The fact is, Evangelical, you are way out of touch both with the Church and yourself.
Presbyterians, Baptists, Anglicans and most of the rest receive each other a whole lot better that you receive any of them. So I think it's a bit humorous that you talk about their not receiving each other in light of your attitude.
A lot has changed. Just about everyone these days realizes the basis for fellowship is Christ. I have met a lot of Christians. I rarely meet any who think the basis of fellowship is some doctrine. I recall, years ago, playing golf with a couple of guys who turned out to be staunch Calvinists. When they found out I didn't quite share their view of predestination they started treating me with suspicion. It was quite odd. But I experienced firsthand being around someone whose basis of fellowship was not Christ but a doctrine. And I can tell you that rarely happens to me. Almost always the Christians I meet receive me as brother in Christ and send me the message that our commonality is Christ.
I just think you simply don't know what you are talking about. You really need to get out more. You talk as if you are still locked into the view of a Witness Lee book written fifty years ago. Your suspicion of other Christians reflects poorly on you, not them.
Also, locality is most definitely not a basis of fellowship. Locality is just a reflection of the fact that we should receive and fellowship with any Christian we come in contact with. And in ancient times that was almost exclusively those in geographic proximity. We should fellowship with any Christians we meet, whether they are near or far. In this day and age, with communication and the Internet, geography plays less of an important role. And guess what, here we are in a situation where we should receive each other and who is it among us who seems most hung up on doctrines? Well, I'm afraid that would be you, my friend. And that tells me a lot.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Yes, but you are just making my point. There is general agreement about regeneration. There is very little agreement with the LCM proprietary vision of locality. That alone should tell you something.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Well, I'm sure it gets your blood pumping to think about another excuse to judge other Christians, but just settle down a little, hotshot.
If your only reason for calling a group a "sect" is that they don't meet with you anymore that is not a good enough reason. God doesn't give one group the right to call another group a sect just because the other group doesn't meet with the first group anymore. God has called us to peace, and we need to respect the consciences of others. If someone chooses not to meet with you it may just be because you have a problem that bothers their conscience. What you should do is respect them and continue to reach out. Perhaps through that the Lord might teach you something.
Certainly some groups are sectarian. But just because a group doesn't meet with the LCM and comply to your view of locality does not make them sectarian. Locality as taught and practiced by the LCM is a tenuous and most likely unbiblical practice. As I've said there is not enough biblical ground for insisting on it and so doing so is actually divisive.
Again, a sect is a group with such an attitude of superiority that they think everyone needs to join them, and that no other groups are legitimate. Ironically, that describes the LCM to a "T." Claiming to be on the local ground means nothing if you don't truly embrace genuine oneness. And to my observation the LCM doesn't.