Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
The LC argument for not taking a name is sometimes illustrated with the fact of a wife taking her husband's name. But though a wife takes her husband's last name, she doesn't drop her first name, neither does he. It is necessary for identification.
Sure, we need to know that the name we are called by is the Lord's, but having a "first name" for ease of identification, like Creekside Community Church, I seriously do not believe offends the Lord. Now, if a church went around beating their chests and proclaiming the greatness of "the mighty name of Creekside," well, then you'd have a problem--sort of like the one the LCM has.
But simply having a name, or not having one, does not make you any better or worse. Certainly the Lord does not prefer not having a name and actually being divisive, as the LCM is, to having a name and not being divisive, as most non-denominational churches are.
Again, the LCM is all about control and pretending to own the rights to everything. *yawn*  |
I don't know about your logic. It seems to fly in the face of what was going on with the early church up until the Church of Rome started to dominate many aspects of Christian thinking. Also, 1 Cor 1:12 --- how do you reconcile this statement: 'Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ."' Aren't you saying, "I am of Creekside"? How much love is there between the SBC and the AOG? They have their own history and development--they will never reconcile. Then you have the 7th Day Adventists and the Church of Christ etc. You draw the line along doctrinal positions with everyone quoting their own Biblical scriptures. I thought I had a good understanding of the Biblical positions when I left the LC but many of them have been unearthed.