Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical
That's because denominations didn't exist then. The bible did not have to address the situation of two different denominations in the one street. But based upon what Paul wrote against divisions and factions, he would never have approved of today's situation. The likelihood of there being some constraints on the meeting is much higher than being no constraints at all. Your version of unconstrained meeting is a kind of lawlessness - meeting however we wish to. Bible says that God is not a God of chaos or confusion.
|
There is actually nothing in what I said to which "That's because . . ." could be a response.
That is your typical MO. You ignore what is posted and respond to the question you wish had been asked.
But if there was going to be such a problem with denominations (and God surely knew what was coming) you would expect there to have been some kind of statement(s) that actually addressed the situation. No matter how you phrase it, Paul did not address the current situation. He did not define what should be the name. He did not say that this is how you gather. He only said that separating because of differences in favorite teacher was a problem. And it was only a problem because it was clear that they could not get along with each other. They were openly antagonistic with each other. Can you actually say that the various groups that you so despise are openly antagonistic with each other? (And one or two examples using other small exclusivist groups, or pointing to errors of the past cannot be painted onto the whole that is mostly not like that. There is a Reformed (Presbyterian) writer who recently included the following in a blog post:
Quote:
|
As a Presbyterian, I think Baptists and Methodists and Pentecostals are wrong about some important things, but deviating from Westminster Confession of Faith does not make you another Arius or Pelagius. A false teacher or a wolf is someone who snatches up sheep (John 10:12), draws disciples away from the gospel (Acts 20:28), opposes the truth (2 Tim. 3:8), and leads people to make shipwreck of the faith and embrace ungodliness (1 Tim. 1:19-20; 2 Tim. 2:16-17).
|
This is the common view among the various groups, not the exception as you would like to claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical
We all believe we are one with all of the believers. That is very easy to say. Even Catholics can say that. The difference is we see that we are not practically one with all of the believers. Denominations do not see they are not practically one. Is a solution for us to disperse and join our closest denomination, or Catholic church? Of course not. And on any given Sunday, is an Anglican priest going to decide to bring all of his church to join the Lutherans or the baptists? I have never heard of that happening.
|
And your solution is for everyone else to admit they are wrong and come to you.
And you are clearly not going to disperse and join any of the larger assemblies in your area because they don't believe as you do.
As Igzy has stated, you think that the problem is denominations. The denominations do not separate us. Rather they allow us to meet together with a consistent core of theology that understands that what makes it different from the next nearest one is not the core of the faith, but something else. We join with those of similar thoughts on these particular theological issues but recognize that there is a higher reality in which we are not divided.
- - - -
But I know what the deal is with you and Drake (who has been rather quiet lately). It is not that there is division, but that it is not following you. You presume that there is a magic formula that makes every theological error go away. And while the whole of Christianity (except you) agrees on the core of the faith, you declare that they are right but incomplete. And the missing ingredient is "ground." You think that ground will make all things right. That the errors in theology will simply go away because you are "on the ground." Of course, you don't think that they will be simply ignored, but rather it will be shown that your theology (all of it) is correct sufficiently to be the one that all must follow.
And as I keep pointing out (and you conveniently ignore) the history of the LRC is not one of working to get theology right, but digging in your heels and even excluding your own members who do not quietly go along. In my days since first becoming acquainted with the LRC, I know of cases whether they went to a new city, found a group meeting in the way Nee taught. But after a little bit of time, since the group would not accept that Witness Lee's fellowship was superior to some other, they separated from that original group, moved to the next city (two adjacent cities) and started their own group. If you say they didn't violate the one church per city "edict," then you would be technically correct. But they despised such a church in one city because those people did not prefer Lee as the primary teaching source. So they moved to the next city and started a different group.
It would seem to me that while the edict declared by Nee and Lee was not violated, the one that Paul declared was. They divided over teachers while maintaining proper status on the unstated (in the Bible) "rule" of one-church-per-city.
There is the heart of your doctrine of the ground.