[tasteslikegold]

Originally Posted by Igzy

You continue to talk about "denominations" as if everyone outside of the LC is in one. But the fastest growing segment of Christianity for a long time is the community church movement, which cannot, generally, be included as another denomination. I know it helps you case superficially to continue to use the term "denominations" in a broader way than you should. But it's unfair to do so.

I believe that I stated the irony of denominationalism in a post above. Even the "community church movement," inasmuch as it is a "movement" becomes unavoidably a sect, a division, a denomination of Christianity. This movement is, by the way, somewhat connected with the Emergent Church movement, and Saddleback Community Church headed by Rick Warren. I have personally experienced the phenomenon of the "mega churches." My personal opinion is that they are riddled with "Corinthian" issues.

I would agree that setting oneself apart from others based upon doctrine is of the flesh. That's what some denominations do wrong. But simply forming a church is not wrong. Forming one which basically says all are wrong except people which think like us is the problem.

But that's traditionally been the basis for forming "new churches." Were it not for the fact that groups of people naturally (in their natural selves) desire to form relationships with other like-minded persons, there would be no divisions at all. Church groups are not formed by single persons - "pastors" - who say to themselves, "Okay, now that I've graduated from seminary I can go out an market my own church." They are formed by groups of like-0minded persons who seek out like-minded pastors to lead them.

The problem is not holding certain doctrines as important. We all do that. The problem is how we use them to view others. Do we view those doctrines as "for man" (as the Lord viewed the most important Jewish doctrine, the Sabbath), or do we view man as for them (as the Jews viewed "man for the Sabbath.") Local churchers manifestly believe man is for the local ground, rather than the correct way, if there is any way, which is the other way around. So in essense, the local church is doing exactly what denominations are doing wrong, just with a unique and different doctrine.

I think I made that point earlier. It's a sticky wicket for any group. But what's the solution? We should accept as inevitable that we are forever doomed to division, or we should take a stand and make our best attempt at following the Bible's example?

The LC claimed to have the best collection of doctrines ever.

No, they didn't. :rollingeyes2:

They claimed to have a treasure comparable to no other.

No, they didn't.

So what did they do with this "treasure?" Did they try to bless others with it? No, they used it to prop up their identity as "God's best." Rather than condescend and try to minister to a world which they must have thought dearly needed what they had, they became self-enclosed and self-serving, and still are.

While you are free to your opinion, this is not evidenced in fact at all. You are merely showing your prejudice here.

Why couldn't the LC try to share the truth of oneness in locality with the rest of Christians?

They did, and do. All the printed material is freely available to the public and there is a large internet presence with all of this information available.

Firstly, I honestly I don't believe they ever really wanted to. I think they more wanted to maintain control of the movement and define it under their terms. They didn't want to lose their culture. They liked their identity as a remnant, as something special. If everyone joined them they would lose control and they wouldn't be special anymore.

Well, isn't that the case for everyone? Ask yourself why it is the Jews aren't so freely open the gospel. When you can answer that question you will realize the answer to your quandary about the LC's exclusiveness (or at least your perception of it).

Secondly, I think they knew the doctrine of the local ground could never hold up under wide public scrutiny, as it requires a tightly spun web of required arbitrary presumptions to operate. You first have to accept someone as the apostle, and few believe in apostles anymore. You secondly have to get people to accept an arbitrary set of elders in each city. This is relatively easy to do when you've got a small, isolated and tightly controlled group of people believing in some heirarchy of authority which comes down from the "apostle." In other words, an enclosed, inbred group operating under fear of excommunication. But it's not going to work with a huge number of people who sooner or later are going to wonder and ask why the emperors are wearing no clothes.

This is insulting. Inbred? What should compel me to answer this diatribe?