Quote:
Originally Posted by testallthings
To answer some of OBW's questions I might use an imperfect illustration. . . .
|
You bring up some interesting questions. But you seem to think that the questions will go away if there are no denominations. Whether I might ask about eternal salvation or if salvation can be lost will be a question for many no matter whether there are denominations that tend one way or the other.
But when you get down to "does one belong to my group or another group?" the question is often not asked. Or if it is it is so that we can join in fellowship and be willful about avoiding the minor issues on which we might not agree. Most knowledgeable Christians understand that there are few things that are believed and followed that cannot be found in the Bible. There are differences because so many things that we have come to think there might be a "right way" that is more than irrelevant while well-educated, scholarly Christians with a desire to further the growth of the people in their flock do not arrive at the same answer. You might propose a new Jerusalem counsel to go over some of these. Or to work through them one-by-one. But who will go/attend? Whose voices will be heard?
And is it really that important that we figure all of these out? It is going to take enough assemblies to house all of the people anyway. If certain ones join together to avoid the potential controversies, why is anyone creating a complaint? So they can argue that the groupings are somehow bad? For what purpose?
If the true interaction of the people from all groups is open, and the groups do not suppose that the others are evil or unspiritual for not being like themselves, then what has gone wrong? They all agree that their unity is in Christ — the only source of unity. Not doctrines or creeds.
I not that even the TAS quote is not very persuasive. He conjures up that there is no problem with the people. They don't need to leave denominations to be part of the body of Christ. We can agree that "
denominations are not and expression — in themselves — of the Body. . ." But then neither are assemblies. Assemblies are not simply pure and holy in all ways. They are where the Christians meet. And where others come to learn about Christ and consider belief. It is where the diligent shepherd the flock, and wolves come and plunder and some try to teach doctrines of demons. It is where the weak hold to what they have while others consider that they have everything they need and have no lack.
TAS also says that denominations "
can be either a definite limitation or a real hindrance to the full thought of God." But are these the sum total of the possibilities? Are they only "bad and worse"? Or (no matter how highly you may think of TAS) is he just as prone to thinking that his view of things is better and therefore presume only benign problems (at best) out of denominations. So we have a willful banding to be at least somewhat of a single mind on things (like denominations, including the LRC) or we have none and pick-and-choose our beliefs from the smorgasbord of ideas and instead have a smorgasbord of differences.
If we really do not bring those up when fellowshipping one-on-one or in broader ways between groups, then it really doesn't matter whether there are some number that start from an agreed position or none that fully agree at all. And despite some unsupportable claim of automatic unity for naming you group correctly, it doesn't cure anything either.
So we either have nobody really agreeing on anything, or some agreeing on some things, but nobody on everything.
TAS was not some major thinker of the "right way." He was a somewhat obscure thinker of a way of thinking that made everything independent. And therefore not necessarily in agreement. But, admittedly, with a hope that what was not agreed would not be insurmountable. But he mostly spoke to separate groups.
Or we claim that an unseeable formula derived by Nee somehow makes everyone that follows the formula suddenly agree on everything. But that doesn't happen because of the formula. It happens because the "theologians" of that group dictate their core and peripheral beliefs. Get out of line and you will be shown the door. They are not one with everyone who names their group like they do. They are only one with those that agree with them. And they have a core group that is not part of the local assembly that directs them (just like a denomination).
And so on.
The problem is that a story does not theology make. And TAS is not the end-all of preachers who have danced around this issue with nary a verse that supports the points made. And who makes false dichotomies of the range of possibilities without explanation.
In other words, for the length of the post, I do not see how it actually questions my notion that there is nothing I can find that makes denominations simply wrong. You can say that you have done the same. But the difference is that you are suggesting that there is a "the way" answer. If there is, there needs to be actual evidence. Actual verses. Not just analogies and rhetoric.
I am saying that there is no definable "truth" that makes your claim so. You are the one who must establish it to be so. And so far I do not see it.