Originally Posted by HERn

Your view? Who cares about your view?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think they would agree with my view that they split but did not "come out of" each other.

Originally Posted by HERn

OK. What do you think our orthodox and catholic brothers would agree with?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You said the RCC "came out of" the Eastern Orthodox Church. I think this would offend Catholics if you tell them that they "came out of Orthodoxy".

I don't know that many Catholic or Orthodox would agree with you.

Originally Posted by HERn

How can you be that ignorant concerning church history? What is now the RCC split off from what now has become the Easfern Orthodox Church. It wasn't called that back then. Have you never read the book "The Pilgrim Church"?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Who split off from whom is a matter of debate. I don't think anyone came out of anyone - it was a split, they both arose at the same time.

Originally Posted by HERn

How can you be that ignorant concerning church history? What is now the RCC split off from what now has become the Easfern Orthodox Church. It wasn't called that back then. Have you never read the book "The Pilgrim Church"?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That's not quite factual - the RCC and Orthodox church arose at the same time -neither of them can be said to have "come out of" the other.

In regards to the view that the RCC is Babylon, this is an old Protestant belief. Luther, Calvin and Knox all taught that the RCC was Babylon. A true Protestant believes that the RCC is Babylon. "Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, and RCC is the whore of Babylon"

The view that you hold is a compromise position that the Reformers would not agree with.

Originally Posted by HERn

I thought you were educated, now I see that there are several brothers that post as Evangelical and this late at night we have the most ignorant Evangelical. The RCC came out of what is now the Eastern Orthodox Church. Unfortunately it is true that the RCC did pick up quite a bit from paganism.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Don't be ignorant of the devil's tactics - think about what the Jesuit Pope's intentions are with the Protestant denominations and governments around the world. You do know who the Jesuits are don't you? RCC comes from old pagan religions with a Christian facade.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Don't be ignorant of the devil's tactics - think about what the Jesuit Pope's intentions are with the Protestant denominations and governments around the world. You do know who the Jesuits are don't you? RCC comes from old pagan religions with a Christian facade.

Originally Posted by HERn

Oh my goodness! A Pope-loving Protestant? I do love any brother in the Lord, Pope or not. I even love the being blinded brothers! Unlike you when I die I won't be looking to WL to welcome me into the kingdom. I hope both you and I hear the Lord say "well done". I don't think our Lord will ask if we have been absolute for WL.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I tend to agree that the local church is more Protestant than the denominations that used to refer to themselves as "Protestant". Shame really, Luther and Calvin would be rolling in their graves. Luther would probably even join the local church meetings today rather than his own denomination which is today marrying homosexuals.

As for you my good fellow, you sound like a Pope-loving "Protestant" who admits to not having a clue what Babylon represents in the Bible.

Originally Posted by HERn

Wow! Here we go with the Babylon nonsense. Who gets to define what is Babylonian? The local church sect is Protestant. WL favorite doctrine is from an Easter Orthodox brother. You my brother have wasted most of your life following a man's deception rather than the teaching of the Lord Jesus.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You don't know the meaning of the word sect - Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox are sects, they are part of Babylon, their Cathedrals are full of idols and gross images and they pray to statues. The Protestant churches are friendly with them, so they too are part of Babylon.

Originally Posted by HERn

Dear EVangelIcaL: Your beloved local church sect came from the Brethern flavor of the Protestants, which came from the Roman Catholic Church which came from what is now call the Easrern Orthodox Church which came out of Judaism. See? Divisions aren't so bad are they?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

More than 500 or so years ago Christianity was almost 100% an exclusive sect call the Roman Catholic church, and was so for hundreds of years before that. That number is now around 50% (50% of Christians are Catholic), because many other sects came from her.

Originally Posted by HERn

EVangelIcaL said:

"Most believers of today are so utterly blind to the scriptural basis of a church that if one asks another, “To what church do you belong?”*

The churches one and only foundation is Jesus Christ her Lord; LSM, the being blinded brothers, full timers, and LC elders worship at the ground of locality, which is a doctrine from demons used by Satan to isolate WL followers into an exclusive sect, which follows the writings of WL rather than the teachings of Paul. LC elders use the teachings of WL to understand and interpret the NT. WL defrauded the saints with his many business schemes, and allowed his sons to defile several sisters and the testimony of their father. Dear being blinded brothers; if you will please confess that WL had a few beneficial contributions to the body of Christ, but was in error in many things you might be able to redeem WL legacy.

Originally Posted by Nell

When I first "came in" to the Local Church, it was still a local church. "Denominations" were exposed and condemned. There was a meeting hall, of course, but there was no name on the property because to "take a name" would be to become a "denomination". The "local church" was NOT a denomination. The "local church" was "one" with all Christians in the city. This was the prevailing teaching in the church in Houston where I first began my journey. They were quite proud of this standing and made much of the fact that there was no name and the meeting hall was just that...a place to meet. The church had an address, but not a name. All Christians were welcome.

How the worm has turned. I was in Oklahoma City over the weekend and decided to drive by the meeting hall. There was a HUGE sign out front!

"The Church in Oklahoma City Meeting Hall" it proclaimed. Last summer I drove by 6355 Windswept in Houston. Same thing. A HUGE sign out front.
I don't know why this shocks me so much. Yet another sign of the apostacy? Or, is it an admission of what it always was...another denomination?
We used to hand out business cards with "Jesus is Lord" on the front and a simple address on the back. That ended years ago. I guess that carries the virtue of honesty too...Jesus isn't Lord there anymore, or, He never was. Don't hand out cards that imply otherwise. (Maybe "Lee is Lord" cards instead with a disclaimer that Lee is dead.)
I guess in a way it makes sense. When the local churches became a franchise outlet of the Living Stream Ministry, it only makes sense to advertise. In fact, the font on the sign, at least in Oklahoma City, looks like the Living Stream Ministry font used in its publications.
Oh. And remember when "the ministry" began? Lee's ministry meetings were separate from church meetings. In Austin, the "ministry" messages were advertised prominently as Lee's ministry and was strictly separate from church meetings. The "Ministry Meetings" were held in the community room of a nearby shopping mall. Local church elders delivered the messages. In Austin, it was George Whitington who delivered Lee's messages, beginning with what later became "Life Studies". That didn't last long either. The meetings moved from the mall to the hall. At that point, "the Ministry" and "the Church" merged, and once again the truth of the situation became evident. It was a Witness Lee takeover, never to look back.

Just keep in mind....in the beginning it was not so.

Nell

Originally Posted by Evangelical

...
If we consider implementing the instructions in the quotation you gave, I cannot see how it is practical to not have the name of the locality. Suppose someone wants to write a letter to the church in Shanghai (the ones who live in Shanghai but don't say they are the church in Shanghai). Who does he give it to? When he asks them if they are the church in Shanghai, they say, "no we are not the church in Shanghai".

It seems when Paul wrote a letter to any church, it was addressed to a church which had a clear identity according to its locality. This seems right and only practical to me.

Originally Posted by testallthings

1972

Stephen Kaung was just following what Watchman Nee had taught him and Lee in China. It was Lee that didn't follow Nee. And let me say something that I had in my heart for too long: when W. Nee died in 1972, W. Lee was finally free to do whatever he wanted to do!! Remember this year 1972. After this year no breaks for W. Lee ministry and publications, footnotes, LS of the bible and so on. W. Nee is barely read in the LR. He is more respected and read in the various denominations. As a matter of fact a coworker said, “We use W. Nee's ministry as an opener to later introduce W. Lee's ministry. His books are much higher”.



Question: Among us, we may have men who resemble the elders, but they do not have the official title of an elder. This is like having no official title of apostles at the present time. Is this right?

Answer: This is right. If someone asks you what we are and whether or not we are the church in Shanghai, how should you answer? You should say that we are not the church in Shanghai. If someone asks if we are the church on Hardoon Road, you should say no. We should not admit that we are the church in Shanghai, because besides us there are the Shou-jin Chapel, the Mu-re Chapel, the Chin-lin Chapel, etc. There are many saved ones who are not meeting with us. We do not admit that we are the church on Hardoon Road either, because there may be many people who live on Hardoon Road who are not meeting with us. If we call ourselves the church in Shanghai, we have to include all believers in Shanghai. Otherwise, we cannot be considered the church in Shanghai.
They may then ask you what you are if you are not the church. We admit that we are not the church; we are merely those who meet on the ground of the church. I can illustrate the point by an example. The temple in the Old Testament was built in a splendid way. Later, it was burned, and not one stone was left on top of another. Suppose a man in Jerusalem at that time decided to erect a tent on the foundation of the burnt temple. If others were to ask him what this was, he would say that it was not the temple: rather, it was only a tent on the ground of the temple. The same is true with our meeting today. If others ask us what we are, we have to answer that we are not the church; we are not the church in Shanghai. We are a group of brothers and sisters in Shanghai meeting on the ground of the church. We are those who meet according to the principle of the church as revealed in the Bible. We are those who intend to stand on the ground of the church to maintain the ground of the church. The temple is now in ruins and burned, and we are only a tent. All those who have eyes can see the degradation of the church today; outwardly, everything is in ruins. We cannot and dare not call ourselves the church in Shanghai. We only desire to meet on the ground of the church based on the light we have received concerning the church. we are not the church in Shanghai, but we are meeting in a way that maintains and upholds the church in Shanghai. We are standing on the same ground that the church stands on, yet we are not the very church itself. Therefore, even though we are not the temple, we are a miniature of the temple, and we are here to express the life of the temple. This is why the elders and deacons among us are non-official. The reason we have elders and deacons is that, even though we admit that we are a small tent, we are, nevertheless, erected on the ground of the temple. Therefore, we have to do everything according to the pattern of the temple.
(The Assembly Life, Chapter 1, Section 7 from the website www.lsm.org)

Originally Posted by Freedom

It seems to me that Nee was much more 'mild' in his approach to the teaching of locality than Lee was. In fact, certain groups who spawned from Nee (but didn't work much with Lee) have never proceeded to practice locality as taught by Lee. One such group is those who have worked with Stephen Kaung.

Below, I have re-posted a quick transcription of an audio recording of Stephen Kaung that I did on another thread. Those who were associated with Kaung were also those who were meeting apart from any denominations. Even early on, those associated with WL tried to infiltrate and take over, using the matter of the ground of locality as a sort of 'wedge' to divide to the two groups. Kaung had also been under Nee's ministry in China. Therefore, there was really no reason the two men couldn't have worked together. But it seems WL was intent on being a one man show. These considerations regarding practice are also a big reason why I call into question the legitimacy of the ground of locality.

Even if we throw all consideration of the doctrinal validity of this teaching out the window, there is still the question of how it could actually be practiced and work out without any problems. How would such a teaching to be played out? What if two groups both claim to be the church in X? It's actually a valid concern. Back in the old days especially, LC meeting halls didn't have any identification on them. So unless someone was previously associated with Lee's ministry, they would have no idea that there was a group in their city practicing the "ground of locality." Another group could form without knowing the first existed. As far as I am concerned, such things are important considerations concerning a practice application of what Nee/Lee taught. Below is what Kaung said along with the corresponding links: