Originally Posted by Jake

As far as I can tell, the entire concept of having one church per city seems to be an almost childishly simplistic reading of Paul's letters which refer to the church in some particular city. If we really want to be semantically strict, the only true "church" is the body of Christ, the universal church consisting of all believers. I think most Christians understand the distinction that when we say "church" in reference to a building, it's really just shorthand for "a meeting place for members of the Church", it doesn't mean that the Body of Christ is actually contained within that physical place. The idea that there is one church per city, and each of these city-based churches is somehow distinct and separate as an entity, seems to directly contradict the idea of the universal corporate Church.

It also seems strange that we would tie something divine to a man-made secular structure--cities, after all, are just arbitrary geographic boundaries created for political reasons. What happens when two cities merge? Does the decision of politicians miraculously result in the Body of Christ being rearranged? Merging several cities to create large mega-cities has been popular practice in urban development over the last few decades, how have LCs actually responded when this occurs?

Other denominations often name their churches after cities, neighborhoods or streets, but they don't make any claims about the city being some kind of divine basis for the unique expression of the Church, it's simply used to identify the location of the building...

Originally Posted by awareness

Bahahaha ... good one bro ZNP.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So then LSM is the "Division Among You" that Paul prohibited. I guess that is what DAYstar stood for.

Originally Posted by Ohio

LSM excommunicated Henry Hon for meeting house to house.

LSM excommunicated Titus Chu for writing a book.

LSM excommunicated Nigel Tomes for exposing their false teachings.

LSM excommunicated John Ingalls for righteousness sake.

(This forum is filled with the details and many more cases of expulsion.)

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Why the double standards from you ?

Why is the local churches ("LSM") divisive for meeting in a meeting hall and not meeting with denominations, and Hon's fellowship are not also divisive for meeting in homes and not with denominations?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Why the double standards from you ?

Why is the local churches ("LSM") divisive for meeting in a meeting hall and not meeting with denominations, and Hon's fellowship are not also divisive for meeting in homes and not with denominations?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Why the double standards from you ?

Why is the local churches ("LSM") divisive for meeting in a meeting hall and not meeting with denominations, and Hon's fellowship are not also divisive for meeting in homes and not with denominations?

Originally Posted by Ohio

And there you have it folks!

Another advocate for LSM condemns Henry Hon for meeting "house to house" and not in a God-ordained meeting hall with the LSM sanctioned name of the "no name" local church on its signboard.

Does anyone else remember the chaos of the "New Way," with elders locking the doors to their meeting hall on Lord's Day morning? All because Witness Lee said to.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Isn't bro. Hon's decision to fellowship in homes like erecting a wall between his fellowship and the denominations who disagree with meeting in homes?

Not all denominations would agree that meeting in homes is the right way, and may even frown upon the practice. I think the liturgical churches might see it this way.

Does Brother Hon's church join a denominational church occasionally, even a Catholic one?

Originally Posted by Ohio

Teacher teach thyself.

This is so rich. For the renowned defender of LSM to tell others not to erect barriers in their fellowship is just more than I can handle.

Have you ever read the story of Paul Hon's brother Henry? He just recently got cut off from the fellowship for paying too much attention to home meetings and vital group gatherings. Imagine that! Right out of WL's own playbook. I guess ole brother Henry Hon was just not "up-to-date" as LSM loves to say.

The Blendeds you defend are not just the best fence builders in history. They can build fences and erect barriers that move over time. What may once have brought you into fellowship now can get you cut off from the fellowship. Sounds a whole lot like all the other storms and quarantines I have read about.

Originally Posted by Drake

Jake>"Under ideal conditions Christians wouldn't see any barriers between themselves, and would feel totally free to worship together always..."

Why ideal? When has there ever been ideal conditions? You're justifying the erection of barriers. You are adding a condition for unity that is not found in the Bible.

The Apostle charged that there be "no divisions among you", he did not say "under ideal conditions there will be no divisions among you".

By injecting the notion of ideal conditions you facilitate division. There are no ideal conditions, there are always challenges, disagreements, conflicts in personality, etc. No one should think their differences cannot be solved just because conditions are not ideal. That becomes an excuse to erect barriers and create divisions.

Conversely, if you understand that you with all your problems and differences and the other believers with all theirs are to be the testimony of the oneness of Christ in the place you all live then you will work towards that. You will not make excuses for erecting barriers and creating divisions, but rather you will come together to resolve those differences, allow the Lord to work in you, and maintain the testimony of the oneness. The symbol of a lamp stand in each city mentioned in Revelation 2&3 represents that concept. There is no room for more than one lamp stand per city just because conditions are not ideal.

Drake

Originally Posted by awareness

So ideal conditions can be replaced with another ideal condition? Is the new ideal condition better than Jake's ideal condition? Just askin'.

Originally Posted by awareness

So ideal conditions can be replaced with another ideal condition? Is the new ideal condition better than Jake's ideal condition? Just askin'.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Excellent point.

Where were you 30 years ago when I needed you?

Originally Posted by OBW

This is probably the way that some came up with the alternate explanation that there is the law and prophets, and the commentary (referring to the OT). It is mostly the same in the NT. Jesus said and did. Everyone else has commented. Not saying there is no value in the comments. It is part of the scripture. But it is not there to provide something entirely new, but to explain what was God's speaking and doing into the lives of the people who began to follow.

And explanations do not create prescriptions about something that the source never commented on. Not in any field of study or inquiry.

Originally Posted by Nell

In the Bible are two categories of scripture: 1) prescriptive, and 2) descriptive. If you Google it, you'll see that this is a commonly accepted practice on accurate interpretation of the Bible.

Originally Posted by Nell

In the Bible are two categories of scripture: 1) prescriptive, and 2) descriptive. If you Google it, you'll see that this is a commonly accepted practice on accurate interpretation of the Bible.

To me, the entire dogma of one church/one city is wrongly based on a description of the situation at the time when the church was in its infancy. It was never intended to be a "prescription" or command to be obeyed for all times. That's simply the way the church began. If not in cities, then where? Surely not all believers even lived in cities. The church met in cities because that's where larger numbers of believers lived. Therefore, the church was described according to the city.

Nell

Originally Posted by Jake

As far as I can tell, the entire concept of having one church per city seems to be an almost childishly simplistic reading of Paul's letters which refer to the church in some particular city. If we really want to be semantically strict, the only true "church" is the body of Christ, the universal church consisting of all believers. I think most Christians understand the distinction that when we say "church" in reference to a building, it's really just shorthand for "a meeting place for members of the Church", it doesn't mean that the Body of Christ is actually contained within that physical place. The idea that there is one church per city, and each of these city-based churches is somehow distinct and separate as an entity, seems to directly contradict the idea of the universal corporate Church.

It also seems strange that we would tie something divine to a man-made secular structure--cities, after all, are just arbitrary geographic boundaries created for political reasons. What happens when two cities merge? Does the decision of politicians miraculously result in the Body of Christ being rearranged? Merging several cities to create large mega-cities has been popular practice in urban development over the last few decades, how have LCs actually responded when this occurs?

Other denominations often name their churches after cities, neighborhoods or streets, but they don't make any claims about the city being some kind of divine basis for the unique expression of the Church, it's simply used to identify the location of the building...

Originally Posted by JJ

One of the final things that caused me to leave TLR was realizing Witness Lee's writings had indeed trumped scripture as the authoritative word on what to believe and practise. That's a dangerous place to be!

Originally Posted by Ohio

For the Blendeds this has already happened.

How many times has the words of Lee superseded scripture?

And do they not PSRP his outlines? That's pray-read, study, recite, and prophecy the teachings of Lee.

Did not the Blendeds state that in the FTT's, the trainees should become WL "tape recorders," and become immersed in his writings before they take on the challenge of reading that difficult and easily misunderstood Bible which demands the "interpreted word" to fully know.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Did not the Blendeds state that in the FTT's, the trainees should become WL "tape recorders," and become immersed in his writings before they take on the challenge of reading that difficult and easily misunderstood Bible which demands the "interpreted word" to fully know.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If the LC has become a denomination, then we cannot "fail worse" than any other denomination.

Denominations do not interpret as we do, because they are bound to modern concepts, and to say otherwise would be to deny their very existence. Remember these are historical facts, not opinions on scripture.

Originally Posted by aron

And how many times did Lee's teaching categorise scriptural text as low, or fallen, or vain, or natural human concepts? And by contrast, how many times have LC members categorised Lee's writings as low, or fallen, or vain, or natural human concepts? And what explains this disparity in reception?

Originally Posted by Ohio

For the Blendeds this has already happened.

How many times has the words of Lee superseded scripture?

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Yes. Maybe Witness Lee's writings will become Scripture too.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

They would have studied the writings of the MOTA at that time, who was the apostle Paul.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In any given city, how can there be multiple legitimate expressions of the church today when Christ and the disciples only established one? Paul only established one church per city, that is a historical fact. That's why the bible never mentions more than 1 church per city. That does not mean there was only one meeting place per city, it means they all identified themselves as part of the one church.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

the MOTA at that time. . . was the apostle Paul.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Yes, and they all studied Witness Lee each morning in order to prepare for the prophesying meeting. And they all had standing orders with LSM. And they all attended the seven feasts each year.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Yes, and they all studied Witness Lee each morning in order to prepare for the prophesying meeting. And they all had standing orders with LSM. And they all attended the seven feasts each year.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Paul only established one church per city, that is a historical fact.

Originally Posted by Jake

That's a good point, the LCs like to play with semantics, claiming that they can still uphold the one city-one church idea while splitting into "districts". Just because they use the terms "locality" and "district", they are still functionally identical to what other denominations would call, for example, dioceses, parishes and chapels. Do they really think God is going to get tricked by terminology and not be able to see the true nature of something?



Also, I want to clarify a point -- the universal body of Christ, and one Church, consists of all those who receive Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. If Christians from a given city don't all meet together in the same room, they are still one church. If some believers preach heretical statements when they meet, they are still the church. If some believers meet in a building with the name of a canonized saint on the door, or the name of a particular street or neighborhood rather than a city, they are still the church.

Therefore, the Catholic church is truly the church. Protestant churches are truly the church. Episcopal churches are truly the church. Followers of Witness Lee are truly the church, Seventh Day Adventists are truly the church, Baptists are truly the church, anabaptists are truly the church, pentacostals are truly the church--I would even go so far as to say that even nontrinitarian churches, while certainly committing grievous heresies, could in most cases still be the church. The LCs are correct when they claim that all Christians in a given city are members of the church in that city, but they are incorrect when they claim that the LC is the only legitimate expression of the church, and any Christians who don't meet with them are being sinful. Christ is the sole mediator, through him we are redeemed, and by the holy spirit we are sanctified. Through prayer we have a direct connection to God, and all man-made structures fall by the wayside.

My point here, is that the church is not limited to one particular meeting of believers, the church is everywhere that believers come together and pray in Jesus' name, and the fact that various different buildings may exist in a different cities with various different banners on the door, different hierarchical structures and different styles of prayer, doesn't detract from the oneness of the Church. Every time believers fellowship, they partake in and multiply the oneness, they don't detract from it.

It may be true that some particular organization, like the Roman Catholics, preach ideas that are probably heretical (although many learned and Christ-loving men think otherwise, so I have no authority to make that assertion). It can be true that the priests in that case are doing a disservice to their congregants by giving them false ideas about God, but it is equally true that the believers who gather within the Catholic Church are partaking in the oneness of the body of Christ, and despite their surroundings and physical boundaries that separate them from other Christians, they are still spiritually together with all other Christians.

It's hard to find the right words to express my ideas, I'm no theologian, but I hope I've conveyed it clearly enough.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Ephesus is a church - city, not denomination, house/street name, or country
Smyrna is a church - city, not denomination...
Pergamum is a church- city, not denomination...
Thyatira is a church- city, not denomination...
Sardis is a church - city, not denomination...
Philadelphia is a church - city, not denomination...
Laodicea is a church - city, not denomination...

Originally Posted by Evangelical

But the idea itself, actually comes from church history. The Bible of course, The New Testament also speaks of the church as the one body of Christ composed of all true believers in all places, but it never speaks of a plurality of churches in one city (Col 1:18,24; Ephesians 1:22; 2:14-21;3:6-10;4:4,12; 5:23-33). It comes as a jolt, but it must be said again that the modern concept of a plurality of churches in one city is never found in the New Testament.

Originally Posted by aron

Multiple ekklesia meant perforce multiplication, not division. Like the LSM-affiliated churches with Meeting Hall One and Meeting Hall Two.

Originally Posted by Jake

While Nee and Lee surely were insightful men with valuable contributions to make, we should all have the humility to admit that no man has all the answers, so the best way to learn more about the truth of Christ is to fellowship with Christians from different traditions. All Christians can learn important lessons from the writings of Nee and Lee, but likewise the followers of Lee and Nee could learn from other Christian traditions if they

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The Word of Truth: A Summary of Christian Doctrine Based on Biblical Revelation By Dale Moody
p. 435

The New Testament also speaks of the church as the one body of Christ composed of all true believers in all places, but it never speaks of a plurality of churches in one city (Col 1:18,24; Ephesians 1:22; 2:14-21;3:6-10;4:4,12; 5:23-33). It comes as a jolt, but it must be said again that the modern concept of a plurality of churches in one city is never found in the New Testament.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Suing over their name is what they did in GLA cities -- Columbus for one.

Justification for lawsuits is found in LSM's vast online library. Look under "appeal to Caesar."

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Suing over the name of the church, are you aware of any material provided by LSM to defend such action?

Originally Posted by Ohio

If the church has no name, then why would LSM / DCP operatives instruct their adherents in Columbus, Ohio to file a lawsuit in order to secure THE NAME?

And by the way, I'm sure you could find a few tidy WL quotes justifying lawsuits to seize meeting halls and bank assets. (Appeal to Little Caesar's anyone?) Afaithfulword.com is such a rich resource for sideswiping inconvenient Bible verses.

All of your WL quotes are merely window dressing to hide the corrupt practices at LSM. But the inconvenient truth is that WL himself never allowed his lofty quotes to interfere with his practices.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I gave other references that stated how the churches were organized, in my last post to you. I think there is historical evidence for the one city per church thing.

We don't believe that the church has a name. The church has no name, and we don't use the city name to label ourselves like a denomination would. We are against de-name-iating. It is people's perception, that we take names and de-name-iate ourself according to the locality name. But that's not in our teachings:

"A local church is not a term used as a name, but it describes the fact of one church in a locality. " ~ The Basic Revelation in the Holy Scriptures
by Witness Lee

Originally Posted by Ohio

Sure you can. Your worst failure is not becoming another denomination, but mistreating, condemning, and dividing the body of Christ, which is far worse.

And if those Blendeds would take a minute to be humble and honest, they would realize that is why Lee was repenting.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If the LC has become a denomination, then we cannot "fail worse" than any other denomination.

Denominations do not interpret as we do, because they are bound to modern concepts, and to say otherwise would be to deny their very existence. Remember these are historical facts, not opinions on scripture.

Originally Posted by Ohio

The problem with Evangelical's teachings here on geographical oneness is that, if they are true, then LSM has failed worse than the denominations. Obviously the denominations have not interpreted scripture as you have, and since you have, then you are now responsible for what you believe.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Hi Jake,

If what you say here:

The idea that there is one church per city, and each of these city-based churches is somehow distinct and separate as an entity, seems to directly contradict the idea of the universal corporate Church.

Is true, then why did Jesus Himself refer to 7 churches in Revelation? Why did Jesus not just say "send it to the Church".. why "seven churches"?

Revelation 1:11
saying "Write in a book what you see, and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea."

Ephesus is a church - city, not denomination, house/street name, or country
Smyrna is a church - city, not denomination...
Pergamum is a church- city, not denomination...
Thyatira is a church- city, not denomination...
Sardis is a church - city, not denomination...
Philadelphia is a church - city, not denomination...
Laodicea is a church - city, not denomination...

So if we want to see how God/Jesus views the church entity, we can see that in Revelation 1:11.

But the idea itself, actually comes from church history. The Bible of course, reflects how things were at the time. It's no surprise that the Bible does not mention denominations or more than one church per city, because that's how things were.

I submit this section from this book, emphasis mine.

The Word of Truth: A Summary of Christian Doctrine Based on Biblical Revelation By Dale Moody
p. 435

The New Testament also speaks of the church as the one body of Christ composed of all true believers in all places, but it never speaks of a plurality of churches in one city (Col 1:18,24; Ephesians 1:22; 2:14-21;3:6-10;4:4,12; 5:23-33). It comes as a jolt, but it must be said again that the modern concept of a plurality of churches in one city is never found in the New Testament.

Dale Moody's credentials as a theologian can be found here:

http://archives.sbts.edu/the-history...rs/dale-moody/

I also present to you what the Orthodox church, one of the oldest churches, says:

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articl...nOneBishop.php

The model of church organization that was formed during the first three centuries of Christianity was based on the principle of "one city-one bishop-one Church",


It should be quite evident then, that historically and factually speaking, there were churches organized according to territorial boundaries.

I agree with what you said here:

"If we really want to be semantically strict, the only true "church" is the body of Christ, the universal church consisting of all believers. "

That is precisely what we believe. There is only one church, and the expression of that is one church per territory or city. Multiple churches per city does not reflect the "one church" very well.

In regards to:

"I think most Christians understand the distinction that when we say "church" in reference to a building, it's really just shorthand for "a meeting place for members of the Church""

If we are talking about denominations, like the Roman Catholic church, Orthodox, or even the pentecostal mega-churches, it's a whole lot more than "just a meeting place". "Just a meeting place" is like "hey, let's meet for church at the park today, and next week we can go to a cafe". That's "just a meeting place". But denominations are not like that.

Originally Posted by Jake

As far as I can tell, the entire concept of having one church per city seems to be an almost childishly simplistic reading of Paul's letters which refer to the church in some particular city. If we really want to be semantically strict, the only true "church" is the body of Christ, the universal church consisting of all believers. I think most Christians understand the distinction that when we say "church" in reference to a building, it's really just shorthand for "a meeting place for members of the Church", it doesn't mean that the Body of Christ is actually contained within that physical place. The idea that there is one church per city, and each of these city-based churches is somehow distinct and separate as an entity, seems to directly contradict the idea of the universal corporate Church.

It also seems strange that we would tie something divine to a man-made secular structure--cities, after all, are just arbitrary geographic boundaries created for political reasons. What happens when two cities merge? Does the decision of politicians miraculously result in the Body of Christ being rearranged? Merging several cities to create large mega-cities has been popular practice in urban development over the last few decades, how have LCs actually responded when this occurs?

Other denominations often name their churches after cities, neighborhoods or streets, but they don't make any claims about the city being some kind of divine basis for the unique expression of the Church, it's simply used to identify the location of the building...

Originally Posted by JJ

Could you or another long time poster point us to the best thread(s) on this topic?

I currently live in a city of 7,000 people within 10 miles of three much larger cities, only one of which has 'a local church'. I attend a 'community church' in one of the larger cities without a 'local church'. There are hundreds of churches within the county. It seems rdiculous to think the one city with 'a local church' is the only city with 'the church' in it?

Originally Posted by JJ

Could you or another long time poster point us to the best thread(s) on this topic?

I currently live in a city of 7,000 people within 10 miles of three much larger cities, only one of which has 'a local church'. I attend a 'community church' in one of the larger cities without a 'local church'. There are hundreds of churches within the county. It seems rediculous to think the one city with 'a local church' is the only city with 'the church' in it?

Originally Posted by Ohio

You are right about the error of one church one city.

There have been many valuable posts and threads written about this subject on this forum.

Here is one such post within an informative thread.