Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake
ZNP,
I have responded many times to your thread. No need to pretend otherwise.
You are intent on demanding a teaching in the Bible and dismissive of teaching from the Bible. The ten commandments or the sermon on the mount being teachings in the Bible. Yet, aren't there many beliefs we believers treasure that are from the Bible but not a direct teaching in the Bible?
For example, JW's and Muslims will never accept that Jesus is God and as they push a Bible in your face demand that you show them where in the Bible by chapter and verse it says "Jesus is God". Now you and I believe Jesus is God even though the exact phrase is absent in the Bible. We can point to John 1, John 20:31, Revelation 1, etc. and many other scriptures yet they will dismiss it as evidence misconstrued. Muslims will further demand that you show them from the "red letters only".
|
Without rejecting your overall argument, I think the example is poor. I think you can make a very strong and compelling argument based solely on the NT that Jesus is God incarnate. So then who is the comparison of JW's and Muslims to?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake
You are conducting your argument in the same way just on a different topic.
|
That is what I thought. Lame. If the thread was on the divinity of Jesus I would respond with very many verses from the NT and the OT. They would not merely infer, but state. You have not done that. What you have done is provided a long list of references to "the church in ..." I do not dismiss the inference, but I do point out that it is an inferential teaching and not based on anything more substantial than that.
Are you saying that the teaching of Jesus divinity is "inferential"?
This doctrine is condemned in the NT as being something we should reject. It is despicable to compare a discussion into the NT root of what the church is to the most basic heretical teaching.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake
There are over 100 citations of ekklesia in the New Testament addressed to church in city ("the church in...") or to churches in a region. This is unambiguous by the reading of Strongs #1577. Though there are over 100 references proving there was one church in each city, far more in sheer quantity than those related to the divinity of Jesus, yet you reject the clear facts.
|
Baloney. I don't reject any "clear facts".
Fact 1: In any locality the "church" should be one. Granted.
Fact 2: The oneness of the believers is based on the name of God, not based on the name of the gathering. (John 17:11)
Fact 3: The Lord has given us His word to accomplish His prayer that we would be one. (John 17:14-21)
Fact 4: The only way that we can come into the fullness of the oneness is because Jesus Christ is in us. (John 17:23).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake
With so many references to one church in each city, instruction against division, and revelation of the oneness of the believers the following scripture may be applied without hesitation:
"All scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching..." 2 Tim 3:16
... whether you believe it or not and regardless of whether you accept it.
Now, from the Bible, please explain the biblical teaching in support of division/denominations. This is precisely what I have been asking for.
Thanks
Drake
|
Yes, there is one church in one city, but that is not because of the name of the meeting hall, or in the phone book, or registered with the IRS.
Their oneness is because of the name of God. We all meet into that one name. That is what makes us one. But that is simple, to get into the depths requires that we be sanctified in the truth, the Lord's word is truth. The apostle's fellowship is truth. It is this truth that sanctifies us, protects us from the evil one. We can only truly be one if we are sanctified. Sins like those of PL, WL, and the Blendeds destroy the oneness. To maintain the oneness therefore requires that we deal with these sins, this is done with the word, and this is part of the sanctification process.
But even then we need to express the incarnated Christ who dwells within us. We saw this in our own little history and we have seen this in church history. Standing up to oppression often requires 2 or 3 to stand against the "super apostle" and all of his henchmen. To do that we need the Lord's promise to be in our midst. Without Jesus in our midst we can never attain to the oneness that is expressed by the Triune God. It is Jesus in our midst that makes us one. 2 or even 3 could express this. If they seek out the lost sheep, if they stand up to the arrogant religious leaders that stumble the believers, then their is a promise that Jesus will be in their midst.
Your error is that you think correlation implies causation. One church in one city is not caused by saying "one church in one city". The church is one because of the name we were all baptized into, the washing of the water in the word, and the indwelling Christ.
If you were baptized into another name, if you have a different covenant, if there is another spirit indwelling you, then you will not be one.
This the most despicable and vile response. The cornerstone teaching of Witness Lee's sect is this matter of the Ground of the Church. I ask for the NT basis for his teaching, especially what constitutes a "true church" in reference to Witness Lee's own words. And what is the response? Asking for the NT teaching is like questioning that Jesus is God come in the flesh.
When someone speaks we get to see their teeth. So, when we see your teeth we hear your speaking. Is your speaking a double blessing, full of life? Or do we see two hypodermic needles, dripping with poison, all alone?
To question Witness Lee's teaching is to question Witness Lee. This will cause you to see the snakes fangs and the poison.