[OBW]

A few posts had things worthy of comment.

Beginning with this response by Igzy to 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.

What is completely missed in this particular appeal to the extreme is that while Paul would likely treat the actual participation of someone who was openly engaging in such fornication like he did the one in Corinth, he might not simply because it was thought that they might or could. And just because they were not convinced they shouldn't, but otherwise appeared to be abstaining, what should we say to that?

Paul spent a lot of time talking about people who were "sinning so grace could abound." He did not simply say it was a false hope, but rather that we should be moving toward less and less sin. But he agreed that when there was sin, grace did abound. So do we deny that grace to someone whose besetting sin is a really big no-no like same-sex activities? And do we deny them even access to the building when they have not yet come to Christ? Do we demand that they become "saved" elsewhere before they can even come inside where we are constantly asking all other sinners to "come as they are"?

I can assure anyone that I have a lot of issues around this from both sides. I see a conundrum. I've heard some talk about this in ways that was more loving, yet it never covers everything. I am not far from being a hardliner with a realization that the hard line is probably not the way to go on much of anything.

Originally Posted by Terry

Church planting sectarian? I had not heard that one before.
However I would agree sect is appropriate for a church that caters to a particular "need" of preference. That would apply to LSM affiliated assemblies. Whether on Maui, Toronto, or Renton it's a preference towards a specific Christian publishers publications for fellowship.

I'm not sure that catering to a need or a preference is so bad. As someone (Igzy? Ohio?) said in another post, if my conscience is bothered about certain things (doctrine, practice, etc.) or persons, making my primary meeting group not include those things or persons is good. It allows for continued fellowship without forced contact with a problem. But that does not mean they think the others are sects or deficient. Or declare that they cannot meet together or be welcome wherever they are.

Originally Posted by Terry

As Christians we should be able to be one based on the Word of God alone.
When we start basing our oneness on affiliations through ministers and ministries we fall into the trap Paul warned about in 1 Corinthians 1:12-13.

I'm not even sure that oneness should be based on the Word of God alone unless you mean that the oneness/unity would be based on what the Word says it is based on — Christ. Even reading the "ones" in Ephesians can give you a wrong understanding of oneness.

"One faith" is not a reference to our particular set of doctrines, but of faith in Christ.

"One baptism" is not about who baptized you or how it was done, but that you are baptized. (And it is not simply clear that it is talking about baptism in water or in the Spirit.)

And so on.

Our oneness is truly not in city. Some live in a city that the would rather not live in. If I moved to Philadelphia, New York, Chicago, LA, Seattle, and so many other places, I might not want to be there, but find that having a job dictates it. So I surely would not want to think that my oneness with other Christians was based on the city. Other than the fact that they are nearby and I should be one with them, and recognize that in Christ I am.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

As someone else has asked, why do you think that they don't? On what basis do you declare that Presbyterians don't receive Baptists? They receive people from the AOG and from the LRC. I've attended Presbyterian assemblies during both sojourns.

If you mean to say that they don't just ask the Baptist group to close-up shop and join with them, that is not what we do. We don't presume that there is no reason for their assembly, but rather that there is. Just like there is reason for ours. But there is essentially no such thing as assemblies joining together. People assemble. And when they do they join together. And if their joining has the general doctrinal positions of Presbyterians, so be it. Same for the Baptists.

And there is the rub. You have problems with the fact that they understand things differently. Well, you do too. And if you suddenly had all the Presbyterians, Baptists, Anglicans, AOG, Lutherans, RCCs, EOCs, etc. in one place, that would be something. But do you think it would be simply wonderful all the time? What about those who believe that you can lose your salvation? Will they be required to stop teaching that in smaller groupings? (Don't presume that the meetings will look like LRC meetings because you are not the decider of such things when you are now the marble in the corner of the boxcar.) Will the assembly as a whole come to make certain positions the ones they allow to be taught and not others? What if the ones they latch onto aren't the ones you want? What if they don't want to have and LSM materials used in the meetings or taught?

I have asked Evangelical this many times and he has avoided the question. He is obviously convinced that the only way it works is that it works entirely his way which means that oneness only occurs on the ground of dirt, using LSM material, having a "church in [city]" sign out front, dismissing James "because of God's economy," and so on.

Good luck with that.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

Apparently some that cause division mark themselves and start their own group. Then they find a way to declare that everyone else is the one that is divided.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Did not Luther separate from the Catholics because the Catholics were not good enough?

Did not the LRC separate from everyone else because they were not good enough?

I would suggest that Luther did not separate from the RCC as much as the RCC gave him a choice — drop it, run, or die. If you can't drop it for conscience, then the options are run or die.

Inquisitor: "Cake or death!"
Guy on trial: "I'll take cake."
Inquisitor: 'That's a popular option today."

OK. My "squirrel" moment is over.

You want to there to be the LRC today while you are alive, but you don't want Luther to have separated. Without that separation, you wouldn't likely be even close to having an LRC now. In fact, we might all be participants in an RCC that is still burning heretics at the stake. Or an RCC that is somewhat evangelical. (Don't want to be too evangelical because that is probably beyond what is reasonable and supportable.) Then this discussion might actually be part of the first nail in the door. Just not somewhere in Germany.