Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
Are we talking about denominations or degradation? My point is not that every aspect of every group is okay, my point is that it's not my place or yours to say a group does not have the right to meet.
Here's the problem with your premise. You say that groups do not have the right to split off and go their own way. But my point is that for the Church to remain healthy they must have that right. Who is to say that a group cannot split off from the main group that claims to be IT? The RCC? The LCM? Splitting off and starting his own thing was exactly what Watchman Nee did. If he did not have that right, what would have become of his vision? You can argue that he was "right," but the point is it is not your place to judge. It was Watchman Nee's. Because he was the one who felt the call from God to do what he did. If the Church in Columbus felt that LSM had become corrupt and domineering and had fallen into major error, who are any of us to say they cannot follow their consciences and leave LSM and the LCM movement?
But you and the LCM seem to believe you have the authority to dictate who can come and go. You act as if you have the right to tell groups of people they cannot follow their consciences and their felt leading of the Lord. You talk about "division" as if it is defined by adherence to your set of beliefs. It isn't.
The fact is if the Bible specified clearly one church per city the religious situation today would be that the Catholics would have control of the one church in each city and would condemn anyone who broke off from it and would have the scriptural chops to make it stick. Recovery would be almost impossible. That's what you don't see. The Lord must have a way for his seekers to follow him out of the fold into the pasture, or if you prefer, out of Babylon into his genuine desire. One's man's "division" is another's being faithful to God's calling. Just ask Watchman Nee.
|
I agree they have the right to split. They don't have the right to create a denomination. Luther for example did not just leave the RC church and meet in home fellowships as per the new testament. The Lutheran church started because of him. Then another, then another. They created different "brands" of Christianity, when the reality is there is only the body of Christ. Today the Lutheran brand remains, as does many others. For what? Give me one good reason what the Lutheran brand contributes that the Baptist does not, or the Presbyterian, or a simple home fellowship. There is no reason for their existence. They serve no purpose except to uphold the brand of Luther. They are not better at gospel preaching or at converting sinners, or of good works or charities, they have not contributed any spiritual light in the last 500 years since Luther's revelation that salvation is by faith alone.