[OBW]

Before I go to your statements, I must at least deal with one sentence of my own. I knew that it was potentially confusing when I wrote it. But I thought that I had made it fairly clear. But since then, I have come back to it and had to try twice to understand it the way I already knew it was intended. So let me try again.

“And not being "in the church life," which absolutely does mean not part of the Local Churches, does not mean that they are not part of the Kingdom just as much as those who are.” Too many negatives cancelling each other out, or not, or whatever. I will break it down. Not being “in the church life” when spoken by a member of the LC does mean not being in the LC. But that does not mean not being in the Kingdom although some may sort of think that way. This is a little like whether “saint” means any Christian, or only those in the LC. Not a single one would say that it only means those in the LC. But if one of them uses “saint” and you come back with a reference to a Christian who is not in the LC, you get a funny, sheepish look as they sort of admit that they really meant member of their sect.

And since this sentence was with respect to the children whose portion may not be to be in the LC, I don’t think that this particular brother meant that they were not in the Kingdom. Or did he? Or are there two parallel kingdoms; one for the superior race of LC members and one for the inferiors (the rest of us). I know it sounds harsh and critical. And I don’t think that you really think this when you are actually thinking. But somewhere down inside there is the thought that it is true because things like this keep popping out of LC members. And not just the marginal ones.

OK, here goes your response. (If clarifying the above makes any of this moot, just ignore it.)

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

Wait. There are several things going on in this paragraph. Firstly, I never claimed that "going to church" or being in the church life is definitively the kingdom.

Not quite true. You did say:

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

So...yeah, Christ and the church: The king and his kingdom.

And before that, the thing that got all this started was Ron Kangas’ comment that “we are here seeking the Kingdom first. And first is Christ and the church.” That is where the whole thing started.

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

Second, I think you're talking about children being a part of the kingdom, right? if so, I never argued that our children are apart from the kingdom in any way, shape, or form.

This is probably cross-over from the comment on the brother’s question of RK that got his simplistic answer above. If I seemed to be pointing it at you, that was not intended. I take these discussions as a topic. I will take a comment by someone that I agree with and go into other issues. They occasionally think that I am accusing them of what I am discussing.

In any case, I really wasn’t talking about children being or not being part of the Kingdom as much as talking about the LC terminology that would seem to indicate that they are not if they are not in “the church life.”

I will not bother finding your quote, but to suggest that when a LC member says “church life” they are not talking exclusively about being an active part of the Local Churches and not in any way talking about the corporate life of other Christians in their assemblies then you think I am ready to buy Florida swampland from you. You know good and well that “the church life” is specifically the “Local Church life.”

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

Third, are you arguing the law? Are you arguing that we are beholden to the commandments of Christ as replacements of the law of Moses? I'm not exactly following you there.

Are you arguing against following the commandments of Christ? I’d much rather err on my side than yours. The warnings against any who teach otherwise are severe. Read Matt 5 again, especially the part after the “beatitudes.”

This is one of the primary areas in which I think the LC is horribly deficient. The focus on the inner life is fine. Even using terminology that might be confusing to others is OK. But if that inner-life and “church life” is not being seen in lives that actually follow and obey Christ, then there is a problem. I already made a comment about the “Great Commission.” The third part of it was “teach them to obey.” Have you taken note recently that the knowing of the “truth that sets us free” is not the result of studying, or “turning to your spirit"? It is the result of Holding to His teachings (doing them) which means you are truly disciples, or followers, and not just tagalongs.

Originally Posted by tasteslikegold

As for "church life" not being a commandment, who said it was? Yet I think you may agree with me that the writers of the New Testament - especially Paul - spend significant effort and time in their respective letters emphasizing how saints should treat one another, how the saints should meet, with what attitude saints should meet, and the significance and importance of the church gatherings. So I think that even if there is no specific commandment, "live the church life," we should certainly pay attention to very large portions of the Scripture.

Don't you?

Or perhaps we should ignore these very large, significant portions of Scripture and instead view the gatherings of the saints as "Just a way to have a great time with a bunch of other Christians."

I almost left part of it out, but I realized that it would be better t include the whole thing.

Let’s start with “very large portion of scripture.” How large is “very large”? And how clear is it that all of these portions are just about “church life” and not about “all life”? Now, consistent with what I have said before, if “church life” really did mean “all life” to the LC, then I would expect to see a very different attitude toward those who are Christian, but not part of their fellowship. And toward those that are not Christian.

Another thing is that so much of that “very large portion of the scripture” really does talk about the interaction of the believers who were a mixture of races, nationalities, social status, etc. Paul spent time in each of those talking about the spiritual and factual underpinnings of the sacrifice of Christ to make us one, or whatever the particular portion was about. But once Lee got finished with it, it was all about the spiritual stuff. We were to focus on the spiritual stuff. And if you weren’t managing to love those “others” very well, don’t sweat it. Get some more dispensing and one day it will just happen.

What happened to having all things for godliness. (Unfortunately my memorization is more general than word-by-word so I haven’t found the reference. I hope that I have not “scripturized” some saying from outside the scripture.) If we have it, then we should do it. That even comes back to your question about how we do “righteousness.” I agree that we should not do it in ourselves. But what does it take to not do it in ourselves? If we have what it takes already, then we should simply do it.

But as for the amount of scripture on anything, I will tell of my past. I was raised in the Assemblies of God. When I was in high school, I decided to try to find all the verses that supported our holding to the supernatural gifts. After a rather lengthy study, I came up with very little. An entire group built upon so little. Now there is more about how we should live and interact with both believer and non-believer. And even the parts concerning the believer are not just about “church life.” But it does not create a “church life” that, in conjunction with Christ, is the Kingdom.

I will leave it at that for now. I think that there will be one more. But it may have to wait until tomorrow. Terminology.