Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
And here is the fatal flaw in your argument.
"genuine church"
There is no such construct in the scripture. It is a strawman created by Nee and Lee so that they could knock everyone else down while they prop themselves up. Sort of like those cardboard people in the fake Rock Ridge in Blazing Saddles.
Church is church. It is the collection of the people of Christ, who are the body of Christ. Any attempt to decimate this into a subset that is "genuine" and the rest who are not would appear to be unsupported in any context and actually contrary to the call that we be one.
Yes, I know that the oneness is spiritual and not necessarily "practical" in every way, but if the practical is overtly divided, then there is a problem.
And stating that some churches are genuine and others are not is clearly the kind of practical division that should be verboten. The kinds of "division" that you point to with respect to all the others are of many magnitudes less in effect (if any at all) because it does not presume something so extreme as "genuine" v "not genuine." They do not deny that the church is the church — something that you do.
And what is really funny is that you don't even claim to be separating over doctrines. You do it over nothing. Nothing that is stated in scripture, that is.
|
Anyway, on topic, for some reason Hank decided to reject your idea of there being no genuine church, and decided to join a church which thinks itself to be the genuine church in the city. If you are evangelical protestant this must be "embarrassing for you that Hank rejected your idea of church" (I'm joking).
Your view of no genuine church just doesn't make common sense to me. Because when you say there is no such thing as a genuine church, you are also saying there is no such thing as a false church.
For example, if I go to the Catholic church, am I meeting with the church? And if I attend a LGBT church, of which a percentage are not living an immoral lifestyle, but the pastor is possibly LGBT, am I also meeting with the church? If I forget their denominational label which classes them as an LGBT church, and see them just as a meeting of Christians, there is still the matter of the pastor holding a communion service of which I would be obliged to partake of if I attend there. Perhaps if there was no denominational name and the pastor resigned from his position, this might be an acceptable fellowship. But I think most people would have an issue with saying that a church with a gay married pastor holding communion services can be "the church".
Suppose there is a church on the street named "LGBT church". 99% of the congregation is not LGBT but supports it, and the male pastor is married to a man. There are some churches like this existing (although that 99% figure is possibly exaggerated). Most bible believing Christians would say this is not a genuine church. But according to you it is "the church" because there is no such thing as a genuine church. My point is there must be some defining rules of meeting otherwise this sort of situation can arise. Furthermore, if this church was in your street, you would be obliged to attend it because it is the closest gathering of Christians to you. And if you choose not to attend it but travel to attend a church on the other side of town, aren't you being divisive and sectarian? Aren't you saying "this gathering of believers closest to me is not good enough for me to fellowship with"?.