yours" battle, just like with.... you guessed it.... "the denominations."

So the LCM really exists in a bubble of denial. They believe there must be a "practical church in the city" and they want to be it (understandably). But in order to achieve this status in their minds they must block out all the contradictions, absurdities and hypocrisies such a state creates, which again accounts for their being unable to debate with full rationality on boards like this or to honestly and openly defend themselves in the public arena. It also explains why they resort to lawsuits to shut people up, because they simply cannot defend their ideas in an open forum.

Cal

06-03-2017, 09:26 AM

We pray read the bible, never heard of praying reading the HWMR, that doesn't sound right does it? That's not something I would agree with.

Really? Benson said he pray-read the entire "The Economy of God" book by Lee. Do you think he would have a problem with pray-reading the HWMR?

Evangelical

06-03-2017, 06:00 PM

Really? Benson said he pray-read the entire "The Economy of God" book by Lee. Do you think he would have a problem with pray-reading the HWMR?

Pray-reading means pray-reading the Word.

But if this is about praying a prayer from the words of another man, then it's no different than praying the prayers in a prayer book or service book. Sometimes the words of a book inspires us to pray in a certain way.

And remember that if we pray read a bible verse technically we are praying the words of other men.

OBW

06-05-2017, 12:14 PM

If you want to define liturgy as anything we do every week that is routine or common, such as arriving at 9 am for the meeting every Sunday, then I guess it is a liturgy.

But I use the normal use of the term liturgy to refer to the churches which are known as conducting "liturgical church services".Actually, you use the term "liturgy" in a pejorative way. It is designed to evoke a sense of inferiority because it is old, at least somewhat set, or both.

But you make that judgment without any actual understanding of the content of such a meeting, or the spiritual significance or impact it has on its participants.

And you make that judgment without actually understanding what a liturgy is and presuming that your meetings are not full of liturgy and even tradition. Yet you demean both in complete ignorance of what they actually bring to the participant.

And participate they do. You think that your form of meeting is the only participatory form of any consequence. Actually, yours is the effect of the Church in Corinth deciding that they know better than Paul and setting aside his limitations on how they should conduct their meetings.

But the most significant thing about your post is that (once again) you did not respond to my most significant charge that your analysis of scripture is undertaken with an eye for how to segregate Christians into us v them rather than to find our commonality in Christ. How you do your meetings, no matter how much I think that you have completely misconstrued the edicts Paul gave in 1 Cor. 14, is not the important thing. Neither is how others do their meetings. It is the common faith in the one Christ, one God and Father, on Spirit, one baptism, etc. It is not in who are the elders in our assembly, nor the identifier we place on our group so as to be findable, nor who our elders are, no who are the ones that we take our teachings from.

The most significant thing is that you are elevating items within each of those categories such that you have given yourself the right to dismiss everyone else as deficient. Yet you are blind to the fact that this is exactly what Paul was chastising the Corinthians for in the opening chapters of his first letter to them. Not for having names (and thus your constant blathering about denominations). But for taking their preference for certain teachers to the point that they split up over it.

And you like to point to the fact of certain theologians in the center of these various groups — like Luther — are included in the names of the groups that came to follow them. Yet you agree with the split from the RCC that surrounded those people. So you are happy for the separation from the RCC caused by Luther, but are unhappy that those who still follow his teachings are identified by his name in any way. But that identification is not about the person, but the teachings that he brought. And you are more than happy about those teachings.

So when Christ Redeemer Lutheran Church changes its name to "church in [city]" what do you have to say about that? Is it now qualified for inclusion in your group? Or will you start looking into something else as a disqualifier? (In other words, is the whole "church in [city]" think just a first line of attack?)

UntoHim

06-05-2017, 02:20 PM

And remember that if we pray read a bible verse technically we are praying the words of other men.

Well this would be another good reason that the scriptures should be read, studied and meditated upon, and not mindlessly repeated. Yes, I understand very well that not all Local Churchers are mindlessly repeating at all times, but in my experience and observation over 40+ years, this particular practice has evolved into something very close to what the Lord Jesus called "vain repetition". (Matthew 6:7)
-

Evangelical

06-05-2017, 10:38 PM

Well this would be another good reason that the scriptures should be read, studied and meditated upon, and not mindlessly repeated. Yes, I understand very well that not all Local Churchers are mindlessly repeating at all times, but in my experience and observation over 40+ years, this particular practice has evolved into something very close to what the Lord Jesus called "vain repetition". (Matthew 6:7)
-

That's not good is it, that's a religious activity.

OBW

06-06-2017, 08:04 AM

That's not good is it, that's a religious activity.You might just be playing word games with Unto. But so much of the time you are looking for reasons to throw out words like "religious" for the purpose of evoking some presumptively negative image planted there so many years ago by Lee. As if "religion" or "religious" is necessarily a bad thing. Just like almost every other thing you talk about, there is no evidence that "tradition" is simply bad — or "liturgy," or "religion." And, similarly, there is no evidence of a "unique move of God" that somehow excludes activities, actions, and so on of Christians other than those in the LRC, or excludes any "religious" activities because they are considered sub-par relative to the standard of a "unique move."

TLFisher

06-06-2017, 01:22 PM

Pray-reading means pray-reading the Word.

But if this is about praying a prayer from the words of another man, then it's no different than praying the prayers in a prayer book or service book. Sometimes the words of a book inspires us to pray in a certain way.

And remember that if we pray read a bible verse technically we are praying the words of other men.

Pray-reading is a good discipline, but pray-reading an outline or RcV footnotes is not the same as pray-reading scripture. Remember all scripture is God-breathed.
Still with pray-reading if not careful, there's the trap of becoming too religious with it.

Cal

06-06-2017, 02:09 PM

Pray-reading is a good discipline, but pray-reading an outline or RcV footnotes is not the same as pray-reading scripture. Remember all scripture is God-breathed.
Still with pray-reading if not careful, there's the trap of becoming too religious with it.

Pray-reading non-scripture is probably self-brainwashing. That's what Benson did, I think. He basically inundated his brain with Witness Lee teaching until it succumbed.

TLFisher

06-06-2017, 03:15 PM

Pray-reading non-scripture is probably self-brainwashing.

Pray-reading non-scripture is as effective as calling on the name of Abraham Lincoln.

Ohio

06-06-2017, 05:42 PM

Pray-reading non-scripture is probably self-brainwashing. That's what Benson did, I think. He basically inundated his brain with Witness Lee teaching until it succumbed.

I don't know why, but I found this terribly funny.

Nell

06-06-2017, 09:04 PM

Pray-reading non-scripture is probably self-brainwashing. That's what Benson did, I think. He basically inundated his brain with Witness Lee teaching until it succumbed.

You may be right, Igzy. There is something else to consider along with your statement.

Before Benson encountered Lee, he may have even still been a college student at Baylor, he shared with some of the "brothers" that he had had a dream. He dreamed "something like" (this is not exact) he would one day be the leader of a large group of Christians (or Christian movement?). Maybe even that the Lord told him he would be the leader... . I believe that this dream has been a big influence on his life and walk with the Lord. It's even possible that he set out to make his dream come true...maybe even in a manner such as you have suggested.

Although, I'm not sure that becoming the CEO of an exclusive publishing house for Lee and Nee counts as becoming the leader of a large group of Christians.

Nell

Evangelical

06-07-2017, 01:39 AM

You might just be playing word games with Unto. But so much of the time you are looking for reasons to throw out words like "religious" for the purpose of evoking some presumptively negative image planted there so many years ago by Lee. As if "religion" or "religious" is necessarily a bad thing. Just like almost every other thing you talk about, there is no evidence that "tradition" is simply bad — or "liturgy," or "religion." And, similarly, there is no evidence of a "unique move of God" that somehow excludes activities, actions, and so on of Christians other than those in the LRC, or excludes any "religious" activities because they are considered sub-par relative to the standard of a "unique move."

Lee condemned vain repitition. But not all repitition is in vain. Paul prayed 3 times for his thorn.

Evangelical

06-07-2017, 01:40 AM

Pray-reading is a good discipline, but pray-reading an outline or RcV footnotes is not the same as pray-reading scripture. Remember all scripture is God-breathed.
Still with pray-reading if not careful, there's the trap of becoming too religious with it.

Depends. Sometimes praying the right idea is better than praying the right words of scripture with the wrong idea.

Ohio

06-07-2017, 04:42 AM

Lee condemned vain repitition. But not all repitition is in vain. Paul prayed 3 times for his thorn.

Besides you, noone would describe Paul's three prayers here as "repetition."

OBW

06-07-2017, 10:28 AM

Lee condemned vain repitition. But not all repitition is in vain. Paul prayed 3 times for his thorn.Not sure how this responds to anything I said. Rather you jumped to a different topic with the hope that it would be seen as a proactive response.

Evangelical

06-07-2017, 05:00 PM

Not sure how this responds to anything I said. Rather you jumped to a different topic with the hope that it would be seen as a proactive response.

See post 386. My remark about religion that you replied to was focussed on vain repitition that untohim mentioned in his post. I did not jump to a different topic..you did. So I replied to you on the topic of vain repitition...not religion. I dont want to discuss the meaning of religion and religious activity again when gotquestions.org adequately descibes it.

OBW

06-08-2017, 11:14 AM

See post 386. My remark about religion that you replied to was focussed on vain repitition that untohim mentioned in his post. I did not jump to a different topic..you did. So I replied to you on the topic of vain repitition...not religion. I dont want to discuss the meaning of religion and religious activity again when gotquestions.org adequately descibes it.Did you actually read my post?

You failed to respond to my comment. I said that a "religious activity" is not, by definition, something that is bad or to be avoided. I also was not saying that vain repetition is good, or in any way defending that.

You are throwing the term "religious activity" around as if it is, by definition, only false, unspiritual, or inappropriate. I do not agree. "Religious activity" can refer to many quite acceptable, appropriate, and proper activities. It can also refer to those like Unto had commented on.

With a proper understanding of "religious activities" you actually said that vain repetition exists — without any comment on appropriateness. But you intended it to be an agreement that vain repetition is inappropriate. To say that, calling it a "religious activity" fails because it is not simply the collection of inappropriate activities. It is like saying that misreading the Bible is reading the Bible when you meant to say that misreading the Bible is a problem.

Get it now?

Cal

06-08-2017, 01:19 PM

How To Succeed in Demagoguery

Step 1: Establish that "religious activity" is bad.

Step 2: Define whatever you want to as "religious activity." More specifically label what others do as "religious activity," but label what you do as "not religious activity."

Precede similarly with phrases like "of the natural man," " out of the flow," "being negative," "not aligned with the vision," "just your opinion," "having the right scent" (a personal favorite) and any others you can think of.

Repeat.

Congratulations! You are a demagogue!

Ohio

06-08-2017, 04:43 PM

TLFisher

06-09-2017, 12:29 PM

Step 2: Define whatever you want to as "religious activity." More specifically label what others do as "religious activity," but label what you do as "not religious activity."

Several good illustrations would be door-knocking, SSOT/VBS and FTT/YWAM. When others do it it's a religious activity and a movement of man. When I do it, it's organic and not a religious activity.

Ohio

06-09-2017, 12:44 PM

Several good illustrations would be door-knocking, SSOT/VBS and FTT/YWAM. When others do it it's a religious activity and a movement of man. When I do it, it's organic and not a religious activity.

Terry, it's just incredible to think back that I basically believed for almost a quarter century that all Witness Lee had to do was rename an activity stolen from other Christians, and poof! like magic! it was transformed on the podium from dead, lifeless, organized, and misguided human efforts into totally organic, spiritual, holy, and God-ordained ways, direct from the throne of God!

Like I said pretty incredible!

TLFisher

06-09-2017, 12:50 PM

Cal

06-09-2017, 04:07 PM

Terry, it's just incredible to think back that I basically believed for almost a quarter century that all Witness Lee had to do was rename an activity stolen from other Christians, and poof! like magic! it was transformed on the podium from dead, lifeless, organized, and misguided human efforts into totally organic, spiritual, holy, and God-ordained ways, direct from the throne of God!

Like I said pretty incredible!

No kidding. He stole door-knocking from the Mormons/JWs. And he even admitted as much!

Bottom line with the LCM: When they do it, it's anointed. When anyone else does it, it's dead. Doesn't matter what it is--establishing a seminary (or cemetery!), setting up a secular profit center, suing other Christians. Shoot, even allowing the leader's son to molest sisters in the movement headquarters is apparently part of the blessing, given how they all kissed up to Philip Lee and swept the sisters under the rug.

All joking aside it's a serious error, because they can use it to justify anything they do and condemn anything anyone else does. It's the ultimate consummation of "even when we're wrong we're right." This is dark corruption. This is the deep things of Satan.

Evangelical

06-09-2017, 07:15 PM

Did you actually read my post?

You failed to respond to my comment. I said that a "religious activity" is not, by definition, something that is bad or to be avoided. I also was not saying that vain repetition is good, or in any way defending that.

You are throwing the term "religious activity" around as if it is, by definition, only false, unspiritual, or inappropriate. I do not agree. "Religious activity" can refer to many quite acceptable, appropriate, and proper activities. It can also refer to those like Unto had commented on.

With a proper understanding of "religious activities" you actually said that vain repetition exists — without any comment on appropriateness. But you intended it to be an agreement that vain repetition is inappropriate. To say that, calling it a "religious activity" fails because it is not simply the collection of inappropriate activities. It is like saying that misreading the Bible is reading the Bible when you meant to say that misreading the Bible is a problem.

Get it now?

When I said vain repetition is a religious activity, it is not rocket science to realize I would be using our definition of religious activity, not yours.
Religious activity always has negative connotations, because Christianity is not a religion but a relationship (see GotQuestions.org)

OBW

06-12-2017, 11:11 AM

When I said vain repetition is a religious activity, it is not rocket science to realize I would be using our definition of religious activity, not yours.
Religious activity always has negative connotations, because Christianity is not a religion but a relationship (see GotQuestions.org)The insistence on changing the definitions of words and terms in the manner you do is a form of equivocation. By not using the standard meaning of the terms, you imply that what is covered by the term "religious activity" is definitionally deficient. When you admit that you use a different definition, then you admit that this is the game you play.

Maybe you would be better served by speaking directly to what is problematic. It is not that it is "religious activity" because there is no agreed upon definition for that term that gets you what you want. Instead, just state that vain repetition is not a spiritual activity. We would all agree upon that. But whether "religious activity" is not spiritual is not agreed upon.

The Bible itself does not agree with you that "religion" is bad. And it does not address "religious activity." And if religion is not bad, then the activities that are associated with it would not be bad.

So work with what is true rather than just what you want to be true.

zeek

06-12-2017, 11:26 AM

Lee condemned vain repitition. But not all repitition is in vain. Paul prayed 3 times for his thorn.

For years, Lee encouraged people to chant "O Lord Jesus" over and over until it became vain repetition. Eventually even he got tired of it and chastised his followers for doing it. I was there.

Evangelical

06-12-2017, 03:12 PM

The insistence on changing the definitions of words and terms in the manner you do is a form of equivocation. By not using the standard meaning of the terms, you imply that what is covered by the term "religious activity" is definitionally deficient. When you admit that you use a different definition, then you admit that this is the game you play.

Maybe you would be better served by speaking directly to what is problematic. It is not that it is "religious activity" because there is no agreed upon definition for that term that gets you what you want. Instead, just state that vain repetition is not a spiritual activity. We would all agree upon that. But whether "religious activity" is not spiritual is not agreed upon.

The Bible itself does not agree with you that "religion" is bad. And it does not address "religious activity." And if religion is not bad, then the activities that are associated with it would not be bad.

So work with what is true rather than just what you want to be true.

Obw it is clear we have different definitions of religion. But my definition is the one held by most born again evangelical protestants ..i already posted got questions. Org.

The definition you subscribe to implies that christianity is a religion and not a relationship. It is more a catholic view.

OBW

06-12-2017, 06:05 PM

Obw it is clear we have different definitions of religion. But my definition is the one held by most born again evangelical protestants ..i already posted got questions. Org.

The definition you subscribe to implies that christianity is a religion and not a relationship. It is more a catholic view.Quoting any site that does not reveal its own sources is not very meaningful. I looked into a few items there and found it to have its own collection of particulars on issues for which the solution is not so simple. And they quote from authors that are strongly at odds with each other as if they are no the same page.

As for the statement "Christianity is not a religion but a relationship," even that is not a correct assessment of Christianity. The whole "it is a relationship" is to ignore that it is also a requirement. It is commands that are to be obeyed. Not just emotions and feelings flowing between persons in "a relationship." The simplistic "not religion" but "is relationship," as if that is all there is to it, is a denial of the requirement for action and obedience. It distills the Christian life down to "spiritual" activities of prayer and praise and "secular" activities like living in this world. It denies the commands of Christ and removes all burdens to do more than "learn more about Jesus." Get to know him better.

It needs lots of grace because we are constantly short of the glory of God since we don't even try. (And it despises the word "try.")

You love to find someone who sort-of-kinda-seems-to-agree-with-you and stick them out there as if that is the end of the search.

Try again. Find the real analysis that determines from the scripture that putting the label "religion" on the fullness of activities and life of the Christian is incorrect or is rejected by the scripture. You won't find it. It is only the ones who want to stuff things in a box so as to hide the truth about them and then declare that everything in the box is bad who say religion is just bad. Or people who have never really thought about what they are thinking or saying.

Evangelical

06-12-2017, 06:53 PM

OBW

06-13-2017, 08:04 AM

Even Rick Warren says Christianity is not a religion.Rick Warren is just like so many others in this day. It is trendy to say that Christianity is not a religion. That is because they have bought into the overly narrowed definition of religion. In making those kinds of statements, they ignore that the Bible itself refers to the Christian life as religion. Therefore those comments are based on a rejection of what the Bible says and acceptance of the alternate meaning of "religion." This can only be understood as an effort by some to divide believers, and is obviously sucking otherwise good Christians into its net. Rather than standing for truth, people like you alter the meaning of words for the purpose of creating a separate religion that is solely yours and excludes others.

And yes, your is also a religion. But I am not sure how Christian it really is.

zeek

06-13-2017, 08:37 AM

Even Rick Warren says Christianity is not a religion.

Let us agree to disagree on the meaning of the word religion and religious activity, and try to agree on what we mean. I or we (i.e. Rick Warren and I :lol:) , might say that religious activity is anything we do for God without using our spirit. What doth thou sayest?

Denying that Christianity is a religion is an instance of exceptionalism. To admit that Christianity is a religion is to recognize that it has characteristics in common with other religions. The exceptionalist sees their ideology as absolutely unique. This is the way fanatics roll.

Evangelical

06-13-2017, 03:56 PM

Rick Warren is just like so many others in this day. It is trendy to say that Christianity is not a religion. That is because they have bought into the overly narrowed definition of religion. In making those kinds of statements, they ignore that the Bible itself refers to the Christian life as religion. Therefore those comments are based on a rejection of what the Bible says and acceptance of the alternate meaning of "religion." This can only be understood as an effort by some to divide believers, and is obviously sucking otherwise good Christians into its net. Rather than standing for truth, people like you alter the meaning of words for the purpose of creating a separate religion that is solely yours and excludes others.

And yes, your is also a religion. But I am not sure how Christian it really is.

As I showed by quoting Rick Warren, gotquestions.org, and there are many others, the notion that Christianity is not a religion is borne of the reality and experience that it is a personal relationship with Christ. This idea has been around a lot time in evangelical Christianity, probably since the time of the great revivals and since people realized that being a Christian was not about going to church and doing so many things.

The bible never really defines religion, "religion is...". The verse in James is not meant to be a definition of religion but to explain what charitable activities are pleasing to God. If we think the verse in James is a definition of religion, then it means that Christianity is about taking care of orphans and widows, and not anything to do with the gospel, or Christ dying on the cross. Just take care of your widowed great grandmother and you are a Christian! which is absurd. It is clearly not meant to be a defining statement of what religion is.

Evangelical

06-13-2017, 04:00 PM

Denying that Christianity is a religion is an instance of exceptionalism. To admit that Christianity is a religion is to recognize that it has characteristics in common with other religions. The exceptionalist sees their ideology as absolutely unique. This is the way fanatics roll.

It is unique in that Christianity is about following the person of Christ, and not doing many things or trying to work our way into heaven. That's why people like Bill O'Reilly say it is more a philosophy not a religion.

OBW

06-13-2017, 05:06 PM

As I showed by quoting Rick Warren, gotquestions.org, and there are many others, the notion that Christianity is not a religion is borne of the reality and experience that it is a personal relationship with Christ. This idea has been around a lot time in evangelical Christianity, probably since the time of the great revivals and since people realized that being a Christian was not about going to church and doing so many things.

The bible never really defines religion, "religion is...". The verse in James is not meant to be a definition of religion but to explain what charitable activities are pleasing to God. If we think the verse in James is a definition of religion, then it means that Christianity is about taking care of orphans and widows, and not anything to do with the gospel, or Christ dying on the cross. Just take care of your widowed great grandmother and you are a Christian! which is absurd. It is clearly not meant to be a defining statement of what religion is.You are correct, the Bible dos not define religion. It just used it in a positive way.

As for the trendy "Christianity is not a religion" mantra, that is a modern fantasy. If there is anything to learn about this thing we call "the faith," it is that nothing about it is really different after all these years. The culture in which Christians find themselves changes. The ability of the average Christian to actually read, and own a Bible has changed. But the truth in it has not. It has been understood as religion positively by its adherents for centuries. It is only the modern need for avoiding "doing" anything that has turned against the truth in the Bible. And the need of some to label what we do with a different word than the one that is also placed upon other religions like Islam, Buddhism, etc. But if you turn to the dictionary, religion remains a perfectly good word to describe the positive aspects of what we as Christians are engaged in, and do, related to our "relationship" with God.

Lee liked to say that anything where man tries to reach or please God is "religion" and to be despised. Well, then you expect that there is nothing that we must do as Christians? Nothing that is required of you in a "doing way? if not, then I must presume that you constantly need grace to cover your lack of will to act according to what Christ said you were to be taught to obey. Obey, not just know about and appreciate. There is actually much that we must do. And if I call that religion, it does not suddenly become something to instead be avoided. If it was all about God coming to me — that I actually do nothing — then why is there anything that I should worry about? Why worry about living righteously. God will do it if that is his desire for me. Why worry about meeting with other Christians? Why would Paul write to so many different churches encouraging them to "do" differently in so many things, including rather secular-seeming things.

And why would Christ charge the disciples to teach others to "obey all that I have commanded"?

OBW

06-13-2017, 05:09 PM

It is unique in that Christianity is about following the person of Christ, and not doing many things or trying to work our way into heaven.I agree that we cannot work our way into heaven. But I challenge you to actually follow Christ without doing anything, including a fair bit of work. Christ's sacrifice precedes everything else. But after that, if you aren't doing anything, you aren't much of a Christian.

Maybe one of those baby Christians that perpetually can only tolerate milk.

But not a mature Christian. Not arriving at a "full grown man."

Evangelical

06-13-2017, 05:17 PM

You are correct, the Bible dos not define religion. It just used it in a positive way.

As for the trendy "Christianity is not a religion" mantra, that is a modern fantasy. If there is anything to learn about this thing we call "the faith," it is that nothing about it is really different after all these years. The culture in which Christians find themselves changes. The ability of the average Christian to actually read, and own a Bible has changed. But the truth in it has not. It has been understood as religion positively by its adherents for centuries. It is only the modern need for avoiding "doing" anything that has turned against the truth in the Bible. And the need of some to label what we do with a different word than the one that is also placed upon other religions like Islam, Buddhism, etc. But if you turn to the dictionary, religion remains a perfectly good word to describe the positive aspects of what we as Christians are engaged in, and do, related to our "relationship" with God.

Lee liked to say that anything where man tries to reach or please God is "religion" and to be despised. Well, then you expect that there is nothing that we must do as Christians? Nothing that is required of you in a "doing way? if not, then I must presume that you constantly need grace to cover your lack of will to act according to what Christ said you were to be taught to obey. Obey, not just know about and appreciate. There is actually much that we must do. And if I call that religion, it does not suddenly become something to instead be avoided. If it was all about God coming to me — that I actually do nothing — then why is there anything that I should worry about? Why worry about living righteously. God will do it if that is his desire for me. Why worry about meeting with other Christians? Why would Paul write to so many different churches encouraging them to "do" differently in so many things, including rather secular-seeming things.

And why would Christ charge the disciples to teach others to "obey all that I have commanded"?

I think it is meant to emphasize our faith over our works, as we are saved by faith alone and not works. But the faith which saves is not without works. It is meant to emphasize that anything we do comes from faith. It means works are a result of our faith and not the other way around.

I think the Recovery is a good example of that. I don't think anyone could argue, that with all the meetings, trainings, door knocking and gospel outreach in the Recovery we are standing for doing nothing. One will usually find themselves much busier than they would in a denomination - including in the Lords table meeting when everyone is expected to prophesy and serve in some way. People who sit on a chair silently are normally asked to do something.

OBW

06-13-2017, 05:33 PM

I think the Recovery is a good example of that. I don't think anyone could argue, that with all the meetings, trainings, door knocking and gospel outreach in the Recovery we are standing for doing nothing. One will usually find themselves much busier than they would in a denomination . . . .If that is the sum total of your works, then you have much to learn. Your "works" are all about meetings and specific efforts to preach the gospel. Without the "works" of the rest of your life, including common, run-of-the-mill things, and the generic command to "love your neighbor as yourself," your "religion" is not true. It is just "religious" in the truly negative sense. It is focused solely on the religious things that you do in the context of meetings and specifically evangelistic activities and excludes everything else. I think that you will find that Christ commanded much concerning your everyday life. So you don't have any "religion" there. And you despise it because you say those who do those things are poor and pathetic.

You mock other Christians for doing things other than those that you listed. Now there's some real evidence that you are one with all of the body of Christ; that you don't despise any of the members of that body.

Can't you just feel the sarcasm in that last sentence? It should burn. But you will declare that you are righteous to demean those things. Just like the ones that Jesus declared in Matt 5 to be last in the kingdom because they taught less that the whole law, even as expanded by Jesus just a few verses earlier.

Evangelical

06-13-2017, 05:51 PM

If that is the sum total of your works, then you have much to learn. Your "works" are all about meetings and specific efforts to preach the gospel.

How terrible that a group of Christians are so focused on fellowship and preaching the gospel. I hope you can sense the sarcasm.

What about all the ministries that mostly focus on preaching the gospel? Billy Graham? The great commission is about preaching the gospel primarily.

Without the "works" of the rest of your life, including common, run-of-the-mill things, and the generic command to "love your neighbor as yourself," your "religion" is not true.

Oh, I forgot to add, that we do all the above, while taking care of a family, and working in a highly demanding professional job such as a lawyer or medical doctor, on top of being an elder and listening to everyone's problems and complaints. And unlike a pastor or priest, we don't get paid for "counselling" and we spend much of our Sunday in church-related things.

Sorry it's not enough "religious work" for you (sarcasm again). I forgot that we must be out on the street feeding soup to homeless people to be truly doing what God asks, and all these things are not enough (sarcasm again).

It is just "religious" in the truly negative sense. It is focused solely on the religious things that you do in the context of meetings and specifically evangelistic activities and excludes everything else. I think that you will find that Christ commanded much concerning your everyday life. So you don't have any "religion" there. And you despise it because you say those who do those things are poor and pathetic.

I don't recall saying anything religious done is poor and pathetic. I could quote Witness Lee right now where he commends the good works done by religions.

The problem is when you focus on a works-based religion then no amount of works will ever be enough for you. Doing one's occupation to one's best ability is not enough, you have to be feeding soup to homeless people not just preaching the gospel. Then feeding soup will not be enough, one must travel to Africa and be a missionary.

Witness Lee said "all those who advocate religion will surely be persecutors of the church. " You are starting to sound like a persecutor because you advocate religion.

zeek

06-13-2017, 10:54 PM

It is unique in that Christianity is about following the person of Christ, and not doing many things or trying to work our way into heaven. That's why people like Bill O'Reilly say it is more a philosophy not a religion.

Do you mean following Christ as opposed to focusing on Buddha or Krishna and receiving their grace? Are you seriously quoting O'Reilly the serial harasser as an authority on this subject?

Koinonia

06-13-2017, 11:56 PM

Evangelical

06-14-2017, 12:47 AM

Evangelical, is this a joke? . . . Sometime I wonder if your posts are some kind of satire, and we are missing it . . .

And for the umpteenth time--who is we? Who are you referring to? You sound so presumptuous. You are high-powered professional (lawyer or medical doctor), "on top of being an elder," and you have to listen to everyone's problems and complaints. Yet, heaven forbid you help homeless people. You already do enough for the Lord. What an attitude. :rollingeyesfrown:

You seem to think that while a person is faithful to their calling in such a way as I mentioned, you also expect them to be handing out soup.

Haven't you just presumed that because one is a lawyer or doctor or an elder they aren't helping people? I never used the word 'high powered", that is your strawman. Lawyers and doctors serve homeless and poor people too.

The apostle Paul said "Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel".

Sorry Paul, but Koinonia thinks you don't do enough for God.

If Paul were here you would criticize him for only preaching the gospel and not doing much else! You would say, "Paul, why are you wasting time making tents why aren't you out feeding soup to the homeless"? He might say to you "Christ did not send me to feed soup but to preach the gospel".

Who is "we"? WE is me and others. Who is "you"?

Koinonia

06-14-2017, 09:38 AM

You seem to think that while a person is faithful to their calling in such a way as I mentioned, you also expect them to be handing out soup.

"Strawman."

Haven't you just presumed that because one is a lawyer or doctor or an elder they aren't helping people? I never used the word 'high powered", that is your strawman. Lawyers and doctors serve homeless and poor people too."Strawman."

The apostle Paul said "Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel".

Sorry Paul, but Koinonia thinks you don't do enough for God."Strawman."

If Paul were here you would criticize him for only preaching the gospel and not doing much else! You would say, "Paul, why are you wasting time making tents why aren't you out feeding soup to the homeless"? He might say to you "Christ did not send me to feed soup but to preach the gospel"."Strawman."

Who is "we"? WE is me and others. Who is "you"?Every time you use "we" in the way that you do, you effectively denominate yourself and the group you claim to speak for.

Evangelical

06-14-2017, 02:58 PM

"Strawman."

"Strawman."

"Strawman."

"Strawman."

Every time you use "we" in the way that you do, you effectively denominate yourself and the group you claim to speak for.

You think we are a denomination anyway so I dont think my use of the word we is denominating myself.

I have tried before to write as if everyone is in the same church as me but it doesn't work because people keep reminding me that we are a denomination. I dont think people here would want me to think of them as being part of the recovery.

Even if you were in the recovery in a certain locality I might use the word we to refer to my church.

Koinonia

06-14-2017, 03:34 PM

You think we are a denomination anyway so I dont think my use of the word we is denominating myself.

I have tried before to write as if everyone is in the same church as me but it doesn't work because people keep reminding me that we are a denomination. I dont think people here would want me to think of them as being part of the recovery.

Even if you were in the recovery in a certain locality I might use the word we to refer to my church.

Evangelical, the reason people wouldn't want you to think of them as being "part of the recovery" is because there is no such thing. There is no "the recovery." There is no "we." There is just the church, the Body of Christ. You are part of it, and I am part of it. Every time you say "we, we, we," every time you say, "part of the Recovery," or "join the recovery," or "join the LSM," you make the church something smaller than it is.

The church is all the believers. Don't you want that?

Koinonia

06-14-2017, 03:49 PM

Evangelical, it strikes me every time I see it. Your persistent sectarian use of the words "we" and "us" betrays your denominational mindset. You have created the denomination by your attitude.

Evangelical

06-14-2017, 04:40 PM

Evangelical, it strikes me every time I see it. Your persistent sectarian use of the words "we" and "us" betrays your denominational mindset. You have created the denomination by your attitude.

Many times I have said that God does not want us to denominate ourselves or name ourselves by different names See my many posts on this matter. Many times people here say that a name does not create a denomination and that it is silly to think that just having a different name means it is a denomination.

However now you have stated that simply by using the words "we" and "us" I have "created the denomination". That's just crazy talk and I hope others here can see that my idea of names causing divisions is much more sensible than your idea of simply using the word "we" as creating a division. I would not use the word "we" unless I knew that you are part of my local church.

Evangelical

06-14-2017, 04:42 PM

Evangelical, the reason people wouldn't want you to think of them as being "part of the recovery" is because there is no such thing. There is no "the recovery." There is no "we." There is just the church, the Body of Christ. You are part of it, and I am part of it. Every time you say "we, we, we," every time you say, "part of the Recovery," or "join the recovery," or "join the LSM," you make the church something smaller than it is.

The church is all the believers. Don't you want that?

You are confusing the universal church with the local one. The universal church is a given and many times the discussion on here is about the local church. If I am talking about the universal church I will say "us", if I am talking about my local church, I will say "we". If I asked you a question about your church , aren't you going to use the word "we" or "my church" also?

Koinonia

06-14-2017, 05:11 PM

Many times I have said that God does not want us to denominate ourselves or name ourselves by different names See my many posts on this matter. Many times people here say that a name does not create a denomination and that it is silly to think that just having a different name means it is a denomination.

However now you have stated that simply by using the words "we" and "us" I have "created the denomination". That's just crazy talk and I hope others here can see that my idea of names causing divisions is much more sensible than your idea of simply using the word "we" as creating a division. I would not use the word "we" unless I knew that you are part of my local church.

Again, it is not the word. It is the attitude.

Koinonia

06-14-2017, 05:12 PM

You are confusing the universal church with the local one. The universal church is a given and many times the discussion on here is about the local church. If I am talking about the universal church I will say "us", if I am talking about my local church, I will say "we". If I asked you a question about your church , aren't you going to use the word "we" or "my church" also?

Evangelical, the concept of the local church is that the church in a city includes all the believers in that city. Every time you talk about "we" or "us" or "my church," you are--by definition--talking about something else.

Evangelical

06-14-2017, 05:16 PM

Evangelical, the concept of the local church is that the church in a city includes all the believers in that city. Every time you talk about "we" or "us" or "my church," you are--by definition--talking about something else.

But no one else here sees is that way. They say we are a denomination and denominations are okay. So as long as everyone else is content in calling us the LSM denomination or the LC (capital L and C) and refer to us as "LSM members", I am happy to oblige and say "you" and "we", because we have already had lengthy discussions about how the LSM is actually a denomination and my belief that a church includes everyone in the city is wrong.

Ohio

06-14-2017, 05:44 PM

But no one else here sees is that way. They say we are a denomination and denominations are okay. So as long as everyone else is content in calling us the LSM denomination or the LC (capital L and C) and refer to us as "LSM members", I am happy to oblige and say "you" and "we", because we have already had lengthy discussions about how the LSM is actually a denomination and my belief that a church includes everyone in the city is wrong.

No one here says denominations are "OK." They are just not nearly as bad as you say, and whether you will admit it or not, your denomination is as bad or worse than most. Think about all the lawsuits and threats of lawsuits by LSM. Is not not numerous "defeats" for you (I Cor 6.7), yet your leadership never seems to learn from failure. Why is that?

Evangelical

06-14-2017, 08:33 PM

No one here says denominations are "OK." They are just not nearly as bad as you say, and whether you will admit it or not, your denomination is as bad or worse than most. Think about all the lawsuits and threats of lawsuits by LSM. Is not not numerous "defeats" for you (I Cor 6.7), yet your leadership never seems to learn from failure. Why is that?

It's all relative of course to your subjective perspective on which denomination is better or worse than others. Yet the fact is Jesus did not start any of them.

Koinonia

06-14-2017, 09:53 PM

But no one else here sees is that way. They say we are a denomination and denominations are okay.

This is not my belief.

So as long as everyone else is content in calling us the LSM denomination or the LC (capital L and C) and refer to us as "LSM members", I am happy to oblige and say "you" and "we", because we have already had lengthy discussions about how the LSM is actually a denomination and my belief that a church includes everyone in the city is wrong.

Again, it betrays your attitude. You talk very easily about "we," "us," "the Recovery," "joining the LSM," etc. You, like many, many others in the LC, have traded one idea for another. You have given up the idea that we should simply "be the church" with everyone else who is a Christian, and you have replaced it with the idea that "we" are the best group--"we" have the best practice, "we" have the best ministry and the best teaching, etc., etc., etc.

Koinonia

06-14-2017, 09:56 PM

It's all relative of course to your subjective perspective on which denomination is better or worse than others. Yet the fact is Jesus did not start any of them.

Jesus also did not start:

LSM
FTTA
BFA
GTCA
DCP
Rhema
MSW
etc.
etc.
etc.

Evangelical

06-15-2017, 12:19 AM

This is not my belief.

Again, it betrays your attitude. You talk very easily about "we," "us," "the Recovery," "joining the LSM," etc. You, like many, many others in the LC, have traded one idea for another. You have given up the idea that we should simply "be the church" with everyone else who is a Christian, and you have replaced it with the idea that "we" are the best group--"we" have the best practice, "we" have the best ministry and the best teaching, etc., etc., etc.

Could you please quote me where I said "joining the LSM" or "join the LSM" ?

I don't recall writing that, because LSM is not something we join, I may have written join the Recovery or join the local church, which means something completely different. If I wrote that then I should correct it, but I would have wrote it for the sake of not getting into another argument about it. I've checked this thread and the other two that I have recently posted in, and I cannot find anywhere where I wrote about joining the LSM.

For example, if you scroll all the way down to post #364, it was Igzy who was using that language, not me. I was talking about "joining the local church". I made sure I use lower case l and c.

If you can't quote me, then you should realize and admit that you are claiming I said things I did not say. Furthermore, you are claiming I am denominating myself because of using the word "we". Yet as post #364 shows, and a few posts either side of it, I am indeed talking about the local church as all believers in the city, and it is others who are referring to us as a denomination and saying it means we "join the LCM" etc.

So please go through the posts, and check whether or not you might have gotten a little confused. It's called confirmation bias. You see things I did not write, and assume things I did not say. We are all guilty of it, because it's the way the human brain works, but if you insist I said things I did not say, then I must correct you.

Koinonia

06-15-2017, 09:39 AM

Could you please quote me where I said "joining the LSM" or "join the LSM" ?

Evangelical, in this post (http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/showpost.php?p=61068&postcount=14) you clearly wrote: "I think the experience of most who join the LSM from denominations is related somehow to the lack of sound bible teaching, or the lack of all members functioning, or just general dissatisfaction with the denomination."

Again, the fact you would say this (and other things) demonstrates your actual denominational mindset.

I don't recall writing that, because LSM is not something we join, I may have written join the Recovery or join the local church, which means something completely different.Perhaps you can explain this phrase: "joining the Recovery." What is "the Recovery," and how does one join?

If I wrote that then I should correct it, but I would have wrote it for the sake of not getting into another argument about it. I've checked this thread and the other two that I have recently posted in, and I cannot find anywhere where I wrote about joining the LSM.

For example, if you scroll all the way down to post #364, it was Igzy who was using that language, not me. I was talking about "joining the local church". I made sure I use lower case l and c. If you can't quote me, then you should realize and admit that you are claiming I said things I did not say.I have quoted you.

Furthermore, you are claiming I am denominating myself because of using the word "we". Yet as post #364 shows, and a few posts either side of it, I am indeed talking about the local church as all believers in the city, and it is others who are referring to us as a denomination and saying it means we "join the LCM" etc.

So please go through the posts, and check whether or not you might have gotten a little confused. It's called confirmation bias. You see things I did not write, and assume things I did not say. We are all guilty of it, because it's the way the human brain works, but if you insist I said things I did not say, then I must correct you. Thank you, Evangelical.

Ohio

06-15-2017, 10:04 AM

It's all relative of course to your subjective perspective on which denomination is better or worse than others. Yet the fact is Jesus did not start any of them.

Do you know that Witness Lee came to the USA because the church in Taipei expelled him for using church money to pay off his own personal debts?

Perhaps when you learn your own history, you will pause a bit before condemning all others.

leastofthese

06-15-2017, 11:16 AM

Evangelical writes "I think the experience of most who join the LSM from denominations is related somehow to the lack of sound bible teaching, or the lack of all members functioning, or just general dissatisfaction with the denomination.

I think this explains a high number coming from traditional mainline denominations, Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, and particularly those that reject biblical values and adopt pro-gay marriage stance etc.

I do not expect many coming from denominations which teach the bible and value members participating - baptist, presbyterian etc.

A number are non-denom Christians who go from house fellowship to house fellowship but want something more structured."

Then he writes "Could you please quote me where I said "joining the LSM" or "join the LSM" ?

I don't recall writing that, because LSM is not something we join, I may have written join the Recovery or join the local church, which means something completely different. If I wrote that then I should correct it, but I would have wrote it for the sake of not getting into another argument about it. I've checked this thread and the other two that I have recently posted in, and I cannot find anywhere where I wrote about joining the LSM.

For example, if you scroll all the way down to post #364, it was Igzy who was using that language, not me. I was talking about "joining the local church". I made sure I use lower case l and c.

If you can't quote me, then you should realize and admit that you are claiming I said things I did not say. Furthermore, you are claiming I am denominating myself because of using the word "we". Yet as post #364 shows, and a few posts either side of it, I am indeed talking about the local church as all believers in the city, and it is others who are referring to us as a denomination and saying it means we "join the LCM" etc.

So please go through the posts, and check whether or not you might have gotten a little confused. It's called confirmation bias. You see things I did not write, and assume things I did not say. We are all guilty of it, because it's the way the human brain works, but if you insist I said things I did not say, then I must correct you."

Evangelical

06-15-2017, 03:04 PM

Evangelical, in this post (http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/showpost.php?p=61068&postcount=14) you clearly wrote: "I think the experience of most who join the LSM from denominations is related somehow to the lack of sound bible teaching, or the lack of all members functioning, or just general dissatisfaction with the denomination."

Again, the fact you would say this (and other things) demonstrates your actual denominational mindset.

Perhaps you can explain this phrase: "joining the Recovery." What is "the Recovery," and how does one join?

I have quoted you.

Thank you, Evangelical.

No it doesnt demonstrate my denominational mindset because
a) join the lsm is the language everyone else was using. I was being considerate and not wishing to defend the fact for the hundreth time that no one "joins the lsm" and lsm is the ministry not the church.
b) on countless occasions I have referred to the church as all believers.
c) even current members think it is a denomination like little brother. I have corrected them in another thread. But I dont see the point correcting most people here who have made their mind up that it is a denomination. Because it requires a degree of light and revelation to see that.

Koinonia

06-15-2017, 03:09 PM

Koinonia

06-15-2017, 03:14 PM

No it doesnt demonstrate my denominational mindset because
a) join the lsm is the language everyone else was using. I was being considerate and not wishing to defend the fact for the hundreth time that no one "joins the lsm" and lsm is the ministry not the church.

This does not make any sense. I would never use language with which I had a moral disagreement. And I dare say that most people wouldn't.

Also, now here you are saying that "LSM is the ministry." Would you like to define that? What does that mean?

b) on countless occasions I have referred to the church as all believers.

Good.

c) even current members think it is a denomination like little brother. I have corrected them in another thread. But I dont see the point correcting most people here who have made their mind up that it is a denomination. Because it requires a degree of light and revelation to see that.

It requires a degree of light and revelation to realize that just because you call yourself something does not mean anything about the reality of it. The Local Church is, in effect, a denomination. And you yourself demonstrate your own tacit acceptance of this every time you talk about "we" and "us" and "joining the LSM" and "joining the Recovery," etc.

Evangelical

06-15-2017, 03:48 PM

Evangelical

06-15-2017, 04:17 PM

This does not make any sense. I would never use language with which I had a moral disagreement. And I dare say that most people wouldn't.

Also, now here you are saying that "LSM is the ministry." Would you like to define that? What does that mean?

It requires a degree of light and revelation to realize that just because you call yourself something does not mean anything about the reality of it. The Local Church is, in effect, a denomination. And you yourself demonstrate your own tacit acceptance of this every time you talk about "we" and "us" and "joining the LSM" and "joining the Recovery," etc.

Okay, having read the thread when I said "join the LSM", I now see the problem.

If you read my post carefully, I said:

I think the experience of most who join the LSM from denominations

Did you see how I said "from denominations"? So clearly I was not saying the LSM is a denomination. So I was being true to my nondenominational beliefs. It is your confirmation bias that read the "join the LSM" part and did not consider the "from denominations" part. You jumped to conclusion and thought I am betraying my beliefs and tacitly accepting it. And I realize that my confirmation bias has accused you of being denominational when I can see that you are not. For that I apologize.

Now, strictly speaking I should not have said LSM because that is a ministry.
To address your question about LSM being a ministry, well, we had lengthy discussions about that here:

http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/showpost.php?p=50718&postcount=157

Why did I say "join the LSM". Well, if I always referred to us as the local church, then every time I said that people would point out that I'm actually in a denomination called LCM, LSM, or LC. In that thread everyone was referring to the LC/LSM interchangeably.

So rather than explain myself every time in a few paragraphs about how the LCM, LC is not a denomination or an organization and that LSM is a ministry and the difference between a church and a ministry, I would rather just go with the flow and address the topic at hand.

Many on here refer to the local churches as the LC or the Local Church.
Whether you call it that, or LCM, or LSM or LC, to me makes no difference, if we truly believed we are the local church in the city. It is all referring to us as a denomination or organization, which I disagree with, but I see no need to press the issue in every discussion.

I say "us" for your benefit, not mine. I still believe you to be part of the church in the city, despite your denominational or nondenominational affiliation. But if you are meeting in a denomination then clearly there is an "us" and a "you" point of difference. For example, I do not believe that a person can stay at home on a Sunday for example and claim to be "meeting with the local church", just because they are one of many Christians in the city. If you are a Jehovah Witness or Catholic why would I include you and pretend you are part of the same church (practically) as me ? To say that all believers in the city are the church, is not to say "let's pretend that every denomination is part of the church".

Names - names are important, to God, and biblically, names have a significant place in Scripture. Names are also important in families. A wife will take her husbands name. A husband would get upset if the wife took another mans name. Names, trademarks etc, are also important in the business and marketing world, companies spend a lot of money developing and protecting names. Given all that, consider, that names for God's church may be more important than you realize. I will give an extreme example, some churches call themselves LGBT church. I think that would be upsetting to God, even if all members were not actually LGBT, the name has meaning.

Here is the irony and the hypocrisy - many take issue with us calling ourselves the local church in the city, but have no issue with 100 churches in the city calling themselves whatever they like. That is the very definition of denominationalism. The word denomination comes from the word de-name-iate.

leastofthese

06-15-2017, 05:44 PM

Many on here refer to the local churches as the LC or the Local Church.
Whether you call it that, or LCM, or LSM or LC, to me makes no difference, if we truly believed we are the local church in the city. It is all referring to us as a denomination or organization, which I disagree with, but I see no need to press the issue in every discussion.

Here is the irony and the hypocrisy - many take issue with us calling ourselves the local church in the city, but have no issue with 100 churches in the city calling themselves whatever they like. That is the very definition of denominationalism. The word denomination comes from the word de-name-iate.

EJellyz-

The Living Stream Ministry is an organization, you can disagree with this, but it is a fact, so you would be wrong. The Local Churches (at least in all of the cities that I am aware of in the US) are also organizations. For example the organization tax ID for the Church in Anaheim is 51-0179931 - registered organization. Interestingly enough, churches/religious organizations are not required to publicly file the 990 tax info - which I'm sure is a great relief for LSM/Local Churches. Many churches will post their financial information voluntarily, but I can't find a Local Church that has been willing to be this transparent (surprise surprise?).

You say that many take issue with "us calling ourselves the local church in the city, but have no issue with 100 churches in the city calling themselves whatever they like."

Who are the "many" you reference?

Many people don't take issue with your naming scheme. People take issue with your theology/beliefs/practices, there is a difference here. These same people may or may not take issue with the beliefs of other churches in the city.

Just think... what if non LSM affiliated church made the same claims that you make about your organization - one true church, recovering truth, the unique move of God, etc. Would you take issue? Or maybe just call the LSM attorneys?

Evangelical

06-15-2017, 09:18 PM

EJellyz-

The Living Stream Ministry is an organization, you can disagree with this, but it is a fact, so you would be wrong. The Local Churches (at least in all of the cities that I am aware of in the US) are also organizations. For example the organization tax ID for the Church in Anaheim is 51-0179931 - registered organization. Interestingly enough, churches/religious organizations are not required to publicly file the 990 tax info - which I'm sure is a great relief for LSM/Local Churches. Many churches will post their financial information voluntarily, but I can't find a Local Church that has been willing to be this transparent (surprise surprise?).

You say that many take issue with "us calling ourselves the local church in the city, but have no issue with 100 churches in the city calling themselves whatever they like."

Who are the "many" you reference?

Many people don't take issue with your naming scheme. People take issue with your theology/beliefs/practices, there is a difference here. These same people may or may not take issue with the beliefs of other churches in the city.

Just think... what if non LSM affiliated church made the same claims that you make about your organization - one true church, recovering truth, the unique move of God, etc. Would you take issue? Or maybe just call the LSM attorneys?

I think this is getting off topic. This has been discussed at length in other threads.

Koinonia

06-15-2017, 09:39 PM

Okay, having read the thread when I said "join the LSM", I now see the problem.

If you read my post carefully, I said:

I think the experience of most who join the LSM from denominations

Did you see how I said "from denominations"? So clearly I was not saying the LSM is a denomination. So I was being true to my nondenominational beliefs. It is your confirmation bias that read the "join the LSM" part and did not consider the "from denominations" part. You jumped to conclusion and thought I am betraying my beliefs and tacitly accepting it. And I realize that my confirmation bias has accused you of being denominational when I can see that you are not. For that I apologize.

Now, strictly speaking I should not have said LSM because that is a ministry.
To address your question about LSM being a ministry, well, we had lengthy discussions about that here:

http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/showpost.php?p=50718&postcount=157

Why did I say "join the LSM". Well, if I always referred to us as the local church, then every time I said that people would point out that I'm actually in a denomination called LCM, LSM, or LC. In that thread everyone was referring to the LC/LSM interchangeably.

So rather than explain myself every time in a few paragraphs about how the LCM, LC is not a denomination or an organization and that LSM is a ministry and the difference between a church and a ministry, I would rather just go with the flow and address the topic at hand.

Many on here refer to the local churches as the LC or the Local Church.
Whether you call it that, or LCM, or LSM or LC, to me makes no difference, if we truly believed we are the local church in the city. It is all referring to us as a denomination or organization, which I disagree with, but I see no need to press the issue in every discussion.

I say "us" for your benefit, not mine. I still believe you to be part of the church in the city, despite your denominational or nondenominational affiliation. But if you are meeting in a denomination then clearly there is an "us" and a "you" point of difference. For example, I do not believe that a person can stay at home on a Sunday for example and claim to be "meeting with the local church", just because they are one of many Christians in the city. If you are a Jehovah Witness or Catholic why would I include you and pretend you are part of the same church (practically) as me ? To say that all believers in the city are the church, is not to say "let's pretend that every denomination is part of the church".

Names - names are important, to God, and biblically, names have a significant place in Scripture. Names are also important in families. A wife will take her husbands name. A husband would get upset if the wife took another mans name. Names, trademarks etc, are also important in the business and marketing world, companies spend a lot of money developing and protecting names. Given all that, consider, that names for God's church may be more important than you realize. I will give an extreme example, some churches call themselves LGBT church. I think that would be upsetting to God, even if all members were not actually LGBT, the name has meaning.

Here is the irony and the hypocrisy - many take issue with us calling ourselves the local church in the city, but have no issue with 100 churches in the city calling themselves whatever they like. That is the very definition of denominationalism. The word denomination comes from the word de-name-iate.

So, you are not going to retract your statement and apologize to me?

Evangelical

06-15-2017, 10:02 PM

So, you are not going to retract your statement and apologize to me?

Which statement in particular and apologize for what exactly?

So far in the discussion you have not indicated that you have been offended and that is normally the first thing a person does before they request an apology.

Koinonia

06-15-2017, 10:17 PM

Which statement in particular and apologize for what exactly?

So far in the discussion you have not indicated that you have been offended and that is normally the first thing a person does before they request an apology.

Here you go:

Could you please quote me where I said "joining the LSM" or "join the LSM" ?

I don't recall writing that, because LSM is not something we join, I may have written join the Recovery or join the local church, which means something completely different. If I wrote that then I should correct it, but I would have wrote it for the sake of not getting into another argument about it. I've checked this thread and the other two that I have recently posted in, and I cannot find anywhere where I wrote about joining the LSM.

For example, if you scroll all the way down to post #364, it was Igzy who was using that language, not me. I was talking about "joining the local church". I made sure I use lower case l and c.

If you can't quote me, then you should realize and admit that you are claiming I said things I did not say. Furthermore, you are claiming I am denominating myself because of using the word "we". Yet as post #364 shows, and a few posts either side of it, I am indeed talking about the local church as all believers in the city, and it is others who are referring to us as a denomination and saying it means we "join the LCM" etc.

So please go through the posts, and check whether or not you might have gotten a little confused. It's called confirmation bias. You see things I did not write, and assume things I did not say. We are all guilty of it, because it's the way the human brain works, but if you insist I said things I did not say, then I must correct you.

Evangelical

06-15-2017, 10:26 PM

Here you go:

There was nothing offensive in that.

Koinonia

06-15-2017, 10:38 PM

Evangelical, you wrote:

Could you please quote me where I said "joining the LSM" or "join the LSM" ?

I don't recall writing that, because LSM is not something we join, I may have written join the Recovery or join the local church, which means something completely different. If I wrote that then I should correct it, but I would have wrote it for the sake of not getting into another argument about it. I've checked this thread and the other two that I have recently posted in, and I cannot find anywhere where I wrote about joining the LSM.

For example, if you scroll all the way down to post #364, it was Igzy who was using that language, not me. I was talking about "joining the local church". I made sure I use lower case l and c.

If you can't quote me, then you should realize and admit that you are claiming I said things I did not say. Furthermore, you are claiming I am denominating myself because of using the word "we". Yet as post #364 shows, and a few posts either side of it, I am indeed talking about the local church as all believers in the city, and it is others who are referring to us as a denomination and saying it means we "join the LCM" etc.

So please go through the posts, and check whether or not you might have gotten a little confused. It's called confirmation bias. You see things I did not write, and assume things I did not say. We are all guilty of it, because it's the way the human brain works, but if you insist I said things I did not say, then I must correct you.

So, Evangelical, are you going to retract your comment about "joining the LSM"?

Evangelical

06-15-2017, 10:50 PM

Evangelical, you wrote:

So, Evangelical, are you going to retract your comment about "joining the LSM"?

In a way I already have because I explained why I used it and not for the reasons you assumed. I will try to be consistent from now on.

I already showed that you did jump to conclusions because although I used the word lsm lc or lcm it does not mean I believe they are denominations.

The full quote of what I said confirmed that, but you were too busy trying to prove me wrong than to realize that.

Koinonia

06-15-2017, 11:11 PM

In a way I already have because I explained why I used it and not for the reasons you assumed. I will try to be consistent from now on.

I already showed that you did jump to conclusions because although I used the word lsm lc or lcm it does not mean I believe they are denominations.

The full quote of what I said confirmed that, but you were too busy trying to prove me wrong than to realize that.

I did not jump to conclusions. I quoted you; you appeared to deny it, and then I showed you the quote.

Evangelical

06-16-2017, 12:18 AM

I did not jump to conclusions. I quoted you; you appeared to deny it, and then I showed you the quote.

I did not deny that I could have said that but doubted that was my intention. I asked you to produce the quote. You did, and then reading it again, I realized that reference to LSM must have been a typographical mistake, because LSM is the ministry and not something to be joined. I think I meant join the LCM. I was replying to Freedom who was using the abbreviation LCM.

But even the term LCM meaning Local Church Ministries that everyone is using is incorrect because such an entity does not exist.

It is jumping to conclusions when you implied that just because I said LSM it means I have a denominational mindset. But if I said local church in <city name> you or others would impose your definition of LSM/LC/LCM because you know of my affiliations with the ministry and deny that LSM/LC/LCM represents the local church in <city name>.

LC/LCM are terms that others use to refer to us, or should I say, the friendly local church in your city :D

But I think I know where all of this is coming from. You are still a little upset that I mistakenly called you a denominational person in the Spurgeon thread.

In that thread you seemed to say that you are not a denominational person because you are a FTTA graduate, or that you have acquired the non-denominational mindset from your time in the Recovery. I'm not a denominational person either for similar reasons.

I wonder if it has occurred to anyone, that perhaps the reason so many denominations exist today, is because people have convinced them they are a denomination, and so it is a kind of invisible wall clouding their judgement.

For example, I can imagine people in Luther's day, telling him that his newly founded church was a denomination worse than the Catholics. "Luther, you are in a sect, a denomination, not the real local church in the city, that is the Catholics. You are so divisive, you are even more divisive and worse than the Catholics because you claim to be the genuine church. Luther, how dare you say that the Papacy is degraded, that is slanderous and divisive".

Koinonia

06-16-2017, 10:22 AM

I did not deny that I could have said that but doubted that was my intention. I asked you to produce the quote. You did, and then reading it again, I realized that reference to LSM must have been a typographical mistake, because LSM is the ministry and not something to be joined. I think I meant join the LCM. I was replying to Freedom who was using the abbreviation LCM.

But even the term LCM meaning Local Church Ministries that everyone is using is incorrect because such an entity does not exist.

So, do you retract your comment?

It is jumping to conclusions when you implied that just because I said LSM it means I have a denominational mindset. But if I said local church in <city name> you or others would impose your definition of LSM/LC/LCM because you know of my affiliations with the ministry and deny that LSM/LC/LCM represents the local church in <city name>.

No, your sectarian/denominational mindset is betrayed by your repeated, habitual use of "we," "we," "we," "us," "us," "us," and phrases like "join the LSM," "join the Recovery," "part of the Recovery," etc.

LC/LCM are terms that others use to refer to us, or should I say, the friendly local church in your city :D

Again, "the local church in your city" is not "we" and "us," it is all the believers in that city. You cannot claim to be "the local church in your city." Each time you do that, you have created something different that is smaller than the church.

But I think I know where all of this is coming from. You are still a little upset that I mistakenly called you a denominational person in the Spurgeon thread.

I was never upset.

In that thread you seemed to say that you are not a denominational person because you are a FTTA graduate, or that you have acquired the non-denominational mindset from your time in the Recovery. I'm not a denominational person either for similar reasons.

Here we go again... what is "the Recovery"? And how does one spend time in it?

I wonder if it has occurred to anyone, that perhaps the reason so many denominations exist today, is because people have convinced them they are a denomination, and so it is a kind of invisible wall clouding their judgement.

Sounds like the LC... people have put up an invisible wall between themselves and all other believers. And they think it is okay because they keep calling themselves "the church."

For example, I can imagine people in Luther's day, telling him that his newly founded church was a denomination worse than the Catholics. "Luther, you are in a sect, a denomination, not the real local church in the city, that is the Catholics. You are so divisive, you are even more divisive and worse than the Catholics because you claim to be the genuine church. Luther, how dare you say that the Papacy is degraded, that is slanderous and divisive".

So, now the Lutherans used to be "the real local church in the city"?... You appear to make this stuff up as you go along.

TLFisher

06-16-2017, 01:09 PM

Sounds like the LC... people have put up an invisible wall between themselves and all other believers. And they think it is okay because they keep calling themselves "the church."

Pretty much. Anything less would be termed as "shaking hands over the fence". That's why an attitude exists we'll fellowship with you on our terms, but we won't fellowship with you on your terms.
Every so often a local church member will meet with a non-LSM/LC where their relatives meet. It's one thing to go there, but will abstain from taking communion with them. It's part of the invisible wall that's been created by the ground doctrine.

TLFisher

06-16-2017, 01:21 PM

"we" are the best group--"we" have the best practice, "we" have the best ministry and the best teaching, etc., etc., etc.

Another I have heard "those in the denominations" in addition to your quotes above are all far too occurring in prophesying meetings. To address it is defended. I know not everyone in the local churches speak that way, but when it is spoken there's no correction.

Evangelical

06-16-2017, 04:03 PM

So, do you retract your comment?

I admit my use of the phrase "join the LSM" was a mistake. By the way I like this format you've made in how you quote me, it's easier to reply to.

No, your sectarian/denominational mindset is betrayed by your repeated, habitual use of "we," "we," "we," "us," "us," "us," and phrases like "join the LSM," "join the Recovery," "part of the Recovery," etc.

Again, "the local church in your city" is not "we" and "us," it is all the believers in that city. You cannot claim to be "the local church in your city." Each time you do that, you have created something different that is smaller than the church.

When you say "it is all believers in that city", that also includes us. So how can you say we cannot claim to be "the local church in the city"? The word "the" is not to the exclusion of everyone else in the city. When we say that, we refer to something larger than ourselves, that includes all believers in the city. It includes "us" who are meeting as the local church in the city, and it includes "everyone else", who are not meeting as the local church in the city, but as a denomination. On this point, the difference of "us" and "them" is on the basis of who meets as the local church practically, and who doesn't. It does not mean, that every believer in the city is not part of the local church in reality. But in practicality, they are not.

Let's take this to an extreme example because it emphasizes the point. Suppose every believer in a city never went to church on Sunday but stayed at home. It is true they are all part of the one local church in the city. But practically and physically they are not unless they are meeting together.
Note that church means assembly. We cannot be the church practically unless we are assembling together. Hebrews 10:25 says "not giving up assembling together". No assembly = no church.

I address this further below in my reply to you about the invisible walls.

I was never upset.

Good because that is the only thing I recall possibly offending you about. But if there is anything, let me know.

Here we go again... what is "the Recovery"? And how does one spend time in it?

A good explanation is here
http://www.lordsrecovery.org/
http://www.local-church-movement.org/

Recovery means to bring something back to its original condition. To spend time in the recovery would be to spend time in the genuine experience of Christ and the genuine church life.

Sounds like the LC... people have put up an invisible wall between themselves and all other believers. And they think it is okay because they keep calling themselves "the church."

Obviously not every believer in the city is experiencing the genuine church life. A genuine believer in the JW church for example, would they be experiencing the genuine church life while they remain there? I don't think so.

Even though all believers in the city are part of the local church and the body of Christ, not all believers are experiencing the genuine church life in their denominations. It is in this sense that there is an "us" and a "them".

So, now the Lutherans used to be "the real local church in the city"?... You appear to make this stuff up as you go along.

Luther and co. were a group of believers who left the Catholic system to experience Christ genuinely and the genuine church life. So in my mind they would have represented the real local church in the city, although they may not have seen themselves as such. They may have seen themselves as "reformed Catholics", I don't know. Luther originally only wanted to reform, or as I would say, recover, the Catholic church. But political religious pressures meant that became impossible, and the Lutheran church was born, which became a denomination.

Koinonia

06-16-2017, 05:20 PM

When you say "it is all believers in that city", that also includes us. So how can you say we cannot claim to be "the local church in the city"?

Do you not understand the difference? On the one hand, you acknowledge that "the church in London" is all the believers in London. On the other hand, you say: "our group is the church in London" (and our group is registered with the government as "the church in London;" the leaders of our group are the legitimate elders for the city of London; the meeting hall of our group is the meeting hall for the church in London, etc., etc.). How absurd.

The word "the" is not to the exclusion of everyone else in the city. When we say that, we refer to something larger than ourselves, that includes all believers in the city. It includes "us" who are meeting as the local church in the city, and it includes "everyone else", who are not meeting as the local church in the city, but as a denomination. On this point, the difference of "us" and "them" is on the basis of who meets as the local church practically, and who doesn't. It does not mean, that every believer in the city is not part of the local church in reality. But in practicality, they are not.

Can you define this what this practicality entails? Is it possible to be a part of the practicality of the local church without being associated with Living Stream Ministry and Witness Lee?

Let's take this to an extreme example because it emphasizes the point. Suppose every believer in a city never went to church on Sunday but stayed at home. It is true they are all part of the one local church in the city. But practically and physically they are not unless they are meeting together.
Note that church means assembly. We cannot be the church practically unless we are assembling together. Hebrews 10:25 says "not giving up assembling together". No assembly = no church.

So, according to your definition here, the existence of the "practicality of the local church" is dependent on having meetings? In other words, the most proper expression of the practicality of the church would be everyone being in a enormous meeting together?

Obviously not every believer in the city is experiencing the genuine church life. A genuine believer in the JW church for example, would they be experiencing the genuine church life while they remain there? I don't think so.

Even though all believers in the city are part of the local church and the body of Christ, not all believers are experiencing the genuine church life in their denominations. It is in this sense that there is an "us" and a "them".

How do you define what is the "genuine church life"?

Evangelical

06-17-2017, 03:34 AM

Do you not understand the difference? On the one hand, you acknowledge that "the church in London" is all the believers in London. On the other hand, you say: "our group is the church in London" (and our group is registered with the government as "the church in London;" the leaders of our group are the legitimate elders for the city of London; the meeting hall of our group is the meeting hall for the church in London, etc., etc.). How absurd.

If the church in London is not us who actually call ourselves the church in London, then who is it?

It is a strange view you hold, that we who call ourselves the church in London are not the church in London, and yet every denomination who does not call themselves the church in London, is the church in London.

Your view says that all the believers are the church in London, but in practicality there is no such thing as "the church in London"? How crazy is that?

If a person wanted to meet with "the church in London" in practice, a person would have to choose one of the denominations. So an idea of the church in London without anyone calling themselves "the church in London", is just an idea that does not exist in practicality.

Can you define this what this practicality entails? Is it possible to be a part of the practicality of the local church without being associated with Living Stream Ministry and Witness Lee?

Let's use an example. Suppose the only denominations in London were
Anglican
Catholic
Lutheran.

Which one of these do you suppose is practically the local church?

Or

Can we have the local church in practicality without being associated with any of these denominations?

To put this another way.. suppose you arrive in London as a Christian in London.. and you want to worship with the church in London - where do you go?

So, according to your definition here, the existence of the "practicality of the local church" is dependent on having meetings? In other words, the most proper expression of the practicality of the church would be everyone being in a enormous meeting together?

It would be various meetings as the church in London. There is no requirement to have one enormous meeting. 10 meetings in London could all be meeting practically as the church in London. Rather than, one meeting as Anglican, one meeting as Catholic, one meeting as Lutheran etc.

How do you define what is the "genuine church life"?

It's the life of Christ and Christ Himself in our midst.

Koinonia

06-17-2017, 09:43 AM

If the church in London is not us who actually call ourselves the church in London, then who is it?

It is a strange view you hold, that we who call ourselves the church in London are not the church in London, and yet every denomination who does not call themselves the church in London, is the church in London.

Your view says that all the believers are the church in London, but in practicality there is no such thing as "the church in London"? How crazy is that?

We are not the church in London because we call ourselves "the church in London." We are the church in London because we are. The church in London is all the believers in London. How absurd to recognize this reality but then say, "Well, yes, that's true, but actually the church in London is this minuscule group of people who use the name 'church in London.'" Not even WL taught that.

If a person wanted to meet with "the church in London" in practice, a person would have to choose one of the denominations. So an idea of the church in London without anyone calling themselves "the church in London", is just an idea that does not exist in practicality.

Because "the church in London" is not a group. It's like saying "How do I know there's such a thing as the church?" Well, the church is all around you. Yet, it seems like everything with you comes down to words. Do you actually think that the words "the church in" convey spiritual reality?

It would be various meetings as the church in London. There is no requirement to have one enormous meeting. 10 meetings in London could all be meeting practically as the church in London. Rather than, one meeting as Anglican, one meeting as Catholic, one meeting as Lutheran etc.

What is your source for this? That 10 meetings in London could all be meeting practically as the church in London? Is this something that Witness Lee made up?

It's the life of Christ and Christ Himself in our midst.

No. According to Matthew 18:20--wherever two or three are gathered in the Lord's name, He is in the midst. According to Witness Lee, "two or three" is not a local church. So, "the life of Christ and Christ Himself in our midst" cannot be the definition of "the genuine church life." According to you, it's based on what the group calls itself.

Also, I would like to ask you again: Is it possible to be a part of the practicality of the local church without being associated with Living Stream Ministry and Witness Lee?

Drake

06-17-2017, 11:13 PM

TLFisher

06-18-2017, 01:10 AM

Koinonia "We are not the church in London because we call ourselves "the church in London." We are the church in London because we are. "

That is true. And if you recognize that is what you are, then you should call yourself that too.

That would be consistent too.

Drake

The argument many people raise would be for a congregation of 100 or so to call themselves the Church in New York. A city of 8.5 million with how many different Christian assemblies yet only one can call themselves the church in New York at the exclusion of all others.

Koinonia

06-18-2017, 05:15 AM

Koinonia "We are not the church in London because we call ourselves "the church in London." We are the church in London because we are. "

That is true. And if you recognize that is what you are, then you should call yourself that too.

That would be consistent too.

Drake

And I agree.

But I do not agree that using "the church in London" letterhead makes your group the "reality" or "practicality" of the church in London. That's just silly.

Drake, perhaps you would tell me: Is it possible to be a part of the practicality of the local church without being associated with Living Stream Ministry and Witness Lee?

Drake

06-18-2017, 06:13 AM

And I agree.

But I do not agree that using "the church in London" letterhead makes your group the "reality" or "practicality" of the church in London. That's just silly.

Drake, perhaps you would tell me: Is it possible to be a part of the practicality of the local church without being associated with Living Stream Ministry and Witness Lee?

Yes, of course.

But your argument now favors semantics over substance.

Drake

OBW

06-18-2017, 06:24 AM

Oh, I forgot to add, that we do all the above, while taking care of a family, and working in a highly demanding professional job such as a lawyer or medical doctor, on top of being an elder and listening to everyone's problems and complaints. And unlike a pastor or priest, we don't get paid for "counselling" and we spend much of our Sunday in church-related things.Going to work is not the call. Everyone does that. The question is what is your purpose there.

As for counselling, what are you talking about. Your group doesn't even provide the counselling its own people need. Just admonitions to read more Bible or ministry, and go to more meetings.

Sorry it's not enough "religious work" for you (sarcasm again). I forgot that we must be out on the street feeding soup to homeless people to be truly doing what God asks, and all these things are not enough (sarcasm again).And when do you do this. Or when does your leadership encourage such things? In my years in the LRC, they mocked the very idea, and sent those in need to government agencies. Or they told the "saints" how they sent someone to some other church because "they do that kind of thing." Then he boasted to us how that was not what we were there for.

And that has been upheld ever since by the leadership.

No sarcasm needed. Your group refuses the real commands of Christ. They think the only efforts of value are about "preaching the gospel." I do not deny any command concerning that. But it is not the only command.

And when your whole focus is on your corporate spirituality, special standing, and gaining "good material" for the kingdom, you refuse the command of Christ in the name of superior, "unique" position with God. You can't be part of a group that is so opposed to the actual teachings of Christ and claim to be God's "unique" and "genuine" church to the exclusion of all others.

Koinonia

06-18-2017, 06:30 AM

Yes, of course.

But your argument now favors semantics over substance.

Drake

The whole LC argument is semantics--that there is no "genuine local church" unless there is a group that calls itself "the church in," and when a group calls itself "the church in," that group is then the "practicality" of the "genuine church life."

Ohio

06-18-2017, 06:33 AM

Drake, perhaps you would tell me: Is it possible to be a part of the practicality of the local church without being associated with Living Stream Ministry and Witness Lee?

Yes, of course.

But your argument now favors semantics over substance.

Drake

But now Drake is crossing his fingers behind his back and is referring to the spirituality of the local church and not the practicality of the local church.

How truly ironic to see aged wordsmiths accuse others of "semantics over substance."

Drake

06-18-2017, 07:17 AM

The argument many people raise would be for a congregation of 100 or so to call themselves the Church in New York. A city of 8.5 million with how many different Christian assemblies yet only one can call themselves the church in New York at the exclusion of all others.

HI Terry.

I'll answer your objection this way.

There are 23 million Jews in the world eligible for Israeli citizenship but only 6 million live in Israel. Why should the remaining 17 million, who live somewhere else, complain about the 6 million living in the promised land, for calling themselves the nation of Israel?

They wouldn't and they dont.

All 23 Million are Jews, but only 6 Million constitute the nation of Israel practically because they are living on the ground of the nation of Israel.

Likewise, 100 Christians in New York standing on the ground of the church does not exclude others.

And a Jew who prefers to stay in New York should not complain about a Jew who moves to Israel and calls himself a member of the nation of Israel.

And a Christian who chooses to remain in one of thousands of Christian assemblies in New York city should not complain about the 100 that choose to stand on the ground of the church in New York City.

But some do.

Drake

Drake

06-18-2017, 08:01 AM

The whole LC argument is semantics--that there is no "genuine local church" unless there is a group that calls itself "the church in," and when a group calls itself "the church in," that group is then the "practicality" of the "genuine church life."

No, you are still making an argument of semantics. Yours is not the "LC argument".

By analogy, there would be no nation of Israel if 23 million Jews lived somewhere other than Israel. Though all 23M are Jews only 6M are practically standing on the proper ground as the nation of Israel. Therefore, a nation exists practically.

When a Jew exercises the Law of Return they begin participating in fulfilling the mission of the nation of Israel. They call themselves an Israeli citizen because they are... they are not an Israeli citizen merely because they call themselves one. A Jew living in New York is not an Israeli citizen just because they call themselves as such.

Likewise, a group of Christians meeting as the church in a city on the ground of oneness in that city, expressing the universal Body of Christ are the church in that place and should call themselves as such. A name alone is insufficient. And like the Jew living in New York, a Christian can choose to live in a denomination but is not practically living on the ground of oneness of the church no matter how much they claim they are. Neither should they complain about those who actually meet on the ground of oneness of the church and call themselves as such because that is what they are, not just what they call themselves.

Drake

Koinonia

06-18-2017, 11:07 AM

Ohio

06-18-2017, 12:13 PM

By analogy, there would be no [church in London] if [believers in London] [met] somewhere other than [the practical expression of the church in London as defined by Witness Lee]. Though all [believers in London] are [Christians] only [those associated with Living Stream Ministry and Witness Lee and who refer to themselves as "the church in London"] are practically standing on the proper ground as the [church in London]. Therefore, a [church] exists practically.

When a [Christian] [begins associating with Living Stream Ministry and Witness Lee and begins to meet with those believers who refer to themselves as "the church in London] they begin participating in fulfilling the mission of the [church in London]. They call themselves [a member of the church in London] because they are... they are not [a member of the church in London] merely because they call themselves one. A [beliver] [not meeting with the group associated with Living Stream Ministry and Witness Lee and who refer to themselves as "the church in London"] is not [a member of the church in London] just because they call themselves as such.

I went along with the Nee/Lee one church/one city on the "proper ground" for my best 30 years of my life until I learned of all the corruption behind the scenes at LSM.

Then I was forced to choose between (1) LSM's obscure "church naming rights" found only in John's Revelation and (2) all the hundreds of verses in every book of the N.T. concerning righteousness, not lording it over the elect, descriptions of healthy leaders, descriptions of false teachers, etc. all of which exposed LSM leadership for the past half century.

I still have much precious take away from my time in 3 LC's, but have little use for LSM and its books. Back in August of 2007, while I was debating what to do with my vast library of books from LSM, a sudden thunderstorm hit the neighborhood, flooded my basement, and all those boxes of books got soaked with backed up sewage. Problem solved.

Drake

06-18-2017, 02:08 PM

By analogy, there would be no [church in London] if [believers in London] [met] somewhere other than [the practical expression of the church in London as defined by Witness Lee]. Though all [believers in London] are [Christians] only [those associated with Living Stream Ministry and Witness Lee and who refer to themselves as "the church in London"] are practically standing on the proper ground as the [church in London]. Therefore, a [church] exists practically.

When a [Christian] [begins associating with Living Stream Ministry and Witness Lee and begins to meet with those believers who refer to themselves as "the church in London] they begin participating in fulfilling the mission of the [church in London]. They call themselves [a member of the church in London] because they are... they are not [a member of the church in London] merely because they call themselves one. A [beliver] [not meeting with the group associated with Living Stream Ministry and Witness Lee and who refer to themselves as "the church in London"] is not [a member of the church in London] just because they call themselves as such.

Close.... but no cigar!

Here is where you err.

It is irrelevant whether Witness Lee's name is even mentioned or the Living Stream Ministry materials are used for edification or not. Throwing that up in a discussion about the truth revealed in the Scriptures concerning the church and the churches is ignorance at best or the enemy's craft at worst.

Now Koinonia, if you agree with the biblical revelation as I have attempted to explain it then say it. If you don't then it is doubtful you will ever transcend an argument of semantics and it is pointless to reason with a contentious man.

But if you agree with the biblical revelation but you just disagree with the execution of it then say that too. I get that. We can discuss it.

Yet, it does not contribute one iota to anyone's edification for you to take my words and then twist them to say something I did not say nor believe. Believe me, I will tell you exactly what I mean to say and you will have plenty of material to object to. Let's agree where we do and where we don't we can engage in a vigorous exchange.

Thanks,
Drake

Koinonia

06-18-2017, 03:26 PM

Close.... but no cigar!

Here is where you err.

It is irrelevant whether Witness Lee's name is even mentioned or the Living Stream Ministry materials are used for edification or not. Throwing that up in a discussion about the truth revealed in the Scriptures concerning the church and the churches is ignorance at best or the enemy's craft at worst.

Now Koinonia, if you agree with the biblical revelation as I have attempted to explain it then say it. If you don't then it is doubtful you will ever transcend an argument of semantics and it is pointless to reason with a contentious man.

But if you agree with the biblical revelation but you just disagree with the execution of it then say that too. I get that. We can discuss it.

Yet, it does not contribute one iota to anyone's edification for you to take my words and then twist them to say something I did not say nor believe. Believe me, I will tell you exactly what I mean to say and you will have plenty of material to object to. Let's agree where we do and where we don't we can engage in a vigorous exchange.

Thanks,
Drake

Drake, you have equated those not meeting with your group with Jews in New York who are not citizens of Israel. That is sectarian and ridiculous. "Citizenship" in the church is based upon belief into Christ, not participation in your group because you use the correct name.

Drake

06-18-2017, 04:01 PM

Koinonia 'Drake, you have equated those not meeting with your group with Jews in New York who are not citizens of Israel'

No, I did not. Stop misrepresenting my position. Address my argument.

Ohio

06-18-2017, 04:20 PM

Koinonia: 'Drake, you have equated those not meeting with your group with Jews in New York who are not citizens of Israel'

No, I did not. Stop misrepresenting my position. Address my argument.

Drake, sure you did.

You equate Christians living in the denominations with Jews living in the nations.

You equate Jews in Israel with Christians who have the name "the church in ..."

Drake, your error is in wrongly believing that locality or geography is our ground of oneness, and not Christ Himself who is our real ground of oneness.

The same type of persuasive speech deluded the Colossians. We are rooted and grounded in Christ, not in some secular and worldly geographic boundaries, which can change with every passing war. (See 2.1-10)

Evangelical

06-18-2017, 04:20 PM

Going to work is not the call. Everyone does that. The question is what is your purpose there.

Mankind's purpose was to work, ever since God told Adam to tend to the Garden of Eden.

As for counselling, what are you talking about. Your group doesn't even provide the counselling its own people need. Just admonitions to read more Bible or ministry, and go to more meetings.

The bible, ministry, meetings, are not helpful in counselling?

And when do you do this. Or when does your leadership encourage such things? In my years in the LRC, they mocked the very idea, and sent those in need to government agencies. Or they told the "saints" how they sent someone to some other church because "they do that kind of thing." Then he boasted to us how that was not what we were there for.

Depends what kind of counselling you are talking about. You think if someone needs a hospital we are going to try fix it ourselves with the Bible? We are not JW's.

No sarcasm needed. Your group refuses the real commands of Christ. They think the only efforts of value are about "preaching the gospel." I do not deny any command concerning that. But it is not the only command.

It's the main command, that's what it's called the great commission, not the "one of many other commissions" and as far as I can tell, was the main ministry of the church in the book of Acts and the apostle Paul's main calling.

In all these discussions with you I feel like I am arguing with a Roman Catholic and not an Evangelical and perhaps not even a Protestant.
What other things do you think Jesus called us to do in comparison to the great commission? Foot washing? Preserving the holy relics such as the toenail clippings of St Thomas? Pilgrimages to the holy land?

And when your whole focus is on your corporate spirituality, special standing, and gaining "good material" for the kingdom, you refuse the command of Christ in the name of superior, "unique" position with God. You can't be part of a group that is so opposed to the actual teachings of Christ and claim to be God's "unique" and "genuine" church to the exclusion of all others.

What "command of Christ" are you talking about? I thought you believed in more than just one command.

Evangelical

06-18-2017, 04:44 PM

We are not the church in London because we call ourselves "the church in London." We are the church in London because we are. The church in London is all the believers in London. How absurd to recognize this reality but then say, "Well, yes, that's true, but actually the church in London is this minuscule group of people who use the name 'church in London.'" Not even WL taught that.

We call ourselves the church in London because we are the church in London.

I don't really understand your point that we cannot call ourselves the church in London just because everyone else is the church in London as well. Then we end up with a situation where no one calls themselves the "church in London", and then the church does not exist practically.

Because "the church in London" is not a group. It's like saying "How do I know there's such a thing as the church?" Well, the church is all around you. Yet, it seems like everything with you comes down to words. Do you actually think that the words "the church in" convey spiritual reality?

"the church is all around you" indicates that you hold to an idea of a church which does not actually exist practically.

On a Sunday, how does one know where to attend a church which is "all around me"?

If such is the case, how can we apply the instructions of the bible to "tell it to the church" . Matt 18:17. There has to be some authority structure, which we know at the time was a plurality of elders appointed by the apostles.

It does not mean we can just tell our Christian friend or neighbor about our problem and we are satisfying Matt 18:17. There must be an entity in our city called "the church" which exists in practicality.

I think denominations such as the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican all recognized the need of a practical church administration in the city representing all believers in a city.

What is your source for this? That 10 meetings in London could all be meeting practically as the church in London? Is this something that Witness Lee made up?

Why can't 10 meetings all be meeting practically as the church in London?

No. According to Matthew 18:20--wherever two or three are gathered in the Lord's name, He is in the midst. According to Witness Lee, "two or three" is not a local church. So, "the life of Christ and Christ Himself in our midst" cannot be the definition of "the genuine church life." According to you, it's based on what the group calls itself.

Nice try but it's not saying that a church is only 2 or 3 people.

This verse is about taking 2 or 3 believers with you ,from the church, for the purpose of resolving some matter.

Here is the context:

Matt 18:15 If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you.

Here is when you need two or three:

16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[c]

If the two or three don't make a difference, then you tell it to the church:

17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Logically, "the church" mentioned in verse 17 must be a larger entity than just two or three.

So it's talking about 2 or 3 believers coming together to pray about binding and loosing:

Matthew 18:19 Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.

Matt 18:18

Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

If a church was only 2 or 3, it does not even satisfy the requirements of a 5 fold ministry, at least one teacher, one prophet, one evangelist, one pastor, one apostle.

If a church has 2 or 3 elders only, where is the rest of the church?

Also, I would like to ask you again: Is it possible to be a part of the practicality of the local church without being associated with Living Stream Ministry and Witness Lee?

It depends, who started the local church in the city?

Koinonia

06-19-2017, 04:02 AM

Koinonia 'Drake, you have equated those not meeting with your group with Jews in New York who are not citizens of Israel'

No, I did not. Stop misrepresenting my position. Address my argument.

I am. That is just what you said.

Koinonia

06-19-2017, 04:12 AM

We call ourselves the church in London because we are the church in London.

I don't really understand your point that we cannot call ourselves the church in London just because everyone else is the church in London as well. Then we end up with a situation where no one calls themselves the "church in London", and then the church does not exist practically.

This is the height of exclusivity (and shallowness). You ask "we cannot call ourselves the church in London just because everyone else is the church in London as well." More us vs. them. The issue is with calling your group "the church in London." Because your group is something smaller than the church in London. At best, you can say that you are a part of the church in London (yes, just like "everyone else").

"the church is all around you" indicates that you hold to an idea of a church which does not actually exist practically.

On a Sunday, how does one know where to attend a church which is "all around me"?

If such is the case, how can we apply the instructions of the bible to "tell it to the church" . Matt 18:17. There has to be some authority structure, which we know at the time was a plurality of elders appointed by the apostles.

It does not mean we can just tell our Christian friend or neighbor about our problem and we are satisfying Matt 18:17. There must be an entity in our city called "the church" which exists in practicality.

I think denominations such as the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican all recognized the need of a practical church administration in the city representing all believers in a city.

This issue of "practicality" is a made up distinction that is never defined in the New Testament. "Tell it to the church" means just that: tell it to the church. Not "tell it to the group that refers to itself as "the church."

Why can't 10 meetings all be meeting practically as the church in London?

So, in a city like Toronto, where at least four different groups refer to themselves as "the church in Toronto," which one is "the genuine church life"? What is the real basis? Or are they all "the practicality of the church" because they use the right words?

Nice try but it's not saying that a church is only 2 or 3 people.

That is not what I said at all ("nice try"). You said that "the genuine church life" is defined by "the life of Christ and Christ Himself in the midst." According to this verse, I showed you that this in itself cannot be the basis because "2 or 3"--not a local church--is also defined by Christ in the midst.

It depends, who started the local church in the city?

Who has to start it?

Drake

06-19-2017, 06:04 AM

I am. That is just what you said.

No.

Either you are unable or unwilling to engage in a meaningful dialogue.

ZNPaaneah

06-19-2017, 06:25 AM

Igzy) "I really don't know what to make of your claims that you never heard anyone say that leaving the LCM was wrong"

Hi Igzy.

There is a difference between telling someone they can't leave a group and telling them they are wrong to leave a group. One could be abuse, the other could just be concern for your soul.

In this thread I have sincerely tried to understand your view and how you might interpret things differently than I do. What were the differences in our experience, was it something we did differently, events, our circumstances, our backgrounds, or something neither of us have realized? At this point, I think we experienced pretty much the same things. You heard them one way, I heard them differently. You interpret them as someone brainwashing you, I interpret them as someone's caring and sharing the convictions of their beliefs. Same speaking, different interpretation.

In summary, we will likely never gain a full understanding of this matter or each other beyond what we have shared here. Still, I do not recognize the "dreadful" church life you describe, the abuse you claim, the brainwashing, etc. Rather, in my experience, through all these decades the church life has been a sweet visitation from the Lord. The brothers and sisters really are family in the richest sense. The leading brothers are servants dedicated to ministering Christ into others. In their speaking the Word has never been clearer, more open, or invigorating to me. The Spirit is guiding and directing and collaborating with a governing vision. Truth and Life are prevailing. Struggles? Certainly. Grace to overcome? Abundantly.

Is that unique? In my experience it is... absolutely. To you, it is not.

Thanks for the dialogue.

Drake

I also have had some heated discussions over this with Igzy. I think the difference between us is that he was in Austin and I was in Houston. If you read the detailed testimonies of the Barber's kid it gives a very different view of being in the the LRC from ours.

You say you were a contemporary of Igzy and might have broken bread with him, therefore we are contemporaries as well and it is highly likely that we also broke bread together.

When you read UntoHim's testimonies (he was from Orange county) it is quite clear that a local church that close to Anaheim had a different view of WL than one further away like Houston.

Ultimately I have concluded that the Local Churches were strongly influenced by the elders in that locality and that made a big difference. I was influenced by Ray G and Benson P. That apparently is a big difference from Austin and also from some of the Orange County locales.

ZNPaaneah

06-19-2017, 06:37 AM

No, you are still making an argument of semantics. Yours is not the "LC argument".

By analogy, there would be no nation of Israel if 23 million Jews lived somewhere other than Israel. Though all 23M are Jews only 6M are practically standing on the proper ground as the nation of Israel. Therefore, a nation exists practically.

When a Jew exercises the Law of Return they begin participating in fulfilling the mission of the nation of Israel. They call themselves an Israeli citizen because they are... they are not an Israeli citizen merely because they call themselves one. A Jew living in New York is not an Israeli citizen just because they call themselves as such.

Likewise, a group of Christians meeting as the church in a city on the ground of oneness in that city, expressing the universal Body of Christ are the church in that place and should call themselves as such. A name alone is insufficient. And like the Jew living in New York, a Christian can choose to live in a denomination but is not practically living on the ground of oneness of the church no matter how much they claim they are. Neither should they complain about those who actually meet on the ground of oneness of the church and call themselves as such because that is what they are, not just what they call themselves.

Drake

I am confused by this argument you are presenting. What is the ground of oneness?

Let's engage in a meaningful dialogue based on the Truth in the Scripture. You can quote WL or WN if you like, don't care as long as we are discussing the truth in the scripture.

I will begin with your analogy of Israel. It seems based on this analogy that there is no "Kingdom of Israel" without people willing to stand on this ground. That seems to me to make this a very important issue for the Church, which is the Kingdom. Therefore it seems to me the NT should be very explicit about this truth.

When I ask myself, what does the scripture say about such an incredibly important doctrine as "the ground of oneness" Ephesians 4 and John 17 are the first two references that immediately come to mind.

4 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,

2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;

3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

I think this portion clearly foresees that oneness will require lowliness, meekness and long-suffering. That to me suggests we will have to be one with all sorts of believers with different opinions, practices and concepts.

But the bond that holds us together is the peace that Jesus wrought on the cross. A name we call our group is not a bond that is going to hold all these different believers together.

Paul states it as a fact that there is one body, one spirit and one hope of our calling. What we call our fellowship doesn't change any of that. I have a hope of a coming kingdom and calling myself the "super spiritual vanguard of the Christian elite warriors" doesn't in any way change this one hope. (My point is not to mock the LRC but rather to point out how every single little Christian group generally gives them-self some positive name).

Again, there is one Lord for every Christian regardless of the name of their group, one faith, and one baptism. We are not immersing believers into the name of our group but into the person and work of the Triune God.

Likewise we are all one because there is one God and Father who is above all, over all and in you all.

I believe it is sovereign of God that a group like the LRC takes the stand they do because it causes us to examine this truth of the "ground of oneness". But I also believe it is sovereign that there are many other fellowships of Christians.

WL used to compare his ministry to graduate school. But I remember a book that came out years ago saying that everything important this person ever learned they learned in kindergarten. Graduate school is necessary, and perhaps WL is right to compare his "training day" to graduate school. By comparison some Christian gatherings are kindergarten. But God is sovereign and in the grand scheme of things Kindergarten is just as important and impactful on the population as graduate school.

11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

13 And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves.

14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.

16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.

19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.

20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

It seems to me that the two most important things that Jesus is giving us to keep the oneness is the name of the Triune God and His word, which is truth.

I do not see anything in either of these sections that suggests there is any other name by which we would keep the oneness.

Koinonia

06-19-2017, 06:49 AM

No.

Either you are unable or unwilling to engage in a meaningful dialogue.

Drake, the fact that I disagree with you does not mean the dialogue is not meaningful. Sorry.

Cal

06-19-2017, 12:14 PM

And a Jew who prefers to stay in New York should not complain about a Jew who moves to Israel and calls himself a member of the nation of Israel.

And a Christian who chooses to remain in one of thousands of Christian assemblies in New York city should not complain about the 100 that choose to stand on the ground of the church in New York City.

But some do.

Drake

The issue is not whether 100 people can "stand as the church in New York."

The issue is those people's claim that doing so puts them in better stead with God than those who don't.

The nation of Israel argument sounds good until you realize that it doesn't map to any reality the Bible tells us to observe. Nowhere does the Bible tell us to meet as the church in the city nor to "stand" as the church in the city nor to compare either to the nation of Israel--let alone inform us that doing any of those things will put us in better stead with God.

So arguing about it is like arguing about things in the Star Wars universe. E.g.: Can an Acklay defeat a Gorog? It only matters if the Star Wars universe is real enough to you for it to matter. But it has no connection to actual reality except in the way in borrows from reality to create a fictional one. That's all the nation of Israel argument does.

The church in the city according to the LCM is a fictional reality. I'm sure fans of Gorogs have very logical arguments in defense of believing Gorogs can defeat Acklays. But in actual fact there are no Gorogs and there are no Acklays and the point is moot.

ZNPaaneah

06-19-2017, 12:58 PM

The issue is not whether 100 people can "stand as the church in New York."

The issue is those people's claim that doing so puts them in better stead with God than those who don't.

The nation of Israel argument sounds good until you realize that it doesn't map to any reality the Bible tells us to observe. Nowhere does the Bible tell us to meet as the church in the city nor to "stand" as the church in the city nor to compare either to the nation of Israel--let alone inform us that doing any of those things will put us in better stead with God.

So arguing about it is like arguing about things in the Star Wars universe. E.g.: Can an Acklay defeat a Gorog? It only matters if the Star Wars universe is real enough to you for it to matter. But it has no connection to actual reality except in the way in borrows from reality to create a fictional one. That's all the nation of Israel argument does.

The church in the city according to the LCM is a fictional reality. I'm sure fans of Gorogs have very logical arguments in defense of believing Gorogs can defeat Acklays. But in actual fact there are no Gorogs and there are no Acklays and the point is moot.

That was not his point. What he said was that if you are a Jew and you move to Israel, what is wrong with naming your country Israel? You are taking a stand as Israel, on the proper ground of Israel, why not call yourself Israel?

To be fair to many in the LRC they don't use terms like "better" but rather "proper" or "normal".

The NY analogy doesn't work because no one calls themselves "the church in NY". But if you are in Houston, you meet with Christians as the church, and you need a name so that you can have an address, a phone number, be incorporated, etc. In that case, why shouldn't you call yourself the church in Houston?

You are arguing about the name not putting you in better stead with God. But, if you name yourself the "Roman Catholic Church" it is certainly significant and will affiliate you with certain people, groups and Christians. It will denominate you from others. So then the question is not about putting yourself in better stead with God but rather putting yourself in a better position to be one with all believers. If you agree that a name like "Roman Catholic Church" puts you in a worse position to be one with all believers then certainly there is at least one name that puts you in a better position.

Evangelical

06-19-2017, 04:18 PM

This is the height of exclusivity (and shallowness). You ask "we cannot call ourselves the church in London just because everyone else is the church in London as well." More us vs. them. The issue is with calling your group "the church in London." Because your group is something smaller than the church in London. At best, you can say that you are a part of the church in London (yes, just like "everyone else").

We're not actually smaller, but quite big, because we include all the believers in London. That is, if we are part of the church in London then we are the church in London.

This is like we wouldn't say "part of my family".

If we have a large extended family that we only see once every 20 years or even not at all.. are we going to call our immediate family in our house "part of my family" just because we have a much larger family we never visit? Of course not. We will use the identifiers "my family" whether it is 3 members, 10 members, 100 members. Whether it is in one city or many cities, or over the whole world.

For example, if I go travelling with a wife and 1 child, and leave two older children at home, I am going to call my wife and child "my family". I am not going to call them "part of my family".

So I think because we are all in the one family it is okay to say we are the family, not just "part of the family". This is why we are not smaller, in fact.

This issue of "practicality" is a made up distinction that is never defined in the New Testament. "Tell it to the church" means just that: tell it to the church. Not "tell it to the group that refers to itself as "the church."

So, in a city like Toronto, where at least four different groups refer to themselves as "the church in Toronto," which one is "the genuine church life"? What is the real basis? Or are they all "the practicality of the church" because they use the right words?

With 20 different denominations in a city, for example, which one of these constitutes "the church" that one should tell? They all have elders/bishops/pastors/priests.. which one is the right one to tell my problem?

That is not what I said at all ("nice try"). You said that "the genuine church life" is defined by "the life of Christ and Christ Himself in the midst." According to this verse, I showed you that this in itself cannot be the basis because "2 or 3"--not a local church--is also defined by Christ in the midst.

Sorry I thought you were saying any gathering of 2-3 is a church in the city. I gave you a definition for the genuine church life. If we are talking about the practical church life, then I agree this cannot be just two or three with Christ in the midst, unless that is truly the number of saved people in the city. Now the "genuine and practical church life" (as Lee would say) must mean we have the genuine aspect which is Christ, and the practical aspect which is the local church administration in each city. We need both to be a genuine church. If we do not believe in denominations, we might believe that genuinely the church is something of Christ, but we may not see the need for a practical church administration in each city. Others might believe in the need for a local church administration, but don't see the need for this to be based on a genuine relationship with Christ.

In the New Testament times, they had both a genuine relationship with Christ, and a practical church administration in each city. It was neither merely an organized religion with a church administration as per Roman Catholicism, neither was it merely a group of believers with a relationship with Christ, and no administration or structure.

Cal

06-19-2017, 07:32 PM

So then the question is not about putting yourself in better stead with God but rather putting yourself in a better position to be one with all believers. If you agree that a name like "Roman Catholic Church" puts you in a worse position to be one with all believers then certainly there is at least one name that puts you in a better position.

The way to be in better position to be one with all believers is all about having a humble and receiving attitude. It's not about some "stand."

Again I don't think the LSM "stand" is about putting them in better position to be one with all believers. That's the line but that's not the real reason. The real reason is to make themselves the place to be, because the fruit of it is manifestly not oneness but exclusivity.

Idealists like Drake buy that line because they have good but naive hearts. The LCM takes advantage of people like them. I'm sure Lenin made good use of the idealists that followed him. But he had little in common with them. He just used them to empower himself.

ZNPaaneah

06-19-2017, 07:37 PM

The way to be in better in position to be one with all believers is all about having a humble and receiving attitude. It's not about some "stand."

Again I don't think the LSM "stand" is about putting them in better position to be one with all believers. That's the line but that's not the real reason. The real reason is to make themselves the place to be, because the fruit of it is manifestly not oneness but exclusivity.

Idealists like Drake buy that line because they have good but naive hearts. The LCM takes advantage of people like them. I'm sure Lenin made good use of the idealists that followed him. But he had little in common with them. He just used them to empower himself.

We can be one with all believers because of the Lord's redemption, because Jesus made peace on the cross, because we have all received one spirit, because the same God is in all of us and over all of us, because we have one faith, one Lord.

This is our stand.

The reason WL's teaching resonated with ones like Dr aKe is because not all Christians make this stand.

There is one name that does make us one, but it isn't our name, it is the name of Jesus. He is the rock that we are standing on. He is the ground of oneness.

zeek

06-19-2017, 08:39 PM

Do you know that Witness Lee came to the USA because the church in Taipei expelled him for using church money to pay off his own personal debts?

Perhaps when you learn your own history, you will pause a bit before condemning all others.

Ohio---Great factoid. I notice this post was ignored by EVERYBODY. Ouch! What's your source?

Drake

06-19-2017, 08:47 PM

Drake, the fact that I disagree with you does not mean the dialogue is not meaningful. Sorry.

Koinomia,

I have no objection with disagreement..... even vigorous disagreement. Disagreement is not an issue.

Dialogue became meaningless when you misrepresented my position.

Drake

Drake

06-19-2017, 09:07 PM

ZNP "What he said was that if you are a Jew and you move to Israel, what is wrong with naming your country Israel? You are taking a stand as Israel, on the proper ground of Israel, why not call yourself Israel?"

Yes ZNP, you said that more succinctly than I did.

I'll address the points of your post 484 in a separate note.

Drake

Drake

06-20-2017, 05:15 AM

ZNP "I do not see anything in either of these sections that suggests there is any other name by which we would keep the oneness."

ZNP,

I don't either.

I believe all of this discussion about The church in such and such place "as a name" is a more recent artifact in church history. Specifically, because of the proliferation of the denominations in the last few hundred years. In the first century Christians just knew they were members of the church in a certain place. Paul's letters and revelation chapters 2 and 3 show clearly this was a basic assumption. Therefore, your explanation of the name would have been well understood.

Fast forward to the year 2017 . The basic assumption of the oneness of the believers in a certain place has been clouded over with a departure from that most basic understanding concerning the oneness of the believers that you articulated. Anticipating the church in degradation on this matter, I believe the Lord explicitly listed the names of the churches in Revelation 2 and 3 as the church in a city. And also elsewhere. So though every believer in a place is a member of the church in that place, it is necessary to articulate the ground of Oneness in the name of Jesus. Not to divide, but to unite.That is something that should be understood but in reality it is not.

As you said it's not a matter of thinking that we are better. Rather, it is a matter of being proper and according to the revelation of the practical oneness in the scripture. The Jews who live as the nation of Israel are not necessarily better than Jews who live in New York City. However, as to fulfilling the purpose of the nation of Israel and all that that implies the Jews in the land are practically fulfilling that mission. Yet, by distinguishing themselves as a member of the nation of Israel they are not excluding any of the other 17 million Jews who could take that position themselves. And who can fault the Jews who live as the nation of Israel from longing for and hoping that those 17 million Jews who live elsewhere will someday join them to accomplish the mission of the nation of Israel?

Drake

ZNPaaneah

06-20-2017, 05:46 AM

So then, it seems to me the burden that Jesus had was that we could keep this oneness, and the burden Paul had was that we could keep this oneness.

I don't see John having a different burden in Rev 2&3. Jesus was Lord and was speaking to all of his believers in each city. The word was for all of them. (In 1Corinthians we learn that christians were already grouping themselves by claiming they are of Peter, Paul, Apollos, Christ, etc. It is reasonable to think this included the cities referred to Revelation, yet the way it was written it was written to all of them regardless of which apostle they preferred). If you were to fast forward to the year 2017 and John was writing to all the believers in Houston would he address the letter to a small percentage of them meeting on Windswept lane? It seems to me the lesson from Revelation is not that "the church in Houston" is the proper name, but rather the burden to include all the believers is the burden.

If the name points to the fact that this group is very concerned with the Lord's burden in Jn 17, Paul's burden in Eph 4 and is aligned with Rev 2&3 that suggests to me they would completely deemphasize their name and focus instead on what unites them with all the christians in their city, the name of Jesus. However, this doctrine on "the ground of oneness" has been used instead to emphasize the importance of not taking a name, which ironically has emphasized that their formula for a generic name is the one true name. For example, look at Evangelical's posts. His understanding of this doctrine demonstrates the apparent two faced aspect of this doctrine. When confronted with the reality that emphasizing any name other than Jesus is sectarian and divisive those who "stand on this ground" will agree and say that is what they teach. Yet when listening to those who have been discipled with this teaching their understanding is that the name determines if your standing is right or wrong, and they aren't talking about the name of Jesus. They will even go so far as to imply the name of Jesus is also divisive.

UntoHim

06-20-2017, 09:06 AM

Drake, perhaps you would tell me: Is it possible to be a part of the practicality of the local church without being associated with Living Stream Ministry and Witness Lee?

It is irrelevant whether Witness Lee's name is even mentioned or the Living Stream Ministry materials are used for edification or not.

Both of these brothers know about the giant elephant in the room...but only one of them wants to pretend that the humongous pachyderm doesn't exist.

So, if "it is irrelevant whether Witness Lee's name is even mentioned or the LSM materials are used", then why have longtime Local Church brothers, and even whole churches been excommunicated over the person and work of Witness Lee? In fact, the last 50-60 years of the LC movement has been so heavily scarred by vicious infighting and betrayal, so as to be unrecognizable to anyone who would read Watchman Nee, or even the earliest ministry of Lee.

Actually, there has been quite a bit of meaningful dialogue, from both sides of the aisle as far as I can see. But to address the "practicality of the church" or "the ground of the church" or any related issues, without addressing the person (authority) and work (ministry) of Witness Lee, I'm afraid that meaningful dialogue will eventually digress to something much less meaningful, and even less profitable to all concerned.
-

Cal

06-20-2017, 10:52 AM

Fast forward to the year 2017 . The basic assumption of the oneness of the believers in a certain place has been clouded over with a departure from that most basic understanding concerning the oneness of the believers that you articulated. Anticipating the church in degradation on this matter, I believe the Lord explicitly listed the names of the churches in Revelation 2 and 3 as the church in a city. And also elsewhere. So though every believer in a place is a member of the church in that place, it is necessary to articulate the ground of Oneness in the name of Jesus. Not to divide, but to unite.That is something that should be understood but in reality it is not.

As you said it's not a matter of thinking that we are better. Rather, it is a matter of being proper and according to the revelation of the practical oneness in the scripture. The Jews who live as the nation of Israel are not necessarily better than Jews who live in New York City. However, as to fulfilling the purpose of the nation of Israel and all that that implies the Jews in the land are practically fulfilling that mission. Yet, by distinguishing themselves as a member of the nation of Israel they are not excluding any of the other 17 million Jews who could take that position themselves. And who can fault the Jews who live as the nation of Israel from longing for and hoping that those 17 million Jews who live elsewhere will someday join them to accomplish the mission of the nation of Israel?

Drake

Drake,

"Explicitly?" If the Lord wanted to be "explicit" he would have explicitly commanded one church per city. If the oneness of the believers in a city on the ground of locality was so important to the Lord then why didn't he just say there should be one church in each city in plain English/Aramaic/Greek?

Obviously the Lord cares a lot about oneness. But he stopped short of commanding one church per city. I believe he did that because he knew that believers insisting on it would be more damaging than other alternatives. Proof? Just look at the history of the LCM.

The fact is your calling yourself "the church in <city>" in any sense that does not include all the believers in the city is exclusive. And we all know when LCMers talk about "the church in <city>" they are usually just talking about their little group, and almost never talking about everyone in the city, except when it suits them. The unavoidable implication, no matter how much you deny it, is that others are not the church in <city>.

My pastor sometimes refers to "the church in Austin." When he does it he is always talking about all the believers in Austin, never about a subset of the believers. He knows what "the church in Austin" really means.

The "church in <city>" was never used in the Bible to refer to a subset of believers in a city. So whenever you use the term in that sense you misuse it. And that's probably the way you mostly use it. Correct?

Here's another point to ponder. There is no case in the Bible where a group of believers refer to themselves as "the church in <city>." It is always an outside reference, either by the Lord or an apostle. So we certainly cannot determine from this that we are required to refer to ourselves as "the church in <city>." (I could say the Lord in order to make a point "explicitly" left out any self-references to "the church in <city>" by any groups. But I won't go there if you won't anymore either. ;))

So instead of calling yourselves "the church in <city>" perhaps you should call yourselves "a group of believers meeting as the church in <city>". This would be more accurate, humble, gracious and would not carry the unavoidable meaning that you are something others are not.

The nation of Israel analogy does not work here, because a church and a political nation are very different things, and it is the differences that make such an argument specious. The nation of Israel is a definite definable thing. The church, even a local church is less definable. Further the nation of Israel does not stop being it even if it calls itself something else. A longstanding nickname for the United States was "Columbia." But it was still the good ol' USA.

leastofthese

06-20-2017, 12:16 PM

If the name points to the fact that this group is very concerned with the Lord's burden in Jn 17, Paul's burden in Eph 4 and is aligned with Rev 2&3 that suggests to me they would completely deemphasize their name and focus instead on what unites them with all the christians in their city, the name of Jesus. However, this doctrine on "the ground of oneness" has been used instead to emphasize the importance of not taking a name, which ironically has emphasized that their formula for a generic name is the one true name. For example, look at Evangelical's posts. His understanding of this doctrine demonstrates the apparent two faced aspect of this doctrine. When confronted with the reality that emphasizing any name other than Jesus is sectarian and divisive those who "stand on this ground" will agree and say that is what they teach. Yet when listening to those who have been discipled with this teaching their understanding is that the name determines if your standing is right or wrong, and they aren't talking about the name of Jesus. They will even go so far as to imply the name of Jesus is also divisive.

Very well stated ZNP.

This doctrine is just one example of the "two faced aspect" of many of the LSM doctrine. It is what keeps people from seeing the truth. There is the doctrine as stated by Witness Lee (and ONLY Witness Lee) - you can read it for yourself, I have posted the "ground of oneness" link on this site before. THEN, you can hear the watered down version or the rebuttal version from members of the LSM. This second version is more palatable until you continue to seek answers, ask questions, and search scripture. I believe this is one of the reasons there is a spirit of confusion among LSM members.

Paul never makes the charge of Witness Lee's version of "Ground of Oneness". I don't think that can be disputed. I guess someone could say that it is implied, but that would be a theory that could not be backed-up by scripture. What Paul DID make the charge of was "charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, nor devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than stewardship from God that is by faith. The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith".

I love my brothers and sisters in the LSM and feel for them deeply. I am saddened by much of what they are subject to with the LSM.

TLFisher

06-20-2017, 12:31 PM

Both of these brothers know about the giant elephant in the room...but only one of them wants to pretend that the humongous pachyderm doesn't exist.

So, if "it is irrelevant whether Witness Lee's name is even mentioned or the LSM materials are used", then why have longtime Local Church brothers, and even whole churches been excommunicated over the person and work of Witness Lee? In fact, the last 50-60 years of the LC movement has been so heavily scarred by vicious infighting and betrayal, so as to be unrecognizable to anyone who would read Watchman Nee, or even the earliest ministry of Lee.

Actually, there has been quite a bit of meaningful dialogue, from both sides of the aisle as far as I can see. But to address the "practicality of the church" or "the ground of the church" or any related issues, without addressing the person (authority) and work (ministry) of Witness Lee, I'm afraid that meaningful dialogue will eventually digress to something much less meaningful, and even less profitable to all concerned.
-
Very good Unto. It's one thing for an assembly to meet according to "the ground of the church" or to "meet practically as the church" in whichever city it may be. It's another to meet according to "the ground of the church" or to "meet practically as the church", but not taking LSM publications as the basis for fellowship. This is precisely the denominating factor why one Local church (and it's members) can be received for fellowship and another cannot.

I am reminded of an example. A brother from the Church in Moses Lake (parted fellowship with LSM in 1986) sought to visit the Church in Euphrata, but was promptly shown the door. What is the issue? By all appearances it's fellowship according to a ministry. This must be what is implied when it's said to be meeting on the ground of oneness.

Cal

06-20-2017, 03:13 PM

When a group like "Brookhollow Community Church" calls itself "Brookhollow Community Church," it is not saying that it is dividing itself from other Christians, neither is it saying that all of God's work in the city flows through them and them alone.

What it is saying is that the group, though part of the Church universal, is not the whole Church universal--and though part of the Church in the city, is not the whole Church in the city.

In other words, the group is making no claims of superiority nor inferiority nor preclusion over the rest of the Church. It is simply saying what it is--a part of the Church.

But when a group calls itself the Church in the city, but does not mean that "itself" includes all other Christians in the city, it is actually not calling itself what it is, because no subset of the Church in the city can say it is the Church in the city. It can only say it is part of the Church in the city.

In other words whenever you say "we are the church in <city>" and do not by "we" mean all Christians in the city, you are by definition expressing an exclusive attitude. In fact, you are expressing a falsehood.

But you can say "we are meeting as the Church in the city." That I think is okay. At least it's okay by me. But in no place does the Bible tell us that we must meet as the Church in the city nor that we cannot meet in any other way.