Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical
I'd like to see you try those 99.9% odds in Jesus's time. You might have said "99% of Judaism believe this so Jesus must be a heretic!"  |
That's a specious argument. We are talking about Christians, the Church, the Body of Christ. 99.99% of them do not agree with you. The ratio of Christian theologians disagreeing with you is probably the same. It's pretty arrogant blowing all these people off.
Quote:
The bible does not authorize us to call us by whatever name we like. I've given biblical evidence in this or another thread that this is so. The many references to having the name of Christ only, and not saying "I am of Paul" etc.
|
Saying "I am of Paul" is not taking a name. It's identifying oneself with some person (even Christ if you read the whole passage!!) in a way that divides. (And if saying "I am of Paul" is categorically wrong, then the way the LCs identify with Witness Lee is of the same spirit.) If it was about taking a name then Paul wouldn't have rebuked those who said "I am of Christ." Clearly it was about having a divisive attitude in general. It wasn't about the name.
Quote:
|
The church is the bride of Christ. It is as if you would say to your wife "honey, you have married me, but you can change your surname to anything you like that fits your personality or beliefs". Of course, the wife will take the name of her husband and none other.
|
Your wife has a first name doesn't she? It's not your name. Your analogy doesn't work
Quote:
Numerous autonomous house churches within a city cannot obey Paul's command in 1 Corinthians 1:10:
1 Corinthians 1:10
I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought.
|
The fact that Paul is asking people to be united in mind and thought does not mean that the Church in Corinth was necessarily united under one set of elders.
Look at it this way. Don't you in the LCM expect the command above to extend across and between all LC churches? Don't you expect the churches themselves to be perfectly united in mind and thought with each other? Sure you do. The LC doctrine is that the churches should be identical, based on the (mistaken) idea that if all the lampstands in Rev 2-3 are "identical" then all the churches should be also. The LCM expects the whole "recovery" be perfectly united under "the ministry" of Lee, so much so that the leaders of the movement insist on "one publication." So if your churches with different leaders can be united in such a way, and you believe they should be, then why can't house churches in a city be united in such a way as well. There is no reason to believe they can't.
So there is no reason that house churches in a city, each with different leaders, cannot be united, and they don't have to united under one set of city leaders. It's interesting that Paul tells the believers to be perfectly united with each other. He never says be perfectly united with him (the apostle) or with the church leaders. Thus the exhortation is about getting along with each other, it isn't about following an agenda, and it isn't about being under one set of leaders.
So, again, you have failed to demonstrate that the city church is necessarily under one set of elders. Appeals to history don't work. I want to see it spelled out in the Bible. You can't do it. Now if your reckless assumptions only affected you it would be one thing, but they affect others. Many, many Christians have been damaged by the LCM's insistence that their leaders are the leaders every Christian in a city needs to submit to. Many of them have passed through this message board. We've seen them. We've witnessed the damage and lived it.