[tasteslikegold]

Brothers/sisters,

Please note that I am attempting to keep within the confines of this discussion as possible, and that I am also attempting to respond to numerous comments. Please forgive me if my responses here are not in keeping within the current scope of discussion. When I began posting in this thread I had a goal in mind, but had not anticipated that the discussion would lead me in so many directions all at once. If I do not directly address any person's comments, please do not suspect that I had purposefully ignored them. At this point I am basically trying just to keep up.

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

Because God didn't want us to be CLONES... A hand does not look like a nose, a nose does not look like a foot..and neither do they have the same function..but they all are fitly framed together in the body...and that is how the Body of Christ ought to be. No one needs to be told to act like a foot, a nose or hand. Neither is a hand better than a foot or a nose.

I understand this point, but it is not how I understand the term "individuality" in context with this discussion.

In the body of Christ, we have ONE HEAD...Christ Jesus...we are led by the Voice of God, the Holy Spirit and the WORD of God, the Holy Bible. We are to exhort one another, to teach one another, to build up one another that the world would see we are ONE in CHRIST JESUS...one with each other as the Son is ONE with the Father.

Actually, the oneness of which you speak is not related to exhortation, teaching or building up. It is an essential oneness in both spirit (with the Spirit), and in "harmonious agreement" without division. How is such a oneness accomplished? It cannot be accomplished by a varying degree of opinions over doctrine, practice, or through culture, politics, or any number of items which are sourced in the soul of man.

It depends on your perception TLG. In truth, there ought not to be any denominations or non-denominations..no "local church / Living stream Ministry". We ought to be breaking bread from house to house.

I think this is more related to the other thread, the one concerning the ground of oneness. There appears to be no practical solution to the matter of our division. Therefore, it appears that all believers simply accept our divisions as inevitable products of humanity. This, to me, appears as a grand exercise in fatalism. If one group branches off from another it is received as somewhat problematic, but then again, "What the heck, they're Christians just like us, so we'll just accept the division as inevitable and continue as if God approves." Well, when one group stands on a particular tenet of oneness and claims that it is proper to meet in this way, they are labeled "sectarian." Both Nee and Lee made a standing in such a way. Of course, in so doing they fell to the same type of fatalism, but in a way that was clearly unpopular.

Yet we read about the offices in the New Testament...some apostles, some deacons, some Shephards (pastors), some prophets, some evangelists. In a perfect world, as each believer matures in Christ, we ought to just begin to function in the office we've been called to.

Actually these are not "offices" within the church, but functions within the Body of Christ. Technically the only three offices in the church are apostle, elder, and deacon. These offices may function in the Body according to one or more of the gifts listed in 1 Cor. 12, however. For example and apostle may also be a teacher or gifted in administrations, etc.; and even an apostle may also be an elder of a church locality (cf. Nee's "The Church and the Work"). The gifts, the functions in the Body are not exclusive, as they were given to the Body as whole. Therefore one member may actually function in the Body with more than one gift. However, in terms of "offices," offices carry out the practical needs of Body. An apostle "plants churches," and elder heads up or leads a local church, and a deacon serves the local churches in their practical needs.

In Christendom, people are ordained for the most part.

Ordained by whom?

In the LC, Lee was the 'apostle of the age'. He selected the elders. Perhaps there was a meeting/discussion on who qualifies/qualified to be an elder/leading 'one'. He considered himself an apostle..and so did everyone in the LC consider him to be an apostle..THE apostle.

An apostle certainly, but not the apostle. Actually Lee believed that Watchman Nee was "an apostle of the age" and said so. But regardless of anyone else's opinion concerning him, Lee never called himself the apostle, he merely took the pattern of an apostle in the appointment of elders. Whether any other "pastor" in Christianity does the same or not, the appointment of elders is, according to the pattern of the Bible, done by an apostle. And clearly "apostle" is an office in the church.

But to my knowledge,he overlooks the other offices noted in 1 Corinthians 12:28 for instance. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I don't know how the LC selected the elders and 'leading ones'. And why can't they just call them PASTORS for crying out loud!

Why must they be called "pastors"? Actually, according to many denominations an elder is an office below a pastor. Then again, there are "bishops" who are above the pastors. I've rarely heard any Christian denomination refer to the leader of a region as an apostle, even though the office is clearly defined in Scripture. In some denoms there are "reverends." Where are the reverends in the Bible?

Everyone else uses the Bible's terminology except Lee and the LC....talk about divisive !

Actually, as I've just written, not everyone uses the Bible's terminology. And what translation are you referring to? The term in 1 Timothy 3:1 in the King James is "bishop," whereas in the NIV it's "overseer." Then in the NLT (as well as RcV) it's "elder." In fact, that I am aware, no English version renders the term "pastor."

...Never is there a PASTOR in the LC..or a PROPHET spoken of..there is also more than ONE apostle in the NT. Yes.it does look like Paul took the lead among the other apostles. He planted quite a few churches for sure.

Many of the original apostles set off for other countries, and then some settled in Jerusalem and functioned as elders there. Paul is generally viewed as being the leading apostle by virtue of his writings having been canonized. Yes, in the local churches as we generally do not emphasize the gifts by calling some prophets, teachers, healers, etc., but then again that is not a fault. Other denominations don't emphasize the gifts of their members either, by the acknowledgment of a title. This fact doesn't mean that the gifted members don't exist.

Yes...you may be correct. And the LSM/LC with everyone reading the same HWMRs, reading the footnotes...NEVER questioning the footnotes..for that would be considered divisive even if a particular teaching or view Lee held is incorrect.

Where in the New Testament is it ever shown that any person rose up in the middle of a meeting and declared "I think this is false!" That doesn't even happen in today in the context of the denominational meetings. I believe if a person were to stand up in the middle of a sermon and proclaimed the error of the pastor's teaching he/she would be immediately tossed out on their ear.

We, as mature believers, ought to be at a point in our lives where we are relying on the Word of God and the leading of the Holy Spirit through the Lord Jesus in us.

We ought to be learning from one another..not solely from ONE MAN'S point of view!

I agree. We don't have "one man's point of view" in the local churches.

Hmm..ministries? Very little discernment of those diversities? What makes you an expert?

I don't claim to be an expert. I only observe, consider and report what I believe to be true. Where, for example, is the discernment of Christians (literally hundreds of thousands) in a group whose leader claims to be a recipient of "the anointing," and who regularly claims to see and speak to Jesus physically? There is a certain leader in Christianity today (Whose name I will not mention) who once claimed that Jesus would physically appear at one of his healing "crusades." Not only was that believed by thousands, it was not discerned at all when the event did not occur. I would say that, generally speaking, according to my observations, discernment among believers today is in serious decline.

Can you explain 1 corinthians 12:5, please?
I don't have an RcV in front of me..but here is what the NASB has to say about ministries:
And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord.

The KJ puts it like this:
And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.In Christ, we ought to be in one accord..by 'osmosis' if you will...we ought to know each other by the Fruit of the Spirit in us. When we're at the grocery store, we ought to be recognizing believers. We are the LIGHT OF THE WORLD. We should be able to see each other Glow in the dark.

Literally glow in the dark?

The term "ministries" is diakonia in the Greek. It means "to minister, to carry out an administration." It is a form of the word diakonia which means, "to execute the commandments of a master or king." According to the context of 1 Cor. 12, "ministries" is related to the functioning in the Body for the furtherance of the divine commission (the spreading of the Gospel). It is generally not understood by today's standards of "my ministry, his ministry, the prison ministry, the biker's ministry," etc.

The way you are presenting your question..however, sounds very close to Socialism, to Communism..and to what will soon be the ONE WORLD ORDER...where everyone is "one". Everyone will pay homage to the ONE World Leader..there will be ONE world government..ONE world currency. ONE mark on the hand or the forehead. No individuality.

Actually if you read about the early church in Acts, it was very much a socialist means of living. All property was given to the community to be distributed equally among the saints. They shared meals together. Prayed together, and went every Sabbath to the temple together. Where in the Bible does it reveal that the Christian life is one of democracy? Democracy is a political system developed during the Roman era, and copied/redefined by any number of cultures in history. In the church we are a "theocracy" in terms of God, and in terms of man we are closer to socialism....if that's the way you wish to view it. Actually we should be above all forms of human invention, not the least of which is politics.

The content of the rest of your post I believe I responded to in my answer to another.

Grace,

TLG