View Single Post
Old 08-06-2008, 05:35 AM   #60
OBW
Member
 
OBW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
Default

I just read The Speciality, Generality, and Practicality of the Church Life again and conclude that the ground of locality doctrine has been elevated to the level of a requirement of the faith by Lee. This is not something of his later ministry, or of the reformulation of the BBs, but was clearly stated in 1971.

Even if we assumed that the ground could be followed as dictated, the very elevation of the teaching to a basic tenet of the faith that must be believed refutes it. That book, while saying that it is not required for salvation, makes it part of the basic faith that must be accepted.

So they want it two ways. The call “the faith” the things that must be believed for salvation, then create a list that is “the faith” that includes the ground of the church — one city, one church. Then they say that you don’t have to believe it to be saved.

Well, what is it? Is it part of the basic faith that is required, or is it not? If you say not, then quit insisting on it. Otherwise, stick to your guns. And while you are at it, tell all the rest of Christianity that they are not even saved.

Instead, the way that the LC holds to this doctrine makes it most sectarian. They say it is not required for salvation. They say that anything not required for salvation is something about which we should be general. Yet they also say that it is something that is one of the “six” tenets of the faith. So they have raised something not required for salvation to stand as a separator of Christian from Christian. So they separate from other Christians using the very doctrine that they claim as the basis for unity. Go figure.
__________________
Mike
I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge
OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel
OBW is offline   Reply With Quote