Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical
I have given many scriptural references against denominationalism:
It is you who choose not to believe them. So how can you say the Bible is your authority?
|
(I will not re-link your list.)
These are all part of larger discussions. And even without context they do not simply say what you declare them to say.
What is "division" as used in the various passages? Is it any difference of opinion? Or is it refusing to fellowship. Or even disputing the very basics of the faith?
And which of the various groups you bring up to mention actually refuses to fellowship? And which disputes the very basics of the faith? So you think that the Baptists cannot tolerate Presbyterians?
But it is clear that you can't. And you really can't tolerate the Catholics.
And if you want to complain about the number who meet with any particular group that are not actually Christian, do you think that there are none like that within the LCM? I can assure you that there are unsaved in every group. So do you then parse based on a presumption of numbers or percentages that are unsaved? And if so, do you think you really know what percent of any of those groups are unsaved?
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." So do you think that many really don't believe but just put themselves through all that stuff anyway? They may typically not have some kind of Damascus road experience. But there is nothing that suggests everyone will have such a clear demarcation between belief and unbelief. Some are taught and come to believe. Some are faced with a crisis and come to believe. Both ways work. How you move forward in worship and obedience is not relevant to it. And it is not an indicator of what "kind" of Christian you are.
But going back to refusing fellowship, it would appear that you are looking for reasons to refuse fellowship with others. They have to come to you. You will not go to them.
When you pray for the church in the city where you live, do you see only one group, and possibly a huge mass of unaffiliated Christians because you hate the way they group? Is your group the only acceptable group? And if so, why?
And isn't it difficult to somehow declare that yours is the right group when it is not even among the first on the scene? I mean, the RCC was there before you. And the Lutherans, Presbyterians, Reformed, Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, the Baptists, the Bible churches, the Congregationalist, the Pentecostals and Charismatics of various types, the Vineyard churches, the Matt 29 group, and so many others. And among all of those, named and unnamed, yours is one of the last, yet somehow declares that it is the only one that is "proper" and therefore the only true church. And why is that? It's in the name. Your name is "proper." The name. The very thing that you declare that no one should have.
And don't tell me you have no name. You have sued in that name many times. And you have sued to get the right to that name in certain jurisdictions. And before you say that maybe some location incorrectly did that, the money and support for that suit came from the LCM (or more probably, the DCP).
And when it comes to suing other Christians, your group is among the most active (or at least was until the Harvest House loss).
And you see the true church as an ocean of LCM people while those in the denominations are kept out of that ocean by boats. The problem with your metaphor is that your ocean would be a drop on the beach and those boats would have nothing to float in.
You say that we are not loving the LCM and should therefore disband, yet you tell us that everyone that is not with your little sect is not eve part of the true church. Our goal is not to chastise you for failing to follow any particular way, but to awaken to the evidence that everything you claim about the others is more true of yourselves than it is of us. We don't agree about everything, but we can fellowship with each other. And that can be said at the individual level, at the assembly level, and even at the denominational level. We are not declaring that the LCM or any other group is not part of "the church." We are striving to keep the unity of the Spirit." It would seem that you are looking for ways to avoid it. Excuses to avoid us. Our problem with the Local Churches is mainly that they throw up artificial barriers that are not even about the Bible. Mostly about Lee and the LSM.
You don't want anyone to follow a name. The Lutherans follow Luther less than the LCM follows Lee. The Presbyterians follow Calvin less than the LCM follows Lee. All the other groups use the writings of many, including those outside of their group. But your group is afraid to allow you to read anything that wasn't repeated by, or originally said by, Lee. Your group claims that you can't really understand the Bible without Witness Lee's footnotes. Not just footnotes. Can't read Scofield's, Or commentaries by others. The only things good there have been included in Lee's notes.
You really think highly of Lee. And based on the things he said about himself, he thought highly of himself.
I know that I have somewhat scatter-gunned here. But there is just so much to take note of rather than just ignoring and pointing at others. I was part of that group for 14+ years. I thought leaving was just because of people problems. But eventually, I began to see that for almost every claim about the errors of denominationalism, or clergy-laity, or whatever, there was more wrong with the LCM on the same issues than even might be wrong with the others. Denominations are a red herring. Your list of verses have clear meanings that do not obviously go to simply denominations, if they go there at all.
But you have been told that is the way to read them, so you do. You need to realize that there really is a garlic room. And you are in it.