Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
This is a way to understand the passage. But it is not "the way" to understand it. The problem wasn't what teacher(s) they mainly listened to. It was that they were dividing over which teachers to listen to. So the claim of being "of" anyone, including Christ, was not a positive comment about liking a particular teacher. It was a declaration of why they were dividing from others who followed other teachers.
In this context, being "or Christ" was not a common declaration that should apply to all believers, but was a claim that their reason for dividing was better than anyone else's. Simply declaring themselves to be "of Corinth" would not have cleared-up the mess. While their rhetoric would have changed, the underlying division would remain.
The LRC does not actually drop all "concepts" to be simply one with others. Instead, they wrap their preferences in a different kind of name and declare that it cures their division.
|
Based upon your understanding, try explaining how the Lutheran church, is
not a division over "which teacher to listen to"? Their very existence and name is because of Luther's teaching. They could have joined with the Anglican church long ago - they are very similar. Their name and teacher Luther is still a reason for them to maintain their division today. There is no way that they are all Lutheran today "just because they prefer to be Lutheran". Their preference comes from opposition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
And since the others are not nearly as divided as you seem to think, it would appear that the LRC is more divided from the rest of Christianity than most of that myriad of groups with different names are from each other. It is a sad commentary that the group that declares itself to be, by definition, one with all believers is actually more divided from all of them than almost any of them are from each other.
|
If they are not so divided, then why do they still have different names and different identities? Why the largest of them still has closed communion? Your sensationalist claim that we are "more divided" is not grounded in fact. The first fact about division is that the largest church in Christianity - the Roman Catholic, of 1.2 billion, consider themselves to be the only church in the city, and no ecumenical movement or niceties between them and the protestant sects has ever changed that or will change that. That's divisive. They still practice closed communion, that has not changed.
The second fact is that the second largest group of Protestantism, numbering 800 million, is actually made up of hundreds of divisions itself.
Taken to the extreme, two or three here is one church, and another two and three there is another church. Suddenly there are 10,000 churches in the one city. It becomes not only more divisive than the Catholic, but also more ridiculous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
And despite all the apparent disagreement here, we have less reason to reject you than you do to reject everyone else. And you probably agree with me and are proud of it. I stand as one with all believers without the need for them to come to my assembly and listen to the ministry of the dead man I follow. And I am not opposed to meeting with any of them. I choose where I meet as a preference, not as stand against the others. You are the one that intentionally refuses to meet with others unless they come to you.
Layering a tale about Mrs. Smith into the mix does not make your group superior. If that metaphor actually was relevant, then your group is claiming the name of a city, not of its husband, Christ.
Go pray-read that for a while and see what kind of spin you can put on it.
|
You choose where you meet based upon preference, pretending to be one with all the believers. I meet with the church in my locality despite my preference, and I am actually one with them because there is such diversity in culture, nationality, race, education, and yes doctrinal opinion and backgrounds. When you say you as an individual meet based upon preference and not as a stand against the others, it sounds good for you as an individual. If everyone did that, then your church is grounded on preference, and not the solid grounding such as Christ, locality, or even the Bible or apostolic traditions and history that Protestant or Orthodox lay claim to.
In the case of denominations, their existence is not because of personal preference, but some sort of opposition. If I asked a church, like the Lutheran church, would they say "I am not opposed to meeting with any of them, we call ourselves "the Lutheran church" based upon our preference, not because of our opposition".?
Of course they would not say that. It has never been a question of preference. The Lutheran church did not start and continue today just because they prefer to be Lutherans.