Merged Thread: Various Themes by Evangelical

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

(Moved from other thread).I have no problem with a group not caring to take a name, or meeting as the church in a city. What I have a problem with is when they say other groups are not the church because they don't meet that way. The Bible doesn't give us enough information or ground to do this. This is why the LCM is in error...

I'd like to see you try those 99.9% odds in Jesus's time. You might have said "99% of Judaism believe this so Jesus must be a heretic!"

The bible does not authorize us to call us by whatever name we like. I've given biblical evidence in this or another thread that this is so. The many references to having the name of Christ only, and not saying "I am of Paul" etc.

The church is the bride of Christ. It is as if you would say to your wife "honey, you have married me, but you can change your surname to anything you like that fits your personality or beliefs". Of course, the wife will take the name of her husband and none other.

Numerous autonomous house churches within a city cannot obey Paul's command in 1 Corinthians 1:10:
1 Corinthians 1:10
I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought.

Is Paul writing this appeal to numerous independent house churches within the one city? No because we can see that 1 Corinthians 1:2 says "To the church of God in Corinth", not churches. Proving that Paul writes to one church in the city, not numerous house churches.

It follows that verse 10 is speaking against the very church model of "many believers divided into many different groups with names of their choosing", that you propose.

A set of local churches which are "united in mind and thought" is practicing 1 Corinthians 1:10.

There is nothing wrong with trying to accomplish that through the same bible version and books. In the New Testament period, the local churches were united by the ministry of Paul their founder, until they turned from him. But it is incorrect to say that Paul ruled over the churches.

A group of churches under an apostles ministry and teaching, united by the same mind and thought, is more biblical than a group of independent churches doing whatever pleases them and calling themselves however they like. And this achieved without the heirarchial papal structure of the institutional denominations.

[testallthings]

It is a clear historical fact that there was only one church in one city.

Ignatius of Antioch, a student of the Apostle John, and the third bishop of Antioch, while on his way to be martyred in Rome, wrote to

“the Church which is at Ephesus, in Asia,”
“the Church which is at Magnesia, near the Moeander,”
“the holy Church which is at Tralles, in Asia,”

“the Church...which also presides in the place of the report of the Romans”
“the Church …. which is at Philadelphia, in Asia,”
“the Church which is at Smyrna, in Asia,”

https://www.ewtn.com/library/PATRISTC/IGNATIUS.HTM

Regarding authority in the church he writes to the Ephesians (and to other churches, too)

CHAP. V.--THE PRAISE OF UNITY.
For if I in this brief space of time, have enjoyed such fellowship with your bishop--I mean not of a mere human, but of a spiritual nature--how much more do I reckon you happy who are so joined to him as the Church is to Jesus Christ, and as Jesus Christ is to the Father, that so all things may agree in unity! Let no man deceive himself: if any one be not within the altar, he is deprived of the bread of God. For if the prayer of one or two possesses[4] such power, how much more that of the bishop and the whole Church !He, therefore, that does not assemble with the Church, has even[5] by this manifested his pride, and condemned himself. For it is written, "God resisteth the proud."[9] Let us be careful, then, not to set ourselves in opposition to the bishop, in order that we may be subject to God.
CHAP. VI.--HAVE RESPECT TO THE BISHOP AS TO CHRIST HIMSELF.
Now the more any one sees the bishop keeping silence,[10] the more ought he to revere him. For we ought to receive every one whom the Master of the house sends to be over His household,[11] as we would do Him that sent him. It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself. And indeed Onesimus himself greatly commends your good order in God, that ye all live according to the truth, and that no sect has any dwelling-place among you. Nor, indeed, do ye hearken to any one rather than to Jesus Christ speaking in truth.



“The model of church organization that was formed during the first three centuries of Christianity was based on the principle of "one city-one bishop-one Church", which foresaw the assignment of a certain ecclesiastical territory to one concrete bishop. In accordance with this principle, the "Canons of the Apostles" and other canonical decrees of the ancient Church point to the inadmissibility of violating the boundaries of ecclesiastical territories by bishops or clergy.”
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articl...nOneBishop.php



..................................................
Dale Mody, The Word of Truth: A Summary of Christian Doctrine Based on Biblical Revelation, page 435


https://books.google.com.tw/books?id...page&q&f=false

or see the attached PDF file

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by testallthings

It is a clear historical fact that there was only one church in one city.

Ignatius of Antioch, a student of the Apostle John, and the third bishop of Antioch, while on his way to be martyred in Rome, wrote to

“the Church which is at Ephesus, in Asia,”
“the Church which is at Magnesia, near the Moeander,”
“the holy Church which is at Tralles, in Asia,”

“the Church...which also presides in the place of the report of the Romans”
“the Church …. which is at Philadelphia, in Asia,”
“the Church which is at Smyrna, in Asia,”

https://www.ewtn.com/library/PATRISTC/IGNATIUS.HTM

Regarding authority in the church he writes to the Ephesians (and to other churches, too)

CHAP. V.--THE PRAISE OF UNITY.
For if I in this brief space of time, have enjoyed such fellowship with your bishop--I mean not of a mere human, but of a spiritual nature--how much more do I reckon you happy who are so joined to him as the Church is to Jesus Christ, and as Jesus Christ is to the Father, that so all things may agree in unity! Let no man deceive himself: if any one be not within the altar, he is deprived of the bread of God. For if the prayer of one or two possesses[4] such power, how much more that of the bishop and the whole Church !He, therefore, that does not assemble with the Church, has even[5] by this manifested his pride, and condemned himself. For it is written, "God resisteth the proud."[9] Let us be careful, then, not to set ourselves in opposition to the bishop, in order that we may be subject to God.
CHAP. VI.--HAVE RESPECT TO THE BISHOP AS TO CHRIST HIMSELF.
Now the more any one sees the bishop keeping silence,[10] the more ought he to revere him. For we ought to receive every one whom the Master of the house sends to be over His household,[11] as we would do Him that sent him. It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself. And indeed Onesimus himself greatly commends your good order in God, that ye all live according to the truth, and that no sect has any dwelling-place among you. Nor, indeed, do ye hearken to any one rather than to Jesus Christ speaking in truth.



“The model of church organization that was formed during the first three centuries of Christianity was based on the principle of "one city-one bishop-one Church", which foresaw the assignment of a certain ecclesiastical territory to one concrete bishop. In accordance with this principle, the "Canons of the Apostles" and other canonical decrees of the ancient Church point to the inadmissibility of violating the boundaries of ecclesiastical territories by bishops or clergy.”
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articl...nOneBishop.php



..................................................
Dale Mody, The Word of Truth: A Summary of Christian Doctrine Based on Biblical Revelation, page 435


https://books.google.com.tw/books?id...page&q&f=false

or see the attached PDF file

It is good to quote the thoughts and practices of the early church by referencing a student of the teachings of John. It is not Scripture but it proves the thoughts and practices of the early church match somewhat match Nee's. Nee in his much reading probably drew these insights from similar sources.

The difficulty I have personally with these writings, is that they seemingly reflect the Orthodox or Catholic church model, or the clergy-laity system, by the use of the word "bishop". Afterall, the early church fathers are used to support their clergy-laity model, when we know from past history that this sort of arrangement was introduced later, along with the notion of paid priestly positions and "Christian tithing".

King James for example, made sure the King James Version was subservient to the views of the Church of England, namely, that the clergy-laity system was distinct, by using the term 'bishop' when 'elder' is a more appropriate term. A bishop, in the KJV, implies a ruler over elders. In many people's minds, these are the clergy with the funny hats and the shepherds crooks, and are also powerful pieces on a chess board.

So we should clarify this further, by finding what the real meaning of the word means:

http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/bishop/
Dictionaries - Easton's Bible Dictionary - Bishop
Bishop [N] [B] [S]
an overseer. In apostolic times, it is quite manifest that there was no difference as to order between bishops and elders or presbyters ( Acts 20:17-28 ; 1 Peter 5:1 1 Peter 5:2 ; Phil 1:1 ; 1 Timothy 3 ). The term bishop is never once used to denote a different office from that of elder or presbyter. These different names are simply titles of the same office, "bishop" designating the function, namely, that of oversight, and "presbyter" the dignity appertaining to the office. Christ is figuratively called "the bishop [episcopos] of souls" ( 1 Peter 2:25 ).

So not only do we have historical fact regarding one church per city, the view that Nee held of one eldership or presbytery per city church is also fact.

There is a remaining question and one which is disputed - who has the (human) authority to appoint the elders? It was the apostles:
Acts 14:23 "Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church ".

That it was the apostles Paul and Barnabas and not Peter, somewhat disproves the Papal claims about church structure and (human) authority in the early church.

But how did the apostle Paul choose?

We can see from Acts 14:23 Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust.

that it was by prayer and fasting, the Holy Spirit made clear who should be appointed. Then Paul and Barnabas laid hands on them and appointed them.

But who chose Paul and Barnabas for this task ? Acts 13:1-3 says that Paul and Barnabas themselves were chosen by the Holy Spirit through the prayers of the church at Antioch. Paul was one of the leading members of the church at Antioch. Yet as a leading one, Paul did not presume to go without the prayers, worship and fasting together with church prophets and teachers. The church at Antioch was the first Gentile church. Paul's ministry was chiefly to the Gentiles (Acts 9:15).

We can note that the appointments of elders in each church was God's, through the apostles, and the apostles sending were God's, through the church. The appointments were not by theological qualification or democratic election. The appointments were not Paul's own desires but God's.

Could it be any clearer that God has not authorized "just anyone" to start a church based upon their own thinking and feeling?,

Today in Christianity, when a young pastor achieves their theological qualification, no doubt they will undergo a period of training before being tasked to go out and start their own "church plant". But they are not planting a genuine church as per the model given in the book of Acts. They are planting a sect, a division, based upon human decision.
Such an appointment according to theological qualification, natural leadership ability or charisma is not how churches are planted according to the Bible.

Many Christians, claiming to know their Bible and follow it, are clear about God's will concerning loving God, loving neighbors, baptism, faith, repentance, and spreading the gospel based upon the plain words of the Bible.
Very few, regard the biblical church model and the biblical way churches are planted.
Is it any wonder that Christianity is in such a mess?

From my personal experience, my first church experience was a young pastor who was trying to make his new church plant work. He was fresh out of training and confident that he could do it and show his senior pastors his abilities. He fully believed he was called by God. The church was flourishing initially, there were claims of salvation's and healing's. There were words of prophecy, dreams and visions that the church would grow and flourish. Within a year that church died. I soon realized that what I experienced was not a real church. God's way is the only way we should take.

Some here have wondered why we focus so much on God's economy, dispensing etc. Why not just go out there and "do it"? Well stories of presumption like this young pastor is the reason why. Christ said to make disciples and build His church. But He never told us to do it without Him. We need to seek God's face to get the answer from Him.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We can note that the appointments of elders in each church was God's, through the apostles, and the apostles sending were God's, through the church. The appointments were not by theological qualification or democratic election. The appointments were not Paul's own desires but God's.

Could it be any clearer that God has not authorized "just anyone" to start a church based upon their own thinking and feeling?,

But who decides who are the apostles? And the question remains are there any apostles in this day? The Bible says plainly in 1 Cor 12:12* that real apostles have a "sign" which includes the ability to do miracles and wonders. Do you know anyone who has such a sign? I don't know of any. So therefore there are no apostles of the kind in the first generation of Christians; and Nee and Lee weren't apostles, because they didn't have the sign.

So since there are no apostles, does that mean churches cannot be established? Such a conclusion is silly.

So actually "just anyone" potentially can start a church. Because God is going to commission someone to do it, and none of us can judge whether God has commissioned someone else in that way or not. We, you, can't know if their decision to start a church was just "their own thinking and feeling." All we can do is look at the fruit, and that's all we should do.

* "The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles." NASB

[Cal]

Has anyone ever thought it is interesting that in all Paul's letters to city churches, and even Jesus's messages to city churches, that the names of the leaders are never specified? Paul surely knew who were leaders in the churches he planted. So why doesn't he ever address them directly by name? Even further, in all of Paul's writings to churches is to the whole church in general, he never writes in a way where he is talking to leaders. And unless you believe Hebrews (13:17) was written by Paul, there is no place where he instructs members to obey leaders, or really talks about them much at all. Outside of the pastoral epistles (Timothy I II, Titus), which were written to other apostles, he doesn't address leadership much, and even there he does not speak of obedience to leaders.

Peter writes about leaders, but he focuses on the humility and servant attitude of leaders. He doesn't instruct members about obedience to leaders. (1 Pet 5:2-3).

One would think that if city churches were in principle to be led by one group of leaders, in the model of the LCM, that this leadership aspect would be very crucial and that Paul would address it clearly in his letters to the city churches. But he doesn't. He never does. In fact, Paul talks more about obeying secular leaders (Rom 13) than he does about obeying church leaders!

The whole picture is something very different that what is painted by the LCM. In the LCM everything revolves around submitting to the leaders. Paul emphasizes unity, but he doesn't cast things in a way that suggest the unity is around the leaders. It's always around Christ. And leaders are always portrayed as servants, not lords.

Finally, why does Paul not address the book of Romans to the church in Rome? Why does he address it to "all who are in Rome." Why does he leave out reference to the church in Rome but then refers later to "the church that meets in their house" (16:5) obviously referring to a subset of all the Christians in Rome?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

But who decides who are the apostles? And the question remains are there any apostles in this day?

Based on Titus 1.5 and Acts 14.23, both Nee and Lee have stated that these were proof texts that only apostles could appoint elders, and that there was only one set of elders in every church.

In other places, Nee and Lee have stated that the apostles were "sent ones" who preached the gospel, and then raised up churches, much as Paul did. I never saw this happen. In Ohio, Titus Chu would send out brothers to startup new churches, but he alone was "the" apostle, and they alone were the elders. Lee did much the same in his area, as did Benson Philips in Texas, and other leaders in their regions. Thus we declared that we alone followed the N.T. pattern prescribed by Nee in TNCCL. Not exactly.

But what happens when "the" apostle and these appointed elders die? Thus Nee's definitive model, carefully patterned (supposedly) after the N.T., can only operate for one generation! Now what do we do? What if we have no "apostle" who alone can appoint elders?

Well we should do what healthy congregations have done for centuries. They look for men according to the patterns in I Timothy 3 and Titus 1. They look for men of God approved both by the Holy Spirit (Acts 20.28) and by the saints (Acts 16.2). Note that adamant unwavering loyalty to a distant publishing house / headquarters is/was never a consideration, unless of course it is the Catholic church or one of her dying daughters.

The appoint of elders which I have witnessed was far too often self-serving to headquarters. In this regard the so-called "apostle," whether in Anaheim or Cleveland, actually operated as a Bishop, which of course we completely condemned as hierarchical. Thus an obvious hypocrisy which none of us could identify. A Bishop was one who oversaw churches, trained elders, moved and removed elders, dealt with problems, gave mandatory conferences and trainings, and the like. Was that not exactly what Titus Chu and Benson Philips were doing for decades. Now I'm not saying this is wrong.

But let's call a spade a spade, an apostle an apostle, and a bishop a bishop.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

But let's call a spade a spade, an apostle an apostle, and a bishop a bishop.

One wise principle is operate in a way that does the least damage. Nee did question whether apostles existed, but concluded that since the NT had apostles, then we must have them now, even though he really did not follow the NT pattern of identifying an apostle, which included their being able to perform miracles (1 Cor 12:12) (I'm of the thought that apostles at the level of the first generation no longer exist, 1 Cor 12:12 helps confirm this belief.)

So Nee thought it would be better to act like someone was an apostle, that to consider that there were none. Now it doesn't take a genius to realize how this can go wrong. I don't want someone operating on me who is not a surgeon, and I don't want someone assuming to be an apostle who cannot be confirmed as one. But Nee was so zealous to get back to the early church he cut corners. He gambled that is was good enough that people assumed to be apostles, whether they were or not. This did a lot of damage and continues to do so.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

As a person who used to think like you on this matter, I can tell you that it is much harder to argue that a denomination is not a division, than to just accept that it is, and then consider whether it is worth doing something about it or not. That was my journey, at least. That a denomination is a division or that a division led to a denomination, should be obvious. At least to me it is. A denomination is essentially an organized and institutionalized division.

According to Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, a denomination is "a religious organization uniting in a single legal and administrative body a number of local congregations".

My approach to the topic of division is with the understanding that it is both inevitable and unavoidable at a broad level. Of course, the Bible speaks strongly against division, so I think with such an understanding, any concern over division needs to refocus on the scope of the actual problem. Lets look again at 1 Cor 1:10
Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

Notice here that I bolded among you. Who is the among you that Paul was referring to? I think that we all could agree that this was the local assembly at Corinth to whom Paul addressed his letter. So Paul was concerned with internal division/factions that were taking place.

I don't know about anyone else, but in consideration of the context of what Paul said here, I think the takeaway here is that we are primarily responsible for getting along with the Christians with whom we have regular fellowship. That seems completely reasonable to me. But some like Nee/Lee have used verses like this not as a reminder to look at themselves, but as a reason to judge and criticize other groups.

This is the way that I think about it: as Christians, we need fellowship with other Christians. This is one of the primary roles of the local assembly, is to provide us with other Christians whom we can fellowship with. These are the people that we want to particularly focus on getting along with. It's difficult, but not impossible. If we can't even get along with those we are in regular fellowship with, then there is a big problem.

When the scope is broadened and someone comes along to claim that group A must get along with group B, then problems will easily arise. Group A has different needs than group B, so that discrepancy alone is enough to create problems. Things like doctrine make matters worse. Of course, the resulting 'division' might concern some people, but is this really the kind of division the Bible wants us to avoid? I don't think so. It seems that in the context of a broader fellowship, the emphasis is commonality. At the end of Colossians, Paul urges his epistle be read among the Laodiceans, and likewise his epistle to the Laodiceans be read among the Colossians. It could be inferred that some commonality existed that would make it an advisable thing to suggest.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Many Christians, claiming to know their Bible and follow it, are clear about God's will concerning loving God, loving neighbors, baptism, faith, repentance, and spreading the gospel based upon the plain words of the Bible.

Very few, regard the biblical church model and the biblical way churches are planted.
Is it any wonder that Christianity is in such a mess?

"Most Christians know Christ as their Savior, but few know Him as their life". Does this sound familiar? You have a generic statement, as if you could look into every human heart and suss out what they experientially know. Or did you do a poll, with 1,000 randomly chosen Christians, and give them a multiple-choice test?

"Many Christians are this.... but few are this". It is hard to get through a single WL message without this refrain. You base your criticism of others upon ignorant assumptions, and then use this criticism to separate yourself. Create a straw man, then your solution is what? Not the straw man! Well, hurrah.

The local church is so far from any 'biblical church model' as anyone could ever imagine. No love, no freedom of the spirit, no respect for anyone as valid in their own right, only how they are related to the Ascended Master. Constant criticism of "Christianity". Zero curiosity as to what the Bible says, only what the Great Man told you it is supposed to mean. On and on. What a horrible place! Many nice and dear Christians, yes. But the place is a spiritual charnel house, full of dead men's bones.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I'd like to see you try those 99.9% odds in Jesus's time. You might have said "99% of Judaism believe this so Jesus must be a heretic!"

That's a specious argument. We are talking about Christians, the Church, the Body of Christ. 99.99% of them do not agree with you. The ratio of Christian theologians disagreeing with you is probably the same. It's pretty arrogant blowing all these people off.

The bible does not authorize us to call us by whatever name we like. I've given biblical evidence in this or another thread that this is so. The many references to having the name of Christ only, and not saying "I am of Paul" etc.

Saying "I am of Paul" is not taking a name. It's identifying oneself with some person (even Christ if you read the whole passage!!) in a way that divides. (And if saying "I am of Paul" is categorically wrong, then the way the LCs identify with Witness Lee is of the same spirit.) If it was about taking a name then Paul wouldn't have rebuked those who said "I am of Christ." Clearly it was about having a divisive attitude in general. It wasn't about the name.

The church is the bride of Christ. It is as if you would say to your wife "honey, you have married me, but you can change your surname to anything you like that fits your personality or beliefs". Of course, the wife will take the name of her husband and none other.

Your wife has a first name doesn't she? It's not your name. Your analogy doesn't work

Numerous autonomous house churches within a city cannot obey Paul's command in 1 Corinthians 1:10:
1 Corinthians 1:10
I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought.

The fact that Paul is asking people to be united in mind and thought does not mean that the Church in Corinth was necessarily united under one set of elders.

Look at it this way. Don't you in the LCM expect the command above to extend across and between all LC churches? Don't you expect the churches themselves to be perfectly united in mind and thought with each other? Sure you do. The LC doctrine is that the churches should be identical, based on the (mistaken) idea that if all the lampstands in Rev 2-3 are "identical" then all the churches should be also. The LCM expects the whole "recovery" be perfectly united under "the ministry" of Lee, so much so that the leaders of the movement insist on "one publication." So if your churches with different leaders can be united in such a way, and you believe they should be, then why can't house churches in a city be united in such a way as well. There is no reason to believe they can't.

So there is no reason that house churches in a city, each with different leaders, cannot be united, and they don't have to united under one set of city leaders. It's interesting that Paul tells the believers to be perfectly united with each other. He never says be perfectly united with him (the apostle) or with the church leaders. Thus the exhortation is about getting along with each other, it isn't about following an agenda, and it isn't about being under one set of leaders.

So, again, you have failed to demonstrate that the city church is necessarily under one set of elders. Appeals to history don't work. I want to see it spelled out in the Bible. You can't do it. Now if your reckless assumptions only affected you it would be one thing, but they affect others. Many, many Christians have been damaged by the LCM's insistence that their leaders are the leaders every Christian in a city needs to submit to. Many of them have passed through this message board. We've seen them. We've witnessed the damage and lived it.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

That's a specious argument. We are talking about Christians, the Church, the Body of Christ. 99.99% of them do not agree with you. The ratio of Christian theologians disagreeing with you is probably the same. It's pretty arrogant blowing all these people off.

haha I am amused because you as not a Catholic (I presume), are appealing to the majority. Who is in the Body of Christ according to you? Does it include the Roman Catholics and Orthodox? Which together make up the majority of Christians. If so then these majority Christians disagree with you, if you are a protestant. And there is a hefty sized group of Catholic and Orthodox theologians as well. If you want to follow the majority, then you should take heed to practice your words, and become a Catholic. And is it not "pretty arrogant" for you as a non-Catholic to "blow all those Catholics off" ?

If you would claim that the Body of Christ does not include Catholic and Orthodox, well I should expect to see some fruitful discussions about that in this forum,as you would appear to be not accepting of all denominations, as others have claimed of myself or the local churches.

Your arguments are not logical at all. Another person here has asked me to justify my use of the term "the majority of churches". I have done that, by the numbers.
I wonder if you can justify your claim of 99.99%, I highly doubt it.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

haha I am amused because you as not a Catholic (I presume), are appealing to the majority. Who is in the Body of Christ according to you? Does it include the Roman Catholics and Orthodox?
Your arguments are not logical at all. Another person here has asked me to justify my use of the term "the majority of churches". I have done that, by the numbers.
I wonder if you can justify your claim of 99.99%, I highly doubt it.

Even if you limit the ratio to Evangelical Christians the principle would still hold.

There are an estimated 300 million evangelicals in the world. If you add in charismatics the number is more than twice as big, but let's stick to the smaller number. How many LCers are there in the world? I heard 50,000, but let's say 100,000 just because we can.

So 100,000 / 300,000,000 % = .033%
100% - .03% = 99.97%

So even by this calculation skewed way in the favor of LCM, you make up only .03% of the world's Evangelical population. If you use the real numbers it comes to less than that.

That's just Christians. What about theologians? Well, how many theologians does the LCM have. None qualified, really. But by their standards, just two. Nee and Lee. But let's say 10, just to make it less of a blowout than it's going to be. Now how many evangelical theologians in the world? Well, I couldn't find any numbers, but let's make it conservative and say 10,000. How many of those believe in the "local ground" teaching? Probably none. So again, in a calculation skewed way in favor of the LCM, they comprise a tiny portion of the population, less than .001%.

So my estimates were not that illogical after all.

So for the LCM to be right about "the local ground" over 99% of evangelical Christians have to be wrong. Now what kind of people go around thinking they are right and over 99% of the rest of the relevant population is wrong? I think they call those kinds of people "nuts."

The fact is the odds that the LCM is right about "the local ground" and everyone else is wrong is about as likely as that Ayn Rand was right about philosophy and everyone else is wrong. There is also a tiny enclave of zealous, devoted Rand followers (Students of Objectivism, aka nuts) who think she and she alone had the correct insights into the nature of reality.

Sadly, there is always a small minority of people who for whatever reason need to believe they are right and everyone else is wrong.

[Cal]

I believe God looks down on a city and sees a church. But does he see it in an organized, black and white way the way the LCM does?

What if I live right outside the boundaries of the city. If the city church is a reality in the black and white way the LCM sees it, when I leave the city am I no longer a part of that church? Say I live between two adjacent cities but in neither one, which church am I a part of in reality? If I live in the country and meet with a group of Christians can we not be a church? And finally, do you think God really worries about any of this? Or is rather speaking of the church in the city just a way He references his people as a group relevant to the region in question?

This seems to suggest that the black and white legalism the LCM insists upon with the city church is untenable. Yes, in one sense there is one church in a city, just like, in a sense, there is one church on Earth, and in the same sense there was one church in Judea, Galilee, and Samaria in Acts 9:31. But the Bible also shows that within these city churches there were smaller churches. The Bible never uses the term the "churches in" a city specifically. But it doesn't have to. It does indicate that a smaller church within a city church can exist. And if one can exist then it follows that more than one can.

I'm not of the school than believes that a "church" is necessarily a practical assembly. The Bible uses the term both in a practical and more abstract way. "Church" in Ephesians 1-3 is a more abstract usage of the word. I believe that the church in a city is also a more abstract usage, or can be. There is no compelling reason to believe that the church in the city need be organized "practically" under one eldership as the LCM says, nor that it cannot be comprised of smaller more practical churches, house churches, community churches, etc, which can have names for identification.

Meeting separately is not necessarily indicative of division. Even the large LCM churches have multiple meeting places. And the Bible never says that a church having a name indicates division. Divisiveness is a heart matter. You can have no name and insist you are doing everything right and still be divisive, as we've clearly seen with you-know-who.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I believe God looks down on a city and sees a church. But does he see it in an organized, black and white way the way the LCM does?..

We stand on the truth of one Christ, for this reason we must reject many different religions and ways to God.

Similarly, there is only one church, period. It stops there. If we stand on this truth alone we cannot support denominations. There is no "only one church but divided into many denominations that do not talk to each other and who some of which claim to be true church or others who claim to be right way".

There is also no "only one church but divided between those who follow denominations and those that do not". This is nondenominationalism which is also a division.

If you travel from one city to another you are in the same church.
You are always in the same church wherever you go. Only if Christ leaves you

[Evangelical]

The following is inspired by Genesis 22:2-5.

2 Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.”

5 He said to his servants, “Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you.”

Abraham is about to make a sacrifice to God. But Abraham tells the servants in verse 5 that they are going to worship.

So worship is about sacrifice.

The concept of worship today is to express some sort of love and devotion to God, by singing worship songs. Many churches today prioritize the music and worship over the Lord's table. Worship happens every service but Lord's table once a month or so. They can hold a service without communion but they cannot have a service without music and singing.

For all of the importance of singing songs and providing entertaining performances that churches give today, there is surprisingly little said about it in the New Testament.

This is because singing songs is not what worship is about. Worship is not even about telling God how much we love Him and adore Him. Worship is not about expressing our-self to God.

What is worship? Worship is giving worth to God for who He is. Who is God? God is love, yes, God is loving, yes, God is kind yes. But this is not who He really is. Who He really is, is God - God is God. God does what He likes. No one can tell Him what to do. Genuine worship is saying "you are God, I am not, here is my Isaac, do what you want with my Isaac".

Genuine worship is when Abraham offered up Isaac on the Altar, and basically said "God, do want you want". Worship involves offering up our Isaacs to God.Worship is saying to God "God, you are God, you do what you want, not my will but yours be done". This is what real worship is.

Every Sunday millions of people go to churches and sing songs of love and devotion to God. But unless they offer up their Isaacs, they have not worshiped God at all. A person who has never offered up an Isaac to God has actually not truly worshiped God. This is not saying that what they do has no value. It has value, but it is not biblical worship, it is expressing love and devotion to God through song.

Today many equate worship with music and music styles. The majority of churches that use rock music in worship do so to cater to the likes and dislikes of the congregation. At one point they may have used classical hymns, then someone came along and said "we want to attract young people, the music is too old fashioned". So they change the music to suit the people. This is based on the wrong concept that worship is about expressing ourselves in a way that we like.

When Abraham worshiped God, did he sing God a song? No, did he ask others to come and play music that he liked? No. If we realize that the real meaning of worship is sacrifice and submission, then the style of music is irrelevant, and even the concept of different methods and ways of self-expression is irrelevant.

Knowing the true meaning of worship puts Jesus's words in better context:

John 4:24 "God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.""

-in Spirit - God does not want us to grab our children and try to kill them on some mountain here or mountain there. Spiritual worship is to offer up to God those things that we hold dear in our hearts, and we can do that anywhere we are and any time of the day.

"in truth" - in truth means God wants sincerity. God does not want lip service, but something genuine from the heart.

When I was in the denominations, Jesus's words in John 4:24 did not make much sense, because I had the wrong concept that worship is about singing and expressing myself to God.

Now that we have seen what worship is, we should consider what the purpose of worship is.

Why does God need us to tell Him that He is God? He knows who He is. Does God have such an ego? Of course not.

The purpose of worship is for God's economy which is to be filled with God. God sometimes cannot fill us with Himself until we empty ourselves of our Isaac through genuine worship. Worship is also related to obedience. Abraham obeyed God (verse 16), so worship and obedience go hand in hand. Worship is obeying God by submitting to Him and offering our Isaac. The result of genuine worship is blessing. Most bible expositors consider the story of Abraham and Isaac to be a test. It is indeed a test, but it is a test to see if Abraham would truly worship God for just being God, or because God did good things for him by giving him Isaac.

[least]

excerpt of Life study of Genesis Message 58

"Isaac typified Christ. We have seen that Abraham answered God's call to go to Mount Moriah to offer Isaac. This is history. However, if we view this matter from the perspective of God's revelation, we shall see that what Abraham did to Isaac is a vivid picture of what the Father did to His beloved Son. "

[testallthings]

In Life Study of Genesis, page 1249, Lee says it is a shame that governments want to legalize homosexuality, to do so would be to turn the country into Sodom. (Evangelical)

Evangelical,
I have been arguing against this point from the beginning of my posts. W. Lee, in your quotations, was not talking about numbers, majority, etc.. He only mentioned the governments (or actually the legislators). If he is correct, then governments (or legislators) can turn a country into Sodom or the New Jerusalem at will. I am not interested in discussing other issues until this point is cleared up.

[micah6v8]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The following is inspired by Genesis 22:2-5. 2 Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.” 5 He said to his servants, “Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you.”

Abraham is about to make a sacrifice to God. But Abraham tells the servants in verse 5 that they are going to worship. So worship is about sacrifice...

I agree with you to some extent:-
1) Sacrifice can be part of worship (see also Romans 12:1).
2) It is possible for people to get carried away by the music tunes/melody and be detracted from focusing on God.

However, singing can be a form of worship too. See Rev 5 v 8 to 14.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by micah6v8

I agree with you to some extent:-
1) Sacrifice can be part of worship (see also Romans 12:1).
2) It is possible for people to get carried away by the music tunes/melody and be detracted from focusing on God.

However, singing can be a form of worship too. See Rev 5 v 8 to 14.

That is true.

But I think worship means sacrifice. What many people think of as worship (singing songs and expressing joy to God) I think is more correctly called praise.

So "praise and worship" together means sacrifice and expression to God at the same time.

[micah6v8]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Now that we have seen what worship is, we should consider what the purpose of worship is.
Why does God need us to tell Him that He is God? He knows who He is. Does God have such an ego? Of course not.

I like to share this which I found thought-provoking
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/...mmation-of-joy

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by micah6v8

I like to share this which I found thought-provoking
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/...mmation-of-joy

Thanks for the article, I think it is good.