[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Your reasoning is very faulty. It's an example of the fallacy of the appeal to the extreme. You are saying that if we must accept all churches that claim to be churches we must accept LGBT churches. But there are other reasons to question the validity of groups. The Bible plainly tells us to not keep company with fornicators, and gay sex is plainly always fornication according to the Bible. So the reason to question the validity of LGBT churches has nothing to do with their being one of many, but that they are seated in gross sin, and so fellowship with them must be withheld. In this case "fellowship" does not mean that we can never talk to them, but that we do not confer to them the "right hand of fellowship," meaning full receiving of them.

I used the extreme example to make a point. But that "LGBT church" could as well be a tongue-speaking pentecostal church which the Presbyterians might reject because they speak in tongues. In other words the acceptance for fellowship becomes very subjective based upon doctrinal matters. The basis for fellowship is not something necessarily sinful. This is why the basis for spiritual fellowship should only be Christ and the basis for practical fellowship is both Christ and the locality.

Originally Posted by Igzy

So your argument fails that if there can be many churches that we must accept all who claim to be churches. We don't have to do that if there are aspects of the group (namely gross sin) which the Bible plainly tells us not to receive.

I agree but this does not explain why the Presbyterians do not receive the Baptists and why Lutherans do not receive Anglicans. Their differences are not due to sin but doctrinal, practical or historical preference. There is really no biblical mandate for that.

Originally Posted by Igzy

You seem to think that there must be a some cut-and-dried standard of what is a "church" and what isn't. But the Bible does not plainly give us that information. Nee and Lee decided that it should have and so invented standards for which the biblical argument is tenuous to say the least.

The bible does not precisely define what a "born again Christian" is either. Yet the evangelical protestant community has concocted a rather precise and dogmatic definition or standard for what it means based upon a very short dialogue between Jesus and one man Nicodemus. There are various takes on "born again" in Christianity as a whole - e.g. to be born again means the resurrection (after death), it means a process over ones lifetime, or it is instantaneous as soon as one believes in Christ.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Ironically, expecting others to agree with such tenuous arguments is in DIRECT violation of the Bible's mandate to not judge matters that plainly rely on each of us to be "fully persuaded in our own mind." The local ground, the view of the LCM about God's "unique move" and other sectarian LCM beliefs are not supported enough in the Bible to permit the LCM to expect others to believe them.

1 Corinthians 5:12 says we can judge those in the church. In particular Romans 16:17 says to mark those which cause divisions. Marking those which cause divisions can include those who plant new sects.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Some things in the Bible are plain. Some things are not. Yes, the Bible is plain that we should be "one." But the Bible is not plain about exactly what that looks like. Clearly each of us must decide in our own conscience what oneness means. This is the only way it could be, if you think about it. Because otherwise if what oneness looks could be defined in the superficial way the LCM insists it can, then that would subject the consciences of believers to the whims of leadership about superficial matters. This would clearly tie the Lord's hands, resulting in the sclerosis you see in the LCM.

The bible defines what being "one" means in Ephesians 4:4-6, John 17:21. The "ones" in Ephesians 4:4-6 are the basis for practical oneness. Even without those precise definitions, one would think it should look something like Christ and the 12 disciples, and not like the conglomeration of denominations we see today.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Yes, in extreme cases the church can decide to cease fellowship with individuals and groups. But plainly it is not the Lord's desire to give us a blank check to reject all those who do not measure up to our proprietary "oneness" standards which cannot be plainly and clearly understood and accepted by most Christians.

A sect is not just a distinctive group. It is a group which in general feels it should separate itself from other groups because of that distinction. In laymans's terms it is a group that in general thinks it is too good for others. And THAT is the distinction that matters. By that definition the LCM is definitely a sect, while many of the groups it considers sects are not.

Can't your definition apply to all denominations? Did not Luther separate from the Catholics because the Catholics were not good enough? By this definition the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches are sects also because they reject protestant churches that do not measure up to their standards of what is a genuine church. If we want to define church versus sect, we have to find a definition which works for all cases.