Local Church Discussions - View Single Post - What is the New Testament Definition of a Church

ZNPaaneah · 12-08-2016, 10:05 AM

I think it is becoming obvious that this is true. The term "the true church" vs some random meeting implies so much, as though there is a set of requirements which must be met before the gathering reaches the lofty heights of "the church". It is a term that is puffed up, every bit as much as the MOTA. Deputy authority may be a true Biblical principal, but it is used as the nozzle by which they puff up the MOTA, the elders, the "true church". These are like giant floats in the Thanksgiving day parade.

The one criteria we have been given to meet is the cross of Christ. If you have that and all it implies (redemption, salvation, resurrected Christ, baptism, one Lord) then you have met Jesus requirement for a meeting. You could have two or three and you will still have Jesus in your midst. You might have an elder, might not, doesn't matter.

On the other hand you could call yourself "the church in...", you could have a big ceremony of "taking the ground", you could have puffed up elders appointed by a puffed up apostle, and none of that has a NT basis to legitimize your meeting or delegitimize anyone else's meeting.

The sign of Jonah is the only sign given by Jesus to legitimize a meeting.

But there are many signs of sin, and falsehood. This false doctrine is all summed up in one word: leaven. What does leaven do? It puffs up the bread.

Witness Lee's doctrines are all designed to "puff up" the church. According to the NT whenever 2 or 3 gather together in the Lord's name He is in their midst, but WL refers to that as "some isolated thing" without a standing.

Who is he to disrespect the Lord Jesus like that? That "isolated thing" is a meeting in Christ. Their standing is Jesus Christ and the work He did on the cross.

According to Witness Lee it is the apostle (i.e. him) that gives a "true church" it's standing. It is such a despicable heresy, it is damnable.

12-08-2016, 10:05 AM	#510
ZNPaaneah Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 7,105	Re: What is the New Testament Definition of a Churuch I think it is becoming obvious that this is true. The term "the true church" vs some random meeting implies so much, as though there is a set of requirements which must be met before the gathering reaches the lofty heights of "the church". It is a term that is puffed up, every bit as much as the MOTA. Deputy authority may be a true Biblical principal, but it is used as the nozzle by which they puff up the MOTA, the elders, the "true church". These are like giant floats in the Thanksgiving day parade. The one criteria we have been given to meet is the cross of Christ. If you have that and all it implies (redemption, salvation, resurrected Christ, baptism, one Lord) then you have met Jesus requirement for a meeting. You could have two or three and you will still have Jesus in your midst. You might have an elder, might not, doesn't matter. On the other hand you could call yourself "the church in...", you could have a big ceremony of "taking the ground", you could have puffed up elders appointed by a puffed up apostle, and none of that has a NT basis to legitimize your meeting or delegitimize anyone else's meeting. The sign of Jonah is the only sign given by Jesus to legitimize a meeting. But there are many signs of sin, and falsehood. This false doctrine is all summed up in one word: leaven. What does leaven do? It puffs up the bread. Witness Lee's doctrines are all designed to "puff up" the church. According to the NT whenever 2 or 3 gather together in the Lord's name He is in their midst, but WL refers to that as "some isolated thing" without a standing. Who is he to disrespect the Lord Jesus like that? That "isolated thing" is a meeting in Christ. Their standing is Jesus Christ and the work He did on the cross. According to Witness Lee it is the apostle (i.e. him) that gives a "true church" it's standing. It is such a despicable heresy, it is damnable.