Originally Posted by Evangelical

The way this works Koinonia is that whenever you call a group a sect, you by implication must believe in a true church that a sect is "cut" from.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Drake, in #54, you justified the concept of quarantine for Christians who choose to "drop the ministry." What you said was clear. Everything else is a word dance. Again, this makes the ministry of Witness Lee an additional (sectarian) basis of meeting.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Nay, nay is correct.

Drake, either you are really not active in the LC's for the last 40 years as you claim to have been, or you know better and are just hoping to convince others.

Originally Posted by Drake

Still nay nay... and throw in another nay for good measure. It appears that either you have convinced yourself of this "submission to Witness Lee" doctrine or you know better and are hoping to convince others.

In any case, I never suggested it..... Read what I said, and agree or disagree but don't change it to fit your narrative.

Also, you neglected the defintion clarification I offered ... not "the church of the New Testament" ..... Rather the churches in the New Testament. I am endeavoring to find common ground for a conversation with you but your propensity to rush to judgement renders you unwilling or unable to do that.

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

Still nay nay... and throw in another nay for good measure. It appears that either you have convinced yourself of this "submission to Witness Lee" doctrine or you know better and are hoping to convince others.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Then, an additional basis for meeting in "the local churches" is submission to Witness Lee and his ministry. And that negates whatever basis you believe your group shares in common with the church of the New Testament. The point still stands.

Originally Posted by Drake

Nay, nay.

I did not suggest an additional basis for meeting in the local churches (not "Local Church") is submission to Witness Lee and his ministry.

I don't mind being in disgreement with you but I do mind if you don't state the disagreement accurately.

Drake

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Drake, unfortunately this is not the case. As you yourself suggested in #54, an additional basis for meeting in the Local Church is submission to Witness Lee and his ministry. And that negates whatever basis you believe your group shares in common with the church of the New Testament.

Originally Posted by Drake

Koinonia,

First no. Second .. very close... the differences are the fullness of divisions are now whereas then they were in their infancy and the local churches are equal to the local churches in the New Testament in terms of basis of meeting,

Drake

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Drake, your point seems to be based on two bizarre assumptions: that Witness Lee is equal to Paul, and that the Local Church is equal to the church of the New Testament. But nearly 100% of Christians find reason to believe either.

Originally Posted by Drake

If that is your criteria for a sect then Paul established a sect. We, therefore, are in good company.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

No, if you drop Witness Lee, you get quarantined.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

So if we drop Witness Lee do we stop being an alternative? How can we be the non-alternative genuine expression?

That's right, we say all believers everywhere is the church. It's like the moon in different places, only one moon but many expressions of the moon.

In the sense of the moon we can be. For example, I see the moon in London and I say that is the moon in London. I see the moon in New York and I say that is the moon in New York. We don't say "part of the moon in London", so we don't say "part of the church" in London. Just "the church in London" is sufficient.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

As believers we are "the church" are we not? For example, if our bodies were cut into 4 parts and sent to different places, they would still be "us".. Similarly, one group here and one group there are all the church.

But dename-iations are really taking away the focus that we are all the church.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

This is what makes your group a sect.

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

Koinonia >”No, if you drop Witness Lee, you get quarantined”

No. However, if you try to get others to follow your own or another ministry then you probably will get quarantined....

... and besides, if you drop the ministry then you have effectively quarantined yourself, so what’s the issue since everybody is in agreement?

Drake

Originally Posted by Evangelical

So if we drop Witness Lee do we stop being an alternative? How can we be the non-alternative genuine expression?

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Yes, but yours is just another alternative. Yours is the Witness Lee alternative.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Yes, as believers we are "the church." But "the church" is not your group.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

If there is even such a thing as "the true local expression," you can only be a part of it. Because you are a part of the church. Your group cannot be "the church" because "the church" is not your group.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Isn't the very existence of alternatives against the concept of oneness?

Originally Posted by Koinonia

There was probably no alternative. That's what makes the current discussion irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

You don't need to "try to be" something. You either are, or you're not. And your group does not equal "the church." You are taking a spiritual principle and applying it narrowly. Your group and "the church" are not the same thing.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

If there even is such a thing ("true local expression"), I'll let God take care of it. It is the height of presumption to claim such a designation for oneself. I'm sure the Lord is not happy with it.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In the early church, when a new convert was made.. where did they expect them to meet/fellowship? Did the apostles expect new converts to join their churches?

Originally Posted by Koinonia

You are the same. You do the same thing. You start something and then expect other people to join you.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

All of this is outward and artificial. Even you claim to believe that the church in a city is all the believers in that city. Yet you keep talking about wanting to be "the true local expression." Evangelical, be content to be a child of God and a brother to all of your other brothers and sisters--wherever they meet. That would make the Lord happy.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

This characterizes the denominations doesn't it? Every group established under some denominational name seeks to be smaller than all other believers in the city. A group which refers to itself by the locality would be seeking to be a group which includes all believers in the locality and encourages others to join.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

I would say that believers constitute the "local visible expression of the universal church." I believe that seeking to be such as a group separate (or smaller than) all other believers is misguided and presumptuous.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

The local church includes all believers in that place. Even you claim to believe this.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

There were not special groups in Revelation that constituted the "church in the city" because they had the right name (as opposed to anyone else without the right name). So, it is wrong to equate the situation of Revelation to the situation of today.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Besides, you have other requirements for being "the church in the city" in addition to having the right name. The whole discussion is a distraction from your actual practice. In your actual practice, what you consider the local churches are a network of people and congregations that follow Witness Lee. I do not believe you would consider a group outside of your network a "genuine local church" even if it did have the right name.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Ok then which group or groups are the local visible expression of the universal church? 3 choices as I see it are - all (all and any gathering of believers is valid, no matter what they teach or do), some (e.g. any group in particular), none (i.e. doesn't exist today, will exist again at the Lord's return, I believe Spurgeon believed in this).

Originally Posted by Koinonia

No, it's not.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

All believers constitute the church.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Evangelical, it is a heart-matter. You can talk all you want about "the practical aspects," but as long as your heart is proud, sectarian, and judgmental, it doesn't matter what you think your name is.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Our "group" is the local visible expression of the universal church that is why we take no name as God did not name the church.

Originally Posted by leastofthese

The local church is a cult, not a sect, right?

Either way, you say that all other Christian sects think they are the one and only true church... I haven't found that to be true. I have never attended a church/fellowship that believed they were the only true church/fellowship until the LSM churches. As I've stated before, I've moved around quite a bit and spent much time overseas and travelled throughout the US... but that is just my experience.


I'm glad that Evangelical started this thread, Koinonia is right, he has embarrassed himself. Hopefully this moves us to pray for Evangelical, that he may find strength and rest in Christ.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Again, you are equating your Witness Lee group with the universal church.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

You can't "do" anything. Are you a believer, Evangelical? Then, you are part of the church.

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

I was raised Catholic and as a child I was told over and over, the Catholic church was the one true church. My parents initially 'freaked out' when I got saved in 1975. They did not want me to join a different denomination. I was a Catholic they kept telling me. Eventually they came to terms and were ok I was a born again Christian.

Many denominations are slowly returning to the RCC btw.

Is the RCC a Christian church? Depends who you ask and how they respond I suppose.

Originally Posted by leastofthese

I have never attended a church/fellowship that believed they were the only true church/fellowship until the LSM churches.

Originally Posted by awareness

And yes, local churcher's think theirs is the one and only true church ... just like all the other Christian sects.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

and they used the term in a relative way, without reference to a "true church". So it has little meaning other than to indicate Koionia's opinion.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think it does not matter who they were or why they left. It's basically saying, "people left our church, since they left it proves they never really belonged". John refers to "us and them".

Suppose these people were not anti-christ but wanted to leave to start their own denomination according to their own preference, would not John say the same thing?

I think John, being the last apostle/disciple alive at the time, would not have included as "us" any who did not stay with the apostle's teaching. To leave John's teaching and John's fellowship was like leaving Christ.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Evangelical, you are embarrassing yourself. In this section John is referring to "antichrists" (see verse 2:18). Why are you equating this to people that do not meet with your group?

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Your group is not the "true church."

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The NLT version says it plainly:
These people left our churches, but they never really belonged with us; otherwise they would have stayed with us. When they left, it proved that they did not belong with us.

Is that being sectarian?

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Us-vs-them is the definition of sectarianism.
The verse appears to be referring to certain ones who left the faith. That you equate this distinction with believers not meeting with your group is arrogant beyond belief.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

The church is believers. You should know this. Every time you make a distinction between yourself ("us") and any other genuine believe ("them") you are sectarian.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

According to 1 John 2:19 it seems acceptable to refer to believers as "us" and "they" or "them". If not, why not?

Originally Posted by Koinonia

You can call yourself whatever you want. That doesn't mean that anyone else needs to buy into it.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Evangelical, you are just the same as everyone else. The Catholics and Protestants you talk about are sectarian, but you are worse. Not only are you sectarian, you are judgmental. You want to make it technical, but it is a heart-matter.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Why can't we be the us in 1 John 2:19?

Originally Posted by Koinonia

So, you are the "us" in 1 John 2:19?

Sectarian. Your spirit is sectarian, so it doesn't matter what your name is.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

1 John 2:19 refers to "us". Is that sectarian?:

1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Who is "we"? Once again, you have turned all of the believers into a "we" that equals your group. That is sectarian.



All believers are genuinely "the church in X." Not "if."



Evangelical, you (your group) are not "the church in X." You are a part of the church in X. Just like everyone else.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Everyone else would be denominations.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I don't think it matters where we meet. We go to people's homes and public places too. The point is, we would not attend a denomination that will only build up their denomination wouldn't it? And would we achieve fellowship if we just sit idly in the pews watching the service with everyone else?

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Who is we?

Who is everyone else?

I'm concerned for you Evangelical

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I don't think it matters where we meet. We go to people's homes and public places too. The point is, we would not attend a denomination that will only build up their denomination wouldn't it? And would we achieve fellowship if we just sit idly in the pews watching the service with everyone else?

Originally Posted by Koinonia

I personally do not belong to any denomination. I also no longer subscribe to "one true church"-ism. For any group to claim to be the "true church" is at best myopic, at worst blasphemous.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

So, you will fellowship with anyone as long as they meet with you? Is that the qualification for being "the genuine church"?

Again, Evangelical, "the church in X" is all the believers in X, not your group. They are not the same thing. You keep equating the two, but they will never be the same thing.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

By inviting them to our fellowship of course.

If we are the ones that believe all believers in the city are the genuine church then logically we should increase our fellowship.

If you are going to say we are exclusive or something and never fellowship with anyone else, why would we attend a church that does not believe all believers in the city are the genuine church? what does increasing the size of a church that does not believe "all believers in the city" achieve?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Well spiritually, everyone believes that about the true church, even Catholics, but I'm talking practically.

And every other group? Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist etc. Are you consistent with this belief? Or your particular denomination or fellowship?

Just asking because each person on here has a different view. You could be baptist and telling me we're a sect because we are not baptist, or not a sect because we are not Catholic.

Some see all denominations as genuine local expressions.

One fellow is Orthodox and we all know what they believe.

Some might see non-denom fellowships or house churches as genuine local expressions.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

And how do you go about doing that?

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Bingo! The "true church" is not a group. The "true church" is the only church there is--the church that Jesus is building, the Body of Christ. I suppose that anything smaller would be a sect. So, your group, the Witness Lee group, would certainly qualify.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I agree and that's what we try for to include all believers in the city.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

But the description "the church in X" refers to all the believers in X, not to your group.

Originally Posted by leastofthese

I agree with you for the most part. But, yet, I fear you don't understand.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It's not a problem to name the church if it is the locality. That is the only truly scriptural approved naming convention, there is no other.

In referring to the church they are descriptions, not names. It is what it is, not what it is called. There is no denomination called "the Local Churches", it is "the local churches". I would call my wife, "wife", not "Wife".

Ministries can have a name just like people and objects can have names. No issue with Living Stream Ministries.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The way this works Koinonia is that whenever you call a group a sect, you by implication must believe in a true church that a sect is "cut" from. So when you say we are a sect, you are either saying your denomination or group is the true church, or some other group. Can you name a group that are not a sect then? Is it Catholics?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The biblical naming convention is biblical nonetheless, I have seen no arguments ever in support of naming the church and I haven't even seen anyone try to use the bible to argue for naming the church which is well and good because I don't think such an argument can be sensibly made. Most Christians I think agree denominations are a less than ideal situation, or a temporary way to keep the peace until Christ returns. But it doesn't explain why they have to have different names. Because to name is to classify, and to classify is to divide. Naming seems to make the problem worse, not better. For example if I had a family of children and I named one big ears Freddy and big nose Tommy, I think it would divide those brothers based upon their physical features and they would probably argue and fight and call each other names.

Originally Posted by leastofthese

For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate with your self imposed "biblical naming convention", but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and the plate, that the outside also may be clean.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It's not a problem to name the church if it is the locality. That is the only truly scriptural approved naming convention, there is no other.

In referring to the church they are descriptions, not names. It is what it is, not what it is called. There is no denomination called "the Local Churches", it is "the local churches". I would call my wife, "wife", not "Wife".

Ministries can have a name just like people and objects can have names. No issue with Living Stream Ministries.

Originally Posted by leastofthese

So you're trying to sell us on the fact that The Lord's Recovery, AKA, the Local Church, AKA The Church in XYZ, AKA Living Stream Ministry is not a naming characteristic both in practice and in theory?

Originally Posted by awareness

Now it's you I don't understand. It was a simple honest request. But I guess you are right, I can pretty much guess at what he's driving at.

So if he doesn't want to explain himself fully, I guess this thread is pointless.

Hey brother Blended Brother (no ad hom intended, and you know that - Untohim isn't informed), bring it down to AltVs, and finish your OP there. Then we can really have at it.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

"Finding a (good, suitable, pentecostal, friendly, biblical (insert any other de-name-iating characteristics here) ) church"

Ecumenism - different denominations coming together to pretend they are not denominations. The next Sunday, go back to de-name-iating themselves.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Evangelical, if it is so important to you, then--okay, we will let you say that you are not a denomination. But you are a sect (the sect of Witness Lee). And that has nothing to do with your name (or no-name).

Originally Posted by Terry

I have heard no sound argument to refute why everyone else is a denomination, but not the local churches. Exact as the local churches speak, there are many fellowship of churches that regard as everyone else as denominations but not themselves. You have Exclusive Brethren, Iglesia Ni Christo, International Church of Christ, etc.
Rebuttals please.