Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical
Here's another "gotcha" from the book, which is on topic, about denominations and divisions.
The early Christians did not divide themselves into various
denominations. They understood their oneness in Christ and
expressed it visibly in every city. To their minds, there was only
one church per city (even though it may have met in many
different homes throughout the locale). If you were a Christian
in the first century, you belonged to that one church. The unity
of the Spirit was well guarded. Denominating themselves ("I
am of Paul," "I am of Peter," "I am of Apollos") was regarded
as sectarian and divisive (see 1 Corinthians 1:12).
The church in the first century was an organic entity. It was a living, breathing organism that expressed itself far differently from the institutional church today. And that expression revealed Jesus Christ on this planet through His every-member functioning body
In short, this book demonstrates beyond dispute that those who have left the fold of institutional Christianity to become part of an organic church have a historical right to exist—since history demonstrates that many practices of the institutional church are not rooted in Scripture.
Remember I did not get this from Lee/Nee books. This is from a book in my local christian bookstore 
Now I can rephrase my previous statements to be on topic to this thread:
Igzy said I should read all the Christian books, that "serious Christians do not have divisive prejudices anymore". (#144)
Yet the book "Pagan Christianity" clearly prejudices against most churches/denominations today by declaring their existence to be "not rooted in Scripture". |
But the book did not endorse your version of oneness. It said that oneness was in Christ. You have actually done the same naming game issue as the Corinthians because you do not use the name of the city as a non-thing that unifies the Christians, but as a specific thing that separates them. Our oneness is in Christ. But saying "I am of Christ" which implies that others are not is still sectarian. So in the same way, to declare that "we are the church in [city]" and meaning that others are not is just as sectarian.
The problem with your logic about names and "denominations" is that even though they don't agree on everything, unlike those in Corinth, they actually are not putting up walls around their groups and declaring others to be wrong, and therefore "not church." Instead they just are honest up front that they, as a group, believe in certain things in a certain way. If you want to come anyway, that is fine. If you want to join with others who think more like you, that is also fine. But we are all agreed that we are the church and together we are reaching the world.
Everyone except the LRC and a very few other extremists.