[Cal]

Originally Posted by Gubei

Igzy,

I cannot understand why you seem to think I'm for LSM in this matter. I serveral times said that I do not agree with LSM on this matter.

I never said you were for LSM.

Igzy, I fully agree with you in that point. Practically, I do not believe this truth will be satisfactorily practiced before our Lord comes back. Not because the truth is wrong but because of human nature.

If the Lord wanted us to practice the local ground, since it is a practical matter he would have given us the practical tools to do so. A primary issue with the city church model is knowing who to follow. Since you cannot give me a way of determining who the elders actually are, the model can't even get out of the gate, and I have to conclude it is actually impractical and therefore superfluous.

Igzy, please think about it. Why did God give Isralites the Mosaic Law?
That's for exposing man in their inability in keeping God's law. Is Mosaic Law WRONG? Absoultely NOT. MAN IS WRONG.

The law gives us specific and direct commandments. There is no commandment to practice the local ground, so your point does not work here.

Also, think abut this. Trinity is really difficult to understand. That's why there have been so many heretical teachings in church history, even now. Is Trinity WRONG?

Differences on interpreting the Trinity do not necessarily lead to contention. Differences on interpreting the local ground necessarily do lead to contention. Practicing it requires everyone agree on exactly what it means and how it is carried out. This will never happen, thus trying to force it is a distraction and even a detriment to the Lords' work of saving people. Let's get back to what the Lord commanded us to do.

Please think about this. As you said, you can deny other eldership in a city than that you accept for some reason. You may meet with some saints who are on the same page with you. It's okay to me. But think this serious picture you are watching everyday in your city. A lot of signboards reading "Baptist Church", "Holy of Holies", "Presbyterian Church" and so on and so forth. Is that biblical?

I'm a lot more worried about a group claiming to be the one true church in the city than I am about signs. Signs are bad if they confuse or divide, but those that simply identify are not a problem. Denominations are losing membership. The community church movement is skyrocketing. Most CC's simply use signs and names to identify. I see the trend going in the right direction.

You are arguing that I'm wrong because I did not give you practical remedy.
Here it goes.

Let others meets themselves without criticizing them UNLESS
a. they theach obvious heretical things
b. they promote their "signboards"

And Let's pray for them and for us to be one (even PRACTICALLY).

Implicit in your remedy is the assumption that you are right and others are wrong. This is precisely the problem that is built into the LC model. You cannot "take the ground" without assuming others are wrong. The LC model even says that other groups which meet on the ground (like the other three in Cheefoo that Hope talked about) are wrong. Four community churches in a city will fellowship, meet and pray with each other freely. Four "local churches" in a city will not. They will at best pretend the others don't exist. Usually one or all will condemn the others. Hope can tell you about how this occurs in Raleigh.

My last question. Please explain to me your model which is according to the Bible BEFORE YOU REPLY MY POINTS ABOVE. You must have yours judging from so confident tone of your speaking.

My model is to meet with believers and receive all Christian believers and groups. Oneness is shown by our willingness to receive others and to acknowledge that the Lord may be working in ways better than our own in a group meeting just a few miles away. In other words, the attitude of oneness is one of receiving, love, graciousness and humility--esteeming others as better than ourselves. Since the Bible never insists that we meet on the "ground of locality" I have no right to insist on it either.

BTW, if you want to talk with me about "the appointment of elders", which unavoidably is related with the matter of apostleship, you can refer to my posts in the Berean forum by searching my name. If it is not convenient to you, I will clarify this another important issue once again for you later in this forum.

Appealing to apostleship is just kicking the can down the road. Like elders, there is no way for us to determine who the real modern apostles are. It all comes down to opinion, and as we know, if you insist on your opinion you create contention. This is exactly what has happened when some insist Witness Lee was a apostle. Appealing to apostleship just creates more problems.


So, again, please tell me. Who are the elders of the church in Toronto? The LSM-following elders or the CB-following elders, or someone else? And how do you know? I need to know who to meet with when I visit there. This was the question I asked you to answer.