What is the New Testament Definition of a Church

[ZNPaaneah]

What is the church? The church is the composition of the Lord’s many brothers. Individually, we are the Lord’s brothers; corporately, we are the church. The church is the composition of the firstborn Son and the many sons of God. (Witness Lee, The Subjective Truths in the Holy Scriptures, Chapter 3, Section 1)

On another thread this has become a bone of contention.

Matt 18:20 20 for where there are two or three gathered together -- to my name, there am I in the midst of them.'

According to Witness Lee

Suppose that you and others in the city where you live are fed up with Christianity, so you start to meet together separately in the Lord's name. You say, “We give up Christianity; we have had enough of the old system of religion; now we are just meeting by ourselves in the name of the Lord Jesus, assured according to Matthew 18:20 that we have His presence.” We would simply ask you, Is your meeting taking the stand with the true local church in your city? Or is your meeting some isolated thing, something without the church as a standing? If so, your meeting is divisive and not a proper meeting. Do not isolate Matthew 18:20—it must be understood by the context. Read the context, and you will see the right meaning of meeting in the name of the Lord. (How to Meet, Chapter 1, Section 2)

So then the question is this What is the "true local church in your city"?

How do you know what it is?

What does it mean to have a meeting that is "some isolated thing", "something without the church as a standing"?

[ZNPaaneah]

Witness Lee provides several tests:

1. No particular name

In the Bible a name is a great matter. Referring to the Lord's name, Acts 4:12 says, “There is salvation in no other, for neither is there another name under heaven given among men in which we must be saved.” Romans 10:13 says, “Whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Matthew 18:20 says, “Where there are two or three gathered into My name, there am I in their midst.” John 14:14 says, “If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.” Hence, salvation is obtained in the Lord's name, and the church is gathered into the Lord's name. Furthermore, even baptism is involved with the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19). By reading the New Testament, we can see that a name is a great matter. Witness Lee, The Bridge and Channel of God, Chapter 3, Section 1)

2. No particular teaching

The basic need for the building up of the Body of Christ is the apostles' teaching. We should have no particular teaching other than the teaching of the apostles, which is the teaching concerning Christ's person and redemptive work and concerning God's economy in faith (2 John 9-11; 1 Tim. 1:3-4; Jude 3; Titus 1:4). (Witness Lee, Elders' Training, Book 10: The Eldership and the God-Ordained Way (2), Chapter 10, Section 2)

3. Fellowship is universal, not isolated

Some people say that they do not have any of the above conditions and that they are non-sectarian and non-denominational. They do not have a special name, a set of special beliefs, or a special fellowship. However, we still need to know whether their fellowship is isolated rather than universal. Over the past thirty years, quite a number of people have seen the error of sects and left the denominations. Because they do not have a special name, a set of special beliefs, or a special fellowship, they think that they are non-sectarian and non-denominational. But there may still be a problem. Although they do not have a special name, a set of special beliefs, or a special fellowship, they have an isolated local fellowship, not a universal fellowship. They do not fellowship with all the saints on the earth. As a result, they become a local sect. According to lesson 14, even though the churches are expressed in different localities, they are still the Body of Christ, and their fellowship is universal. Therefore, if a Christian fellowship is limited to its locality and has lost its universality and the nature of the Body of Christ, it will be a local sect and will result in a division in the church. (Witness Lee, Lessons for New Believers, Chapter 17, Section 4)

4. Do not have separate administration.

We also need to look at whether there are separate administrations in the same locality. Some groups have nothing special, having no special name, no special belief, and no special fellowship. They seem to be nondenominational, but their administration is separate from other nondenominational groups in the same locality. They do not meet together as one with other nondenominational groups in the same locality. For example, in Taipei there may be three small groups, none of which have a special name, special belief, or special fellowship, but the three groups have separate administrations and are independent of each other. This is also sectarianism. According to the Scriptures, a locality can have only one church, and in a church there can be only one group of elders which represent one administration. The Bible says that the apostles appointed elders in every church (Acts 14:23), and it also says that the apostle charged Titus to appoint elders in every city (Titus 1:5). This shows that the elders in a church are the elders in a city, and the elders in a city are also the elders in a church. The apostle did not charge Titus to appoint elders in every street. If he had, we would need to admit that there could be a church on a street. Rather, the apostle charged Titus to appoint elders in every city. Therefore, in a city there can be only one group of elders, and there can be only one administration of the church; there cannot be two or more groups of elders, and there cannot be two or more separate administrations of the church. Although the church in a certain locality may meet separately in many places because of a large number of believers, the administration should still be one. (Witness Lee, The Testimony and the Ground of the Church, Chapter 10, Section 4)

5. No connections with other organizations.

"One other factor is a test of a genuine local church. There may be a Christian group that has no particular name, no particular fellowship, and no particular teaching. Their fellowship is universal, not isolated, and they do not have a separate administration. Although they pass all these tests, do not be quick to say that they are a true local church. It is still possible that this group has a hidden connection with another organization. They are like a kite in the air: someone on the ground is holding the string." (Witness Lee, Young People's Training, Chapter 14, section 5).

So when I consider this definition I find it really useless at explaining why a gathering of 3 saints into the name of Jesus is not a church.

No particular name -- could be
No particular teaching -- could be
Fellowship is universal -- could be
Not some isolated thing -- could be.
Do not have separate administration -- Might be problematic
No connections with other organizations -- could be.

So the only real issue that Witness Lee has with a gathering of 3 saints into the name of Jesus is that they might have a separate administration. Look at how interesting this word "administration" is. They have the same Lord. They submit to the apostles fellowship which is the NT authority. But the elders are the "administration". So then according to Witness Lee a true church is one that has the one true bureaucracy, the one appointed by the apostles.

He doesn't identify the apostles, but he does identify the true churches, they are all ones where he himself appointed the elders.

So then Witness Lee's working definition is this: Any church that has an administration appointed by Witness Lee and answerable to Witness Lee is a true church, all others are not because they have a separate administration.

As a result I completely reject Witness Lee's teaching on this matter as being self serving with another Jesus.

The apostle Peter said that he was an elder. Who appointed him? What apostle appointed him? Surely it was Jesus who appointed him.

I also reject the entire teaching about 2 or 3 by Witness Lee as self serving and hypocritical. I see the church as being analogous to a body. How many cells does it take to have a human body? When the egg splits into two cells is that a body? How about 4 cells? Do you have to wait until you can see the hands and feet? Do you have to wait until you can identify the sex? Do you have to wait until the baby can survive outside the womb? It is a continuum. Once the cell is fertilized it has everything that it needs to grow into a complete human being. From this point on it is simply a matter of maturation.

[ZNPaaneah]

Here is how I read the NT on this question:


1. Paul said "There is one body" — This is equivalent to Witness Lee's no denomination. We aren't of Paul or Peter or Apollos. But it is completely opposite to Witness Lee. WL sees this as a way to show which churches aren't true, Paul shows this as a way to state that all believers are part of the one true Body of Christ.

2. Paul said "and one Spirit" — This is equivalent to Witness Lee's fellowship is universal, but it explains why fellowship is universal. This is not something that we have to do, it is due to the Spirit that we have received.

3. Paul said "even as also ye were called in one hope of your calling" — This is equivalent to Witness Lee's 'Central lane of God’s economy' which is based on Paul telling Timothy to charge some to "not teach differently". Why? Because there is one hope of your calling.

4. Paul said "one Lord —" This is equivalent to Witness Lee's one administration, except Witness Lee has distorted "one Lord" to be "one administration". Jesus is Lord, as long as we all submit to Jesus, the Lord, we can be one. Witness Lee created a new requirement that we need "one administration", elders which he himself picks and controls. This makes WL lord. This is abominable. This is why it is a "damnable heresy". This is why he denies the Lord who bought us.

5. Paul said "one faith" — This is equivalent to Witness Lee's no particular teaching, except that WL's word doesn't make sense whereas Paul's word makes it very clear what he is talking about. We all recognize the fellowship of the apostles as our "one faith". We have lots of particular teachings. Baptism and the Lord's table are two very particular teachings. Justification by faith, the Lord's redemption, eternal salvation, etc. Once again Paul is inclusive, Witness Lee is exclusive. Everyone who embraces the one faith is included by Paul, anyone who has "particular teaching" whatsoever it is, is excluded by Witness Lee.

6. Paul said "one baptism" — This is equivalent to Witness Lee's no connection with other organizations. We died to the world and the world to us when we were baptized. Every one of us is associated with other organizations (our job, our family, our community, our nation, etc). It is the Lord's work that makes us one, not some phony baloney claim to independence. It is being immersed into the triune God, separated from the world, and translated into the kingdom of the Son of His love, this is what makes us the true church.

7. Paul said "one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all"— He is over the apostles, the prophets, the elders. He is working through all, whether a group of 2 or 3, or a mega church of 10,000. He is in all, He is the good housekeeping seal of approval. Witness Lee tries to make "locality" over all, it isn't. He tries to make himself the MOTA, he isn't. He tries to be "through all" by only sanctioning churches that have elders that he picked and that answer to him, sorry he isn't God. He tries to make his ministry in all of the church meetings, once again he isn't God.

In addition I agree when Witness Lee says that individually we are sons of God, corporately we are the church. The minimum number of believers to have a corporate experience is 2 or 3. If these 2 or 3 meet in the name of Jesus as described in the 7 ones I just went through then yes, they can have the Lord's table and yes, they can be a lamp stand and yes one of them can be the "elder".

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

On another thread this has become a bone of contention.

Matt 18:20 20 for where there are two or three gathered together -- to my name, there am I in the midst of them.'

Lee added discourse about the "true local church" in the quote you included, which - surprise - is based on completely subjective criteria. "When we do it, it's the church" is the bottom line.

Another poster here mentioned that there is context in Matt 18, about dealing with a sinning brother. But I say that the context shows Jesus going from the particular, a sinning brother, to the universal, wherever 2 or 3 are gathered together. "Tell it to the church" means publish it abroad. Tell it in the market place, shout it from the rooftops. The covering that you initially afforded the sinning brother is now gone. It is not a means to pry an ontological entity, the church, with its "proper elders" and so forth, out of the text.

Originally Posted by aron

Two or three may have the Lord's name, His presence, His commission ("God forth before Me"), His binding and loosing, and His testimony ("Tell it to the church"). But all this seems insufficient to some posters here, because, "It's not the church."

I am not saying, "2 or 3 equals the church". What I am saying is that God is quite willing to work with 2 or 3; in fact if you see Jesus function, He often dismisses "the crowd", even some of the disciples, and works with only a few. But God can work with 3 thousand or 3 or 355.

And God may work within city limits, or on a boat or on the deserted highway. But there is power in being together, and even more power in being one. "Then you shall be one, even as I am one with the power." Then, this oneness brings the destruction of Satan. "The gates of Hades will not prevail against My builded church."

But please understand context here. The ekklesia was an assembly, to the Greeks. See, "And with these words he dismissed the assembly [ekklesia]" of Acts 19:41 or "In the midst of the assembly [ekklesia] I will praise Thee" of Psalm 22:22, which Psalm predated Christ by centuries.

To me the hallmark of the meeting, or gathering, or ekklesia of Jesus (i.e. "My church") is that Satan is put to rout. It isn't about playing church, with its networks of quanxi determining who's 'responsible one for Africa'. It is about gathering together and destroying the gates of Hades and setting the prisoners free. That is done with 2 or 3 or whatever.

The rest of it, to me, is just playing games with words. I meet with anyone who will work with me to destroy Satan. I see the love of Christ for me, as He lay there pinned to the cross, and I get up out of the dust and follow. Whoever is coming with me, is whoever is coming with me. "Receive those whom God has received in Christ Jesus." The rest of it is distraction at best.

The church in Anaheim, that doesn't take a name, but is affiliated with the ministry of Witness Lee, doesn't guarantee any special blessing, in my view. In fact I see too many stumbling qualifiers.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Lee added discourse about the "true local church" in the quote you included, which - surprise - is based on completely subjective criteria. "When we do it, it's the church" is the bottom line.

Another poster here mentioned that there is context in Matt 18, about dealing with a sinning brother. But I say that the context shows Jesus going from the particular, a sinning brother, to the universal, wherever 2 or 3 are gathered together. "Tell it to the church" means publish it abroad. Tell it in the market place, shout it from the rooftops. The covering that you initially afforded the sinning brother is now gone. It is not a means to pry an ontological entity, the church, with its "proper elders" and so forth, out of the text.

aron, I think you went too far. Going from private meetings to the market place is not intended either. I believe the Lord wanted to keep these "family" offenses "in house" so to speak. "Tell it to the church" should be indicative of the boundaries of discussion.

I think this verse parallels I Cor 6 concerning lawsuits in Gentile courts. Our Heavenly Father's intentions were similar to those with Israel, i.e. we should handle our problems internally.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

aron, I think you went too far. Going from private meetings to the market place is not intended either. I believe the Lord wanted to keep these "family" offenses "in house" so to speak. "Tell it to the church" should be indicative of the boundaries of discussion.

I think this verse parallels I Cor 6 concerning lawsuits in Gentile courts. Our Heavenly Father's intentions were similar to those with Israel, i.e. we should handle our problems internally.

But Jesus doesn't say, "Tell it to My church", a la Matthew 16, but to the church. The ekklesia in gospel context was any gathering, religious or not. Only with the passage of time did ekklesia come to mean exclusively religious, even specifically Christian, assembly. We tend to read current understanding back upon the text, and assume it meant the same to the original speakers and writers as it means to us today. I'm just publicly questioning that, here.

[ZNPaaneah]

Matt 18:15 And if thy brother sin against thee, go, show him his fault between thee and him alone: if he hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16 But if he hear thee not, take with thee one or two more, that at the mouth of two witnesses or three every word may be established. 17 And if he refuse to hear them, tell it unto the church: and if he refuse to hear the church also, let him be unto thee as the Gentile and the publican. 18 Verily I say unto you, What things soever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and what things soever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say unto you, that if two of you shall agree on earth as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father who is in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

The context here is similar to Martin Luther nailing his paper to the door of the Catholic Church. It is David vs Goliath. Jesus is making it clear that two or three plus Jesus out weigh any monster or mega lithic church.

This thread was started in response to a post that said that 2 or 3 cannot be considered a church. As the person was questioned on this they did walk back their full assurance a little. But the context is very clear that 2 or 3 can take on a much larger group and they will succeed because Jesus is in the midst of them. At the very least it undermines the argument that there is some kind of minimum number of saints required to be classified as a church. If this verse were pictured as a seesaw you would have 2 or 3 with Jesus on one end outweighing the entire Catholic Church on the other.

[Evangelical]

I question the view that says when two or three are gathered, Jesus is automatically present, because with the Laodicean church in Revelation, they were a gathering of 2 or 3 or more believers, but Jesus was not in their midst but outside knocking on the door wanting to get in. (Revelation 3:20).

So I don't think it's correct that just because some believers get together they can claim to have the Lord's presence and be a genuine church.

I am not talking about Jesus's presence with each individual believer or Jesus's omnipresence (which all believers and even non believers have) , but His manifest presence in the church.

Many of you are thinking about church in terms of the outward, administrative or practical things. But this does not define a true church.
A true church is also not merely about two or three gathering in Christ's name. That is, just because two or three gather in some place, does not mean they can hold the Lord's table there or claim to be the true church in the city.

Merely copying the forms and patterns of the early church does not make it a genuine church. A church without the presence of the Holy Spirit is not the true church.

The local churches in the Lord's recovery were established not as a decision to copy a first century church model, but because Watchman Nee and Witness Lee had the presence of the Holy Spirit.

To get to the heart of the matter, the true local church in each city is the one that has the lampstand. The lampstand's purpose is to express spiritual light. The lampstand is the Spirit (Rev 4:5).

The true church in each city is the church that Jesus Himself has chosen to express spiritual light and have His manifest presence in that city.

In this sense, ZNPaaneah is correct that a two or three sized genuine church (with a lampstand) outweighs an entire false church (or self-proclaimed church). But to say that just any two or three believers can gather together somewhere and consider themselves the true church, I question that.

[aron]

When I mention the ekklesia of Jesus destroying the gates of Hades and setting the prisoner free, I don't suggest some "work", religious or otherwise, rather a testimony of the work of God in sending His Son Jesus Christ, that we might believe and be saved. This ekklesia, or gathering, or meeting, can occur at any point, in multiples; in New York City or London there might be dozens of 'ekklesia' occurring simultaneously. All of them in my view have one mission: to testify of Christ, and in this testimony destroy the king of this age. The love of God compels us to assemble and testify.

So to focus on the church as a subject in its own right is to begin to move away from the testimony of Jesus and into the testimony of human affairs. Then, the unbeliever happens upon our discussion and sees incessant wrangling over names and positions and doctrines, and say, "No way do I want to be a Christian!", and who could blame them?

No, the power of the church is to testify of Jesus Christ, not only in theory but in actuality, in the assembling together. Peter stood with the eleven, and the gates of Hades crumbled before his testimony of Christ risen from the dead, and thousands at that very hour streamed into the Kingdom Of God. The ekklesia should be, in my estimation, a birth chamber for the new life. "Blessed is that man that is born in her"

1 He has founded his city on the holy mountain.
2 The Lord loves the gates of Zion
more than all the other dwellings of Jacob.

3 Glorious things are said of you,
city of God:
4 “I will record Rahab and Babylon
among those who acknowledge me—
Philistia too, and Tyre, along with Cush—
and will say, ‘This one was born in Zion.’”
5 Indeed, of Zion it will be said,
“This one and that one were born in her,
and the Most High himself will establish her.”
6 The Lord will write in the register of the peoples:
“This one was born in Zion.”

7 As they make music they will sing,
“All my fountains are in you.”

Blessed are those who are born in her, in Zion, the ekklesia, or meeting, or assembly, or gathering together in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Those who are born there are blessed indeed.

[UntoHim]

Distant Star,

When you get a chance, could you please point me to the posts you want to move. Please include the post #s, or if applicable, a series of post #s. Thanks.

***To All.

I think this is an extremely important subject to discuss on this forum. Accordingly, let's all try to keep from introducing side issues, such as excommunication, heretical teachings, details regarding the functions of elders, etc, etc.

-

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

According to Witness Lee

Suppose that you and others in the city where you live are fed up with Christianity, so you start to meet together separately in the Lord's name. You say, “We give up Christianity; we have had enough of the old system of religion; now we are just meeting by ourselves in the name of the Lord Jesus, assured according to Matthew 18:20 that we have His presence.” We would simply ask you, Is your meeting taking the stand with the true local church in your city? Or is your meeting some isolated thing, something without the church as a standing? If so, your meeting is divisive and not a proper meeting. Do not isolate Matthew 18:20—it must be understood by the context. Read the context, and you will see the right meaning of meeting in the name of the Lord. (How to Meet, Chapter 1, Section 2)

So then the question is this What is the "true local church in your city"?

How do you know what it is?

What does it mean to have a meeting that is "some isolated thing", "something without the church as a standing"?

We have taken issue with this term "the true local church" because it is not in the New Testament. It appears to be exclusive, elitist, and bring in a basis for condemning all other Christian gatherings other than Witness Lee's.

However, to be fair to Witness Lee the term "sect" as a work of the flesh is used in the New Testament. This word is sometimes translated as "heresy" and "damnable heresy". So although the term "true church" isn't used, there is quite a lot of evidence of "counterfeit" gatherings referred to in the New Testament.

"Many Christians know that heresy refers to something negative, but not many know the real meaning of heresy. In these days, I have been burdened to put out a tract on the subject of the true meaning of heresy. If you consult a dictionary, you will discover that heresy is an anglicized Greek word—a Greek word brought over into the English language. Do you know what heresy is? To know what heresy is, we must go to the New Testament and understand the meaning and usage of this word in the Greek language. We cannot derive the meaning of the word heresy simply by studying a lexicon. We must know both the meaning of the Greek word and its usage in the New Testament. The Greek word hairesis is used nine times in the New Testament (Acts 5:17; 15:5; 24:5, 14; 26:5; 28:22; 1 Cor. 11:19; Gal. 5:20; 2 Pet. 2:1). The adjective form, hairetikos, is found in Titus 3:10. In most of the occurrences of the word hairesis the meaning is “sect.” For example, Acts 5:17 speaks of “the sect (hairesis) of the Sadducees.” In Acts 24:5 Paul was accused of being “a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.” Here, a small number from the Jewish religion followed Jesus to form another group which was considered by others as a sect. Paul uses the word hairesis strongly in Galatians 5:20, ranking heresy with works of the flesh, such as adultery, fornication, and witchcraft. Immediately before speaking of heresies, Paul mentions “hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions.” Hence, wrath, strife, seditions, and heresies are related to each other. First we have wrath, then strife, and after strife we have seditions. Following these are heresies. This means that if we strive and fight with others, the result will be divisions that issue in sects. Thus, in this verse, Darby translates hairesis as “schools of opinion.” To have a school of opinion means to hold an opinion that causes you to be separated and divided from others and to form into a sect." (Witness Lee, Young People's Training, Chapter 8, Section 4)

So this is a very, very high standard. Every single gathering of Christians has opinions and has a certain level of agreement on those opinions otherwise the gathering is completely unstable and will explode.

If that group develops enough their opinions will become a "school of opinions". They will publish, they will write, they will defend their ideas, etc. Some claim that they are exempt from this, but I have yet to see that in my life. I don't think the NT condemns this as it could fall under the "study to show yourself approved".

But when your teaching, your opinions, that your sect holds "causes you to be separated and divided from others" that is when it becomes a "damnable heresy".

Therefore I think the definition of the church in the NT is very clear that there is "one" church. This is because there is one Lord. There is one kingdom. There is one family of God. No teacher, no teaching, no person has a monopoly on this. The prerequisite to entering into this kingdom is to receive Jesus Christ by faith. You are not required to subscribe to any particular teaching, ministry or minister. There is one baptism that is our entrance into this kingdom.

The question therefore becomes whether Witness Lee was right in identifying all other Christian gatherings as being "heretical" (i.e. sectarian) and therefore "not the true church". Or was his teaching about the "true church" actually sectarian and divisive. I think it is undeniable that the Local Church is a "school of opinion" with their own publications, trainings, terminology, etc.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

We have taken issue with this term "the true local church" because it is not in the New Testament. It appears to be exclusive, elitist, and bring in a basis for condemning all other Christian gatherings other than Witness Lee's.

In Rev. 2-3 there are quite a diversity of churches. Contrary to LC teachings, their differences were both positive and negative. Yet the Son of Man walked in all of their midst, knowing each intimately, and speaking to all of their needs. He also acknowledged that there were individuals in each of the churches that were not included in the general character of the church.

Philadelphia, and to an extent Smyrna, stand out as exemplary, yet these were never heralded as "the true local church," rather they were all "true" local churches, i.e. lamp stands, with varying degrees of concerns and spiritual needs. Perhaps, since each letter was addressed to "the messenger of the church," these instructions were given to them firstly in order for them to have heavenly guidance to shepherd their own church.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

In Rev. 2-3 there are quite a diversity of churches. Contrary to LC teachings, their differences were both positive and negative. Yet the Son of Man walked in all of their midst, knowing each intimately, and speaking to all of their needs. He also acknowledged that there were individuals in each of the churches that were not included in the general character of the church.

Philadelphia, and to an extent Smyrna, stand out as exemplary, yet these were never heralded as "the true local church," rather they were all "true" local churches, i.e. lamp stands, with varying degrees of concerns and spiritual needs. Perhaps, since each letter was addressed to "the messenger of the church," these instructions were given to them firstly in order for them to have heavenly guidance to shepherd their own church.

Along those lines one of the most shocking quotes of Witness Lee, to my mind, is that he references Revelation 2 as proof that women should not teachers in the church and that a woman taking the lead is evidence of a heresy.

First Timothy 2, 1 Corinthians 14, and Revelation 2 all show that God forbids a woman from teaching. Any sect that is started by a woman or headed up by one, or any group in which the woman occupies the same place as the man is highly suspicious. More than half of the heresies in the world have been started by women. For example, the founder of the Christian Scientists was Mary Baker Eddy, and the founder of the Seventh-day Adventists was Mrs. White. When the Bible speaks about Roman Catholicism, it also refers to the teaching of the woman Jezebel. (Witness Lee, (Messages for Building Up New Believers, Vol. 3, Chapter 20, Section 5)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Along those lines one of the most shocking quotes of Witness Lee, to my mind, is that he references Revelation 2 as proof that women should not teachers in the church and that a woman taking the lead is evidence of a heresy.

I don't see the connection here, but doubtful that rises to the level of "most shocking quotes" category.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I don't see the connection here, but doubtful that rises to the level of "most shocking quotes" category.

Witness Lee uses Revelation 2 to conclude that "the New Testament forbids women to teach". Why? Revelation 2 refers to Jezebel, a "prophetess".

Revelation 2 also refers to Balaam, a false prophet, yet Witness Lee doesn't use that reference to conclude that the New Testament forbids men to teach.

Using this reference to say that it "shows that God forbids women to teach" is very much in line with his use of these references to say that the New Testament teaches there is one church in one city.

This reference also refers to Evangelical's claim that the New Testament definition of a church includes "two male elders".

The connection to me is it undermines Witness Lee's credibility in defining what is and is not a church.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

In Rev. 2-3 there are quite a diversity of churches. Contrary to LC teachings, their differences were both positive and negative. Yet the Son of Man walked in all of their midst, knowing each intimately, and speaking to all of their needs. He also acknowledged that there were individuals in each of the churches that were not included in the general character of the church.

Philadelphia, and to an extent Smyrna, stand out as exemplary, yet these were never heralded as "the true local church," rather they were all "true" local churches, i.e. lamp stands, with varying degrees of concerns and spiritual needs. Perhaps, since each letter was addressed to "the messenger of the church," these instructions were given to them firstly in order for them to have heavenly guidance to shepherd their own church.

There was no need to call them "true local churches" because the false ones (denominations) did not exist yet.

The fact that Jesus calls them churches, with a lampstand, in a certain locality, proves that to Jesus, a genuine church is a church in each locality.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There was no need to call them "true local churches" because the false ones (denominations) did not exist yet.

The fact that Jesus calls them churches in a certain locality, proves that to Jesus, a genuine church is a church in each locality.

Thyatira, by any standard, could be considered a "false one."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Thyatira, by any standard, could be considered a "false one."

If we agree that a church is a gathering of the called out ones into the name of Jesus and that they are regulated by the 7 ones in Ephesians, and use that as our standard for what is and is not a church. Then the only church of the 7 that I see as being a potentially "false one" is Laodicea. I say this because where 2 or 3 are gathered together into the name of Jesus there He is in their midst. I am equating "gathering together into the name of Jesus" as being regulated by the 7 ones in Ephesians.

Since Jesus is not in the midst of the church in Laodicea it is reasonable to say that they don't meet that standard.

But according to the record you could certainly have 2 or 3 genuine believers fulfilling this requirement in Thyatira, and there is no suggestion that Jesus is not in their midst.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There was no need to call them "true local churches" because the false ones (denominations) did not exist yet.

The fact that Jesus calls them churches, with a lampstand, in a certain locality, proves that to Jesus, a genuine church is a church in each locality.

Not at all. "A genuine church in each locality" indicates more than one church. The New Testament is very clear, not with inference but black and white words that there is only one church.

Jesus also is very clear in the Gospels that there is only one church that He is building.

Since all believers worldwide are members of this one church it is more reasonable and logical to conclude that any gathering of these believers has the potential to represent this one church.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Not at all. "A genuine church in each locality" indicates more than one church. The New Testament is very clear, not with inference but black and white words that there is only one church.

Jesus also is very clear in the Gospels that there is only one church that He is building.

Since all believers worldwide are members of this one church it is more reasonable and logical to conclude that any gathering of these believers has the potential to represent this one church.

I can easily disprove this. Revelation 1:4 says "To the seven churches in the province of Asia:"

Yes, it is one church (the universal church), but also 7 churches (7 local churches), one in each of the 7 cities. It's not that hard, is it?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Not at all. "A genuine church in each locality" indicates more than one church. The New Testament is very clear, not with inference but black and white words that there is only one church.

Jesus also is very clear in the Gospels that there is only one church that He is building.

Since all believers worldwide are members of this one church it is more reasonable and logical to conclude that any gathering of these believers has the potential to represent this one church.

Post #74 is the first post in this thread that mentions denominations. Ohio responded to this in post #75 and I responded in post #76.

My point is very simple, if you say "true church in the city" you are implying false churches. As a result you are implying multiple churches. Yet the NT is very clear that there is one church in one city.

There is no limit to how many gatherings of Christians you can have, nor is there a limit as to how big or small they can be, as long as you have 2 or 3 or more you have a gathering. However, multiple meetings doesn't equate with multiple churches. They are all "one church".

If a group of Christians has "denominated" themselves either by name or by ministry or some other way to separate themselves from the "one church" then Jesus can deal with that. But either they are or are not members of the Body, the sign is the cross of Christ.

So then, when Witness Lee is teaching there is a "true" church or a "genuine" church he is teaching that there is more than one church in a city, one is genuine, the rest are false, not true, or not genuine. But that is contrary to the NT which teaches there is one church in one city.

Why? One God and Father -- if all of these non genuine churches do not worship the one God and Father then they are not churches at all, if they do, then they can be part of the one church.

One Baptism -- if they all entered into the kingdom by being immersed into the triune God then they are the one church, if not they aren't.

One Spirit, One Lord -- etc., etc.

[Evangelical]

If you believe that the sum total of all the denominations in Christianity equals the "body of Christ" you would be mistaken. That is some strange looking body.

By the way, the LSM is not a church or religion, it is, as you said, a publishing house. If there is hypocrisy at LSM it should not concern the church any more than hypocrisy at Zondervan should concern the churches who use bible versions published by them.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

By the way, the LSM is not a church or religion, it is, as you said, a publishing house. If there is hypocrisy at LSM it should not concern the church any more than hypocrisy at Zondervan should concern the churches who use bible versions published by them.

Completely bogus response, Evangelical.

Zondervan only prints and sells books.

LSM, however, trains, appoints, and removes elders. LSM holds FTT seminaries for ALL promising young people. They are the SOLE ministry resource for all church meetings, children's thru college meetings, conferences, trainings, retreats, and even home meetings.

Your statement here about LSM is either absolutely naive or totally disingenuous and deceptive.

Sorry but that's the truth.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If you believe that the sum total of all the denominations in Christianity equals the "body of Christ" you would be mistaken. That is some strange looking body.

Of course it looks strange to you, that's because you have never seen the body.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The idea of one city per church is meant to be about freedom from the religious institutions. If we leave "Babylon", believers in each city is what remains.

This is more idealistic theory based on arbitrary definitions. What's a "religious institution?" As with most LCM definitions, "religious institutions" and "Babylon" are always something other than the LCM. You're kidding yourself if you think the leadership of the LCM is not as much a religious institution as most others you might cite.

The LCM sees what they think is the ideal, generously considers themselves part of that ideal, and stingily denies all other movements and groups any of it--all based on proprietary and self-serving definitions of terms like "oneness," "division," "religion," "church" and so forth.

Ideals are great. The problem with the LCM is they use their ideals to aggrandize themselves and condemn everyone and everything else. I just don't think much of Christians who use their view of God's best to prop themselves up and put everyone else down. It's just not a proper Christian attitude. It's the attitude of seeing the speck in everyone else's eyes and ignoring the log in one's own.

[Evangelical]

There's LCM and there's the local churches. Different things.
A person who believes in denominations has not seen the body.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There's LCM and there's the local churches. Different things.

Right. "The local churches" are an idealistic abstraction which the less-than-ideal LCM uses to condemn everyone else.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

A person who believes in denominations has not seen the body.

Again "denominations" is your self-serving, proprietary term. As long as groups, whether you call them denominations or something else, are not attacking each other there is not a big problem. Everyone knows there is one Body and most have seen it. The LCM, and you, are in the classic error of denominations (which most of them avoid now) of defiantly claiming your way is the the best or only way. That is what you doing and that is what was always the worst thing about denominations. All they are now is different flavors, while the LCM remains one of the antagonists. The Body is not hindered by people having differing interpretations of the Bible and living according to them in peace. The Bible allows this and even insists we honor it (Romans 12). It is your insistence on your interpretation of matters which are not clearly stated or prescribed in the Bible which is the current problem. Anyone who hasn't seen this hasn't seen the Body.

[Evangelical]

Denominations is an apt description of what they are. That is what they are.
The Bible makes clear there is only one way to God and it is a narrow way. There are important things, matters of faith, of which there can only be one.
The Bible is clear that there is only one Body (Eph 4:4). Do we see one body? No we see many different bodies. Automatically this rules out your notion of "many different ways".

You may say that the local churches are an idealistic abstraction. Likewise, it seems your notion of different groups being one Body is an idealistic abstraction. The reality is quite different. Christ came to earth not with peace but with a sword (Matthew 10:34 ). Christ came to cause division between those who would follow Him and those who would not (Matthew 10:38). Just because denominations are in peace with each other does not make them the Body, nor solve the problem. Christ is not interested in peace but in dividing between those who follow Him and those who don't.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The devil can quote scripture, as can you.

Yes, but you can't quote anything lol. I'll give you some help, this is a page that lists all the bible verses about denominations:

https://www.openbible.info/topics/denominations

I cannot see one verse that allows or prefers a conglomeration of denominations as representing the Body.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Yet you justify the hundreds of names LSM uses, saying it is a ministry and not a church. That is most hypocritical. Where is the scriptural support for these ministry names? There is none. What legal entity (DCP) or attack publication (A&C) did the apostles ever startup?

You also have not provided any scripture to show denominations are okay. The website I posted about denominations is sufficient.

In Matthew 6:18 Christ said he would build his church (singular, not plural).

Matthew 16:18 - And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The fact you say "churches (plural).. with a name" proves you don't understand the Body and believe in division. You are in Babylon and in Babylon you "roam". With the Catholics and the LGBT churches and all the other denominations which you love.

I don't think any person in their right mind would consider DCP or A&C or LSM a denomination. By your logic, then Zondervan would be a denomination, and the Christian Research Institute" is also a denomination.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Are we talking about denominations or degradation? My point is not that every aspect of every group is okay, my point is that it's not my place or yours to say a group does not have the right to meet.

Here's the problem with your premise. You say that groups do not have the right to split off and go their own way. But my point is that for the Church to remain healthy they must have that right. Who is to say that a group cannot split off from the main group that claims to be IT? The RCC? The LCM? Splitting off and starting his own thing was exactly what Watchman Nee did. If he did not have that right, what would have become of his vision? You can argue that he was "right," but the point is it is not your place to judge. It was Watchman Nee's. Because he was the one who felt the call from God to do what he did. If the Church in Columbus felt that LSM had become corrupt and domineering and had fallen into major error, who are any of us to say they cannot follow their consciences and leave LSM and the LCM movement?

But you and the LCM seem to believe you have the authority to dictate who can come and go. You act as if you have the right to tell groups of people they cannot follow their consciences and their felt leading of the Lord. You talk about "division" as if it is defined by adherence to your set of beliefs. It isn't.

The fact is if the Bible specified clearly one church per city the religious situation today would be that the Catholics would have control of the one church in each city and would condemn anyone who broke off from it and would have the scriptural chops to make it stick. Recovery would be almost impossible. That's what you don't see. The Lord must have a way for his seekers to follow him out of the fold into the pasture, or if you prefer, out of Babylon into his genuine desire. One's man's "division" is another's being faithful to God's calling. Just ask Watchman Nee.

I agree they have the right to split. They don't have the right to create a denomination. Luther for example did not just leave the RC church and meet in home fellowships as per the new testament. The Lutheran church started because of him. Then another, then another. They created different "brands" of Christianity, when the reality is there is only the body of Christ. Today the Lutheran brand remains, as does many others. For what? Give me one good reason what the Lutheran brand contributes that the Baptist does not, or the Presbyterian, or a simple home fellowship. There is no reason for their existence. They serve no purpose except to uphold the brand of Luther. They are not better at gospel preaching or at converting sinners, or of good works or charities, they have not contributed any spiritual light in the last 500 years since Luther's revelation that salvation is by faith alone.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I agree they have the right to split. They don't have the right to create a denomination. Luther for example did not just leave the RC church and meet in home fellowships as per the new testament. The Lutheran church started because of him. Then another, then another. They created different "brands" of Christianity, when the reality is there is only the body of Christ. Today the Lutheran brand remains, as does many others. For what? Give me one good reason what the Lutheran brand contributes that the Baptist does not, or the Presbyterian, or a simple home fellowship. There is no reason for their existence. They serve no purpose except to uphold the brand of Luther. They are not better at gospel preaching or at converting sinners, or of good works or charities, they have not contributed any spiritual light in the last 500 years since Luther's revelation that salvation is by faith alone.

I think you need to now define terms. You keep using the term "denomination" in a vague way. But I'm not clear what exactly you mean by the term. Please define it specifically. Does it include community churches not affiliated with controlling organizations? Does it just mean having a name?

The Bible never uses the term. The Bible never prohibits a group naming itself. The fact that the Bible doesn't give examples of a church naming itself does not mean it is wrong.

The question should come down to what is truly divisive. Division in the Bible is always associated with a kind of animosity. I don't live with my cousins, I rarely see them, but I'm not divided from them. I have no animosity toward them. I think you need to start concentrating on real animosity and stop obsessing about these technical and arbitrary characteristics that the Bible doesn't even prohibit.

As for having a brand, if the LCM isn't a brand nothing is. The LCM is Witness Lee. His image dominates its expression. Do you think because his churches call themselves the church in whatsit city that makes them any less of a brand? That's delusion.

I understand the attraction of generality. Lee once taught generality. But the LCM is now anything but general, and really never was truly general. The church I attend now has much more generality and reception than the LCM ever had. We understand oneness, and insisting others follow your way is not it.

Your attitude toward the Lutherans is out of line. You don't know what benefit individuals have received or what work God may have done through Lutheran congregations. You are not omniscient and once again you are displaying the wrong spirit.

You sound quite immature, like the kid whose parents get him the best bike in the neighborhood (he thinks) and he goes around bragging and putting down all the other kids' bikes. The Lord had a word for that spirit in Revelation 3:17.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I think you need to now define terms. You keep using the term "denomination" in a vague way. But I'm not clear what exactly you mean by the term. Please define it specifically. Does it include community churches not affiliated with controlling organizations? Does it just mean having a name?

There must be a valid reason as to why churches feel the need to name themselves by something other than Christ or just Christian. And I maintain that this reason is a divisive spirit which the Bible spoke against. It is because they feel they are different from the others, when in reality they are the same.

Why churches have to name themselves? I wonder what is wrong with the name Christian. Why a church doesn't just identify itself as Christians? Is Christ not a name? It is because they see themselves as different from the other Christians in their city. Suppose a woman is married to Mr Smith. Her name is Smith also, but Tom Cruise comes along and she decides to change her name to Cruise, because Tom Cruise is better than Mr Smith. She stays married to Mr Smith but she names herself after Cruise. By doing so she has just caused a division between herself and her husband.

I think you need to define some terms as well. You use the term "community church". What does that even mean? The Lutherans are a community, we, the local church, are a community. Are we not in the same community as the "community church"? So why are you distinguishing between them and us? Why don't you define what is the difference between a community church and a local church? What does the community church have that the local church does not have? What does the community church have that the Lutheran church does not have? The "community church" can be just as divisive as a named denomination. For example, the community church would feel like home for those in the community but outsiders and visitors who are not part of that community may feel excluded. Therefore to name a church as a "community" church is just as divisive as calling it a Lutheran church.

Maybe you can tell me what spirit does the Lutherans have that the Baptist don't? What does the Lutherans add that the Baptist don't already? What can the Lutheran church contribute to the locality that the Baptist cannot? I question why the Lutherans have not joined the Baptist churches since the Baptist churches are more up to date with their revelation. If we address the reasons why the denominations exist and continue to exist, we will find that the root cause is division which Paul spoke against. Denominations are division not merely a group of local Christians calling themselves by a certain name.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Suppose a woman is married to Mr Smith. Her name is Smith also, but Tom Cruise comes along and she decides to change her name to Cruise, because Tom Cruise is better than Mr Smith. She stays married to Mr Smith but she names herself after Cruise. By doing so she has just caused a division between herself and her husband.

Analogies are interesting. They can demonstrate something that is true. But they cannot make something true because you can find a similarity between something in life and something in the analogy.

Just because there was a place where power was translated from a word from which we get "dynamo" does not make a modern electrical system with the power plant, the wires, and the electricity a good metaphor for what was being spoken of. So such a system is pointless to analogize what was talked about in the Bible because no such thing was contemplated.

And it is truly something "new" to suggest otherwise. And not in the Bible.

The same goes for the effects of marriage on the name of the wife. This is a matter of tradition. And in different cultures, this tradition is not followed in the way that it has been in Western society of recent history.

Besides, "the Church in [City]" is a name and it does not in any place say "Christ" on only say "Christ." So if your analogy is to have any meaning, then it must apply to you as well.

You argue that you don't call yourself (your assembly) the Church in [City]. But you do. You have registered your name with both the federal government and with the State, and probably the city. Under that name you may be exempt from certain taxes, but not all.

You argue that you don't generally call yourself that, but then most of the time the others don't either. They don't say they are going to [fill in the name of an assembly], but to church or to the meeting. (And take a poll. Even those who say "I am going to church" do not presume that the place or the building is church, but the meeting. That superiority of thinking that you only say "I am going to the meeting" is a meaningless gesture.)

But if someone wants to clarify where they are going, they will typically say that they are going to [name], and if that is not clear enough, they will state the address or general location.

When you speak of only meeting as the church in [City] you are interjecting a somewhat false impression in your words. You are not meeting any less specifically within the city than any other assembly of Christians. You do not simply meet as Christians in the city. Your history is full of arriving in a new city to find a group already meeting in that way, though not associated with the group that you come from. They will make an effort to meet with those persons, but always be looking for reasons to be able to declare that they are no proper so that thy can part ways with them and start a separate meeting. Why? Not because you actually have a meeting of Christians with no other defining factors, but because you have very defining factors that those others do not have.

And your defining factors are:

• An insistence upon what is an acceptable name.
• Adherence to the teachings as provided by Witness Lee. (The fact that he got anything from others is irrelevant because only those things brought by him are acceptable.)
• The belief that there is only one minister in any age and that Lee was such a person. (Funny that the rule lasted for just under 2,000 years and then has been abandoned.)

I could go on, but it would be a waste of space.

Go look at the doctrinal statements of most evangelical places and you will not see anything about persons. Individuals are not raised up to such heights of authority. Nothing as extreme as what Authority and Submission would have you follow. No, the doctrinal statements look more like:

• We believe in One God, expressed in three Persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
• We believe that Jesus Christ, the Son, came to earth, born of a virgin, lived and taught for 33-1/2 years, was crucified, died, buried, resurrected, and ascended to the right hand of the Father.
• We believe that he is coming again and will judge the living and the dead.

Some will put in statements about how they do baptism. I even saw one that had a statement about angels. Probably none of them say it how I just said it. My intent was not to be theologically perfect, but to get the points out there.

The meeting I attend has piano and organ, and they sing hymns, both old and new. Others attend meetings that have a variety of music styles.

Some pattern their meetings in certain ways with a more strict adherence to format and content. Others have a looser style and at least some sense that it is being "winged." There are good arguments for either. Some use pre-written prayers while others ad lib. Some find a middle ground and rely on both the well founded truth in older prayers, such as in the Book of Common Prayer, and on speaking from the heart as moved.

How any of it is done is not part of the faith.

And it does not make any particular group deficient or reprobate. And yours is no different in this matter. It names itself just like the others. It has doctrinal distinctives that it holds to as opposed to others. And underneath it is a core of belief that we all agree on.

Stop thinking of yourselves more highly than you ought.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There must be a valid reason as to why churches feel the need to name themselves by something other than Christ or just Christian. And I maintain that this reason is a divisive spirit which the Bible spoke against. It is because they feel they are different from the others, when in reality they are the same.

Names are simply for identification. A name does not imply an essential difference, it implies an instance difference.

Community church has basically the same meaning as local church. It means a church that serves the community in which it resides. This is actually the meaning of "local church" Nee put forth originally in TNCCL. He pointed out that one church in London was impractical and that localities could be considered being the different neighborhoods and communities within the city. These days it's shorthand for a church which is usually non-denominational, general in beliefs, and non-strident in its approach to non-essentials.

Again, you must see that your view of oneness and division is simply your view. It's your opinion. You have not demonstrated that the Bible prescribes what you believe. I think you need to consider that your insistence on your interpretation of what oneness is and how churches should describe themselves can be just as divisive as any other doctrine someone might intractably insist upon and condemn others for not adhering to.

I believe the best course of action is to encourage generality and unity among believers and let that attitude grow and take its natural course. I've seen much progress in the last twenty years and am convinced if unity happens that's the way it is going to happen. I don't believe your approach is going to accomplish much.

You still have not defined "denomination."

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Names are simply for identification. A name does not imply an essential difference, it implies an instance difference.

Community church has basically the same meaning as local church. It means a church that serves the community in which it resides. This is actually the meaning of "local church" Nee put forth originally in TNCCL. He pointed out that one church in London was impractical and that localities could be considered being the different neighborhoods and communities within the city. These days it's shorthand for a church which is usually non-denominational, general in beliefs, and non-strident in its approach to non-essentials.

Again, you must see that your view of oneness and division is simply your view. It's your opinion. You have not demonstrated that the Bible prescribes what you believe. I think you need to consider that your insistence on your interpretation of what oneness is and how churches should describe themselves can be just as divisive as any other doctrine someone might intractably insist upon and condemn others for not adhering to.

I believe the best course of action is to encourage generality and unity among believers and let that attitude grow and take its natural course. I've seen much progress in the last twenty years and am convinced if unity happens that's the way it is going to happen. I don't believe your approach is going to accomplish much.

You still have not defined "denomination."

Ok to the definition of denomination.

The word denomination or de-name-iation means "to give a name to" (see Mirium Webster dictionary) and considering the origins and original meaning of the word shows the clear connection between names and denominations.

A denomination is therefore a group of Christians who have given themselves a name. Paul says:

1 Cor 1:13 ".... were you baptized in the name of Paul?"

Since Christians were baptised in the name of Christ, we should not take another name. In fact a common belief in denominations is that when a person is baptised in a certain denomination (e.g. Lutheran) they are "baptised as a Lutheran". They are baptised as something other than just Christian.

Now you know why we focus on names being a problem. Names and denominations go hand in hand.

But a denomination is not just a group with a different name. We have to consider why they decided to do that, and why they exist. One reason was they considered themselves to be different in some way from every other Christian, when the Bible says we are all the same in Christ.

The Lutherans for example decided to name themselves after Luther because they follow his teachings and practices. They wanted to distinguish themselves from Catholics and other protestants.

We both believe in spiritual unity yet we have have different ideas about how that can be accomplished in practice. From a human perspective all of the various attempts at Christian unity are good and it is very good to have denominations. It is better to agree than to disagree. Unfortunately few are willing to go the full step to identify themselves as nothing but just the church.

Denominations have become so much the norm that denominational-free churches must define themselves as "non-denominational" rather than "just the church". The church in the New Testament was not non-denominational it was just the church.

Is a community church a denomination? it depends if it has a name or not. If it is called the "Life Community Church" (for example), this has given itself a name that distinguishes it from all the other Christians in the city. Then it must be a denomination according to the definition of "giving a name to".

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

When you think about it, really, there were no "local churches". Ever. If they were truly local, why did the Corinthians receive the extra-local letter from Paul? Why should Paul tell the Colossians to read the letter to the Laodiceans (4:16), and vice versa? Why should the Colossians care about something outside their location? Because they weren't local. None of them were. If Paul were local, he'd only care for those in his location. But he didn't, nor did anyone else.

According to the teaching of Nee/Lee, the church administration (eldership etc) is local, but the ministry is extra-local. Paul set up local administrations in each city, but his ministry was extra-local. I don't want to discuss the rights and wrongs of this doctrine, this is not the place for that, just pointing out to you that according to Lee/Nee, Paul's ministry (and hence his letters) was extra-local.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

According to the teaching of Nee/Lee, the church administration (eldership etc) is local, but the ministry is extra-local. Paul set up local administrations in each city, but his ministry was extra-local. I don't want to discuss the rights and wrongs of this doctrine, this is not the place for that, just pointing out to you that according to Lee/Nee, Paul's ministry (and hence his letters) was extra-local.

If the local churches received extra-local directions, then how local were they? We were told by the ministry to be "exactly identical" with each other (see RecV footnotes in Rev 2 & 3). As an example, an elder in my region tried to hold a conference, but was told to re-speak the last training. Then they sent out a Blended Co-worker to make sure directives from GHQ were obeyed.

Nee and Lee sold localist utopianism, but it vanished into the nothingness from whence it came, and they blamed the victim. Supposedly we hadn't been absolute enough, pure enough, or zealous enough. We needed to re-consecrate ourselves to the extra-local programme, the so-called "vision of the age". I was there, and heard this kind of stuff. We were upbraided for being dull, dormant, stagnant.

There never was a local church. It was an illusion, a conjurer's trick, separating the flock and eventuating mass deception and delusion. All courtesy of the extra-local ministry.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

If the local churches received extra-local directions, then how local were they? We were told by the ministry to be "exactly identical" with each other (see RecV footnotes in Rev 2 & 3). As an example, an elder in my region tried to hold a conference, but was told to re-speak the last training. Then they sent out a Blended Co-worker to make sure directives from GHQ were obeyed.

Just pointing out that your understanding of the locality doctrine does not match what Lee/Nee taught. It was local but also not local in the sense that all are completely independent and have nothing to do with the others. This is more of a Baptist concept. The localities are various expressions of the one church.

Each church was local. But ministry was extra-local like Paul's ministry. In the New Testament, all the churches that Paul established had the same ministry. He gave the same instructions to them all:

1 Cor 7:17 "This is the rule I lay down in all the churches."

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It was local but also not local in the sense that all are completely independent and have nothing to do with the others.

Local but also not local, not that local. Like, God but not God, not the Godhead God.

Words have an interesting life in the Nee/Lee ministry. They are neither fish nor fowl. One day they seem like a fish, but they're not really a fish, not that fish. Next day they seem to be fowl but not really; not that fowl. They're merely whatever the ministry needs, to satisfy today's agenda.

I prefer plain, 'conventional' usage, and consistent meaning, and repeat that the local churches aren't local; they're ministry marketing outlets, or ministry stations.

[Evangelical]

Yes, not so local that they could not distribute Paul's messages. It's as simple as this - the church is local and the ministry is global. Distribution of Paul's letters among the churches was his global ministry. The same with Lee/Nee. It was not breaking any rule against churches being local. Notice how Paul never said to distribute writings of the local church elders. Suppose an elder in one church wrote letters and distributed them to all the churches with instructions from him for them. That elder would be violating the principle of church locality. Paul however, as an apostle with a ministry to the churches but outside the churches, did not violate anything.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

According to the teaching of Nee/Lee, the church administration (eldership etc) is local, but the ministry is extra-local. Paul set up local administrations in each city, but his ministry was extra-local. I don't want to discuss the rights and wrongs of this doctrine, this is not the place for that, just pointing out to you that according to Lee/Nee, Paul's ministry (and hence his letters) was extra-local.

The old church/work bait-n-switch. Promise them the church, give them the ministry.

Even Lee made it perfectly clear that local elders could make "crucial" decisions like when to start their prayer meeting.

Ever wonder why so many church meetings got replaced by "training" meetings?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The old church/work bait-n-switch. Promise them the church. .

The extra- local minister was never supposed to promise them the church but he did. And when he couldn't deliver (as he knew) he gave them the ministry and the work. The church belongs to Christ- it is His handiwork, His masterpiece. The church should resolutely focus on Christ. We got localism. That's why I say it was merely an illusion, part of a spell to bring us under someone's control.

[OBW]

While I have not been a regular participant here for quite some time now, I often return to see how things are progressing, and sometimes to look back through the list of old threads and how certain topics were addressed then.

I was reading something a couple of days ago (not on this forum) and the question of what constitutes a church came up. And, as is often the case, the "two or three gather in my name" idea was raised. While it was mostly ignored in what I was reading, I decided to see what we had done with the whole topic over the decade + that we have been here. And sure enough, there was a thread titled "What is the New Testament Definition of a Church" that began on October 14, 2016. While the opening thread tended to indicate that the LC determination of what was a true church was at least partly the real thing to be considered, it did quote Matthew 18:20 as follows:

What is the church?

. . . .

Matt 18:20 for where there are two or three gathered together -- to my name, there am I in the midst of them.'

The reason I was looking was that I noticed something in what I reading the other day that I was curious to see if it had come up before.

If you read the portion of Mathew 18 that includes this one verse, it is actually 6 verses (15 – 20). This is where Jesus tells the disciples about how to help another brother (or sister) with sin. You first tell them. If they don't listen you bring one or two more. If they still don't listen, you tell it to the church.

Let's see . . . me plus one or two = two or three. Yet we are not presumed to be the church and must then take it to the church if they still do not listen. So simply having Christ in our midst must not be synonymous with being (the/a) church.

I realize that this does not preclude that as being possible. But it would seem that if such a thing were intended to be commonplace, then bringing one or two more with you to confront the sinning brother/sister would often be the end of the story. No further "take it to the church" step required.

The point is not to say that two or three cannot be a church (in the assembly sense of the word), but rather that it does not appear that this was considered to be the normal case and the context of this popular verse would tend to support that conclusion. I admit to being a little hard-pressed to agree that two or three can be the church, and that I have always had a problem with the idea. But depending on practical circumstances, I would not say it is impossible. Just not a basic definition of the church.

[Robert]

I think that many Christians make basic mistake in approaching to this matter.
First of all to define anything we should have that " anything" in our hands.
Lat's take sunflower for example. This size, this colour, these particular characteristics.
Jesus gave us very simply words. "gathered in my name...".
One person can not show love for himself. This kind of "love" we call "selfishness". Isn't?
We can be humble and kind and loving only toward other person.
That is why Jesus said:" two OR three..." Other words, number does not matter.
What is more important, He said "in my name".
What does really mean "in my Name"? What is His name?
Is that name meaningless? Or less important from "Sunflower"?
Jesus means: The One Who Exist Saves.
If we only meet together because of our real salvation and our real experience of being born from God that means Jesus is really among us.
Jesus described reality which John repeated later:
We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not abideth in death.
1 John 3:15
Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
3:16
Hereby know we love, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.
3:17
But whoso hath the world`s goods, and beholdeth his brother in need, and shutteth up his compassion from him, how doth the love of God abide in him?
3:18
[My] Little children, let us not love in word, neither with the tongue; but in deed and truth.
3:19
Hereby shall we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our heart before him:
3:20
because if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.
3:21
Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, we have boldness toward God;
3:22
and whatsoever we ask we receive of him, because we keep his commandments and do the things that are pleasing in his sight.
3:23
And this is his commandment, that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, even as he gave us commandment.
3:24
And he that keepeth his commandments abideth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he gave us.

We should really have deeply in our minds that "church" means " the called ones" or " congregation of people".
Numbers or defining gives nothing if we do not experience fellowshipping even with one or two others.
Would be amazing with 300 or 3000! But we have certain reality and circumstances so talking about something which does not concern to us gives nothing.
I do not belong now to any congregation. But I do meet with believers having real fellowship. For many Christians I do not belong to any church. In their meaning yes! But in Jesus meaning?
I was very faithfull and carefull listener of WL.
When I started to apply in my live all what he wrote, saints had left me.
There is many good points in books. About practice. I guarrantee to all that after they start to act according his words all churches will seperate from Anaheim and LSM.
But thanks God, I have better example to follow than WL and his books.
In my short live I have to apply only my master's teaching.
I do not see any intention in His teaching to define any organisation. Rather Organism.
Our words should fit to reality. One Sunflower in hand then word:" one Sonflower".
Local churches are any more local. They are "company subsidiaries" in fact.
The more we talk having no cover in facts, the more we become Empty Talkers. 98% of LC members are Empty Talkers.
I am very thankfull to God for each particular believer every day he gave me.
Where is love, there must be longing and utual desire to meet and help each other in daily life. That is it! Very, very simple!

[Sons to Glory!]

Does anybody else read or get (emailed) the T. Austin Sparks devotional, "Daily Open Windows"? In these devotions he often brings up topics around what is the church and errors around forming a local church. Many times when reading these it seems he is speaking directly to those who formed "The Local Churches" that are discussed on this forum. (although I acknowledge that LC people would say that is not their name)

Just a couple days ago, there was a Sparks devotional on this topic, which I've copied below. (BTW - these are all taken from other materials of his, as cited at the bottom)

July 21
________________________________________

To those who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God – children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God. (John 1:12,13 NIV)

What, in the thought of God do Christians exist for? What does the Church exist for? There is only one answer. The existence and the function is to be an expression of Christ. There is nothing less and nothing more than that. Christ is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, and all between! Let that be the starting point; let that be the governing rule and reality in all matters of life and work, and see at once the nature and vocation of the Church. This vast, incomprehensible heavenly system, of which Christ is the personal embodiment, touches every detail of life, personally and collectively. But remember only the Holy Spirit sees and knows how it is so; hence, as at the beginning, there has to be an utter submission to and direction by the Lordship of the Holy Spirit. What the bloodstream is to the human body, the Divine Life is to and in "the Church which is His body." What the nerve system is in the physical realm, the Holy Spirit is in the spiritual. Understand all the workings of those two systems in the natural, and you begin to see how God has written His great heavenly principles, first in the person of His Son, and then in His corporate Body.

As an individual believer is the result of a begetting, a conception, a formation, a birth and a likeness, so, in the New Testament, is a true local church. It is a reproduction of Christ by the Holy Spirit. Man cannot make, form, produce or "establish" this. Neither can anyone "join" or "enroll," or make himself or herself a member of this organism. First it is an embryo, and then a "formation" after Christ. So, all talk about "forming New Testament churches" is nonsense. The beginning is in a seeing of Christ.

By T. Austin-Sparks from: According to Christ - 1


(This email is from the Austin-Sparks.Net Daily Open Windows message list. Daily Open Windows messages have been selected and compiled by Austin-Sparks.Net from the works of T. Austin-Sparks. In some cases they appear in abridged form. The introductory verse and its associated Bible version have been selected by the editor and did not always appear within the original message.)

Hello forum,
I read this quote from Nee, that made me laugh. Not sure when he said this, but didn’t both him and Lee did precisely this?

“As such, many nominal believers will remain forever nominal and will not know salvation nor be edified to grow spiritually. This kind of work where one is ordained to manage a whole congregation and where the whole congregation, whether it be thirty people or three hundred people, is assigned to the hands of one person alone as the "flock" under him, with no one else who can interfere or have any say in the matter, is the result of the teaching of the Nicolaitans.”

CWWN, vol.4, “ The Christian meditations on Revelation,” Ch.5: Pergamos— the Corrupted Church.

[ACuriousFellow]

Originally Posted by Unregisteredfromusa

Hello forum,
I read this quote from Nee, that made me laugh. Not sure when he said this, but didn’t both him and Lee did precisely this?

That is precisely what they did. One of their earliest groups was even called the "Little Flock."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregisteredfromusa

Hello forum,
I read this quote from Nee, that made me laugh. Not sure when he said this, but didn’t both him and Lee did precisely this?

Yes, exactly. The stench of their hypocrisy rivals the Pharisees of old.

Both Née and Lee long condemned the “speaking of one man” only to replace it with the “speaking of one man.”