[testallthings]

Originally Posted by aron

For the sake of continuing the discussion, suppose I'm a believer in Millville who wants to gather with others of the same faith. "Do not forsake the assembling together", right? Now, where do I go?

Not to the Millville Baptist Church, as they've taken a name other than Jesus Christ. Same with the Millville Lutheran Church and Millville Presbyterian Church. Notice that I don't care for their condition or situation, whether they have faith or love one another or care for the Bible. No, they have denominated themselves.

Okay, what about the Millville Christian Assembly? They seem like nice folks. Earnest, sincere. No, that's a name, too. ( I guess). How about the Millville Bible Chapel? Or the Pratts Corner Christian Fellowship down on Jerry Road? No, those are all names. They're all denominated & thus divided.

Turns out the only way to serve God in this age, and enter into His will, is to be non-named lovers of Jesus, affiliated with the ministries of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. Because if you're non-named and still unaffiliated, you're a 'free group', useless to the Body at best. No, the only way to go on positively is to not take a name, but also to affiliate with the ministry of the age.
_________________________
The above is my take on the LSM position. I guess folks like testallthings agree the first part, except maybe not the affiliating with a named (!!!) ministry.

What I sense emanating from LSM is a desire to dominate the assembly, the 'loves to be first' noted 3 John 1:9, causing the LSM to start with the presumption that all others are in darkness, and need to be brought in line. The Bible becomes a bit player, to be waved in support and otherwise ignored (see, e.g., footnotes on 'fallen' and 'natural' and 'mixed' scriptures). Thus the tortuous gospel of localism and centralised control of Nee and Lee emerges, self-constructed delusion and bound for yet more disarray.

For the sake of furthering the discussion let me clarify the purpose of this thread. What I was hoping for was a discussion about denominations. Are they OK? Are they wrong?

To use an imperfect illustration, for example, it is like discussing the benefits and risks of drinking coffee. Imagine someone complaining that tea is worst than coffee, or that those who drink tea look down on those who drink coffee. This would be irrelevant to the discussion.

Or imagine doctors trying to come up with a diagnose of a patient and without completing all their tests someone complains about a certain treatment that would harm the patient.

So far, it seems to me that only OBW has shared his point of view about some benefits of having different denominations. Let's continue to analyze the question.