The Bible record describes God leading people into and out of things

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

How can something be more divisive than a division? There is no such thing as "more divisive".

That is your recast of what Ohio said (or more correctly, didn't say).

Your position is that the fact of a name is a division of ultimate separation. If that is the case, then there is no name that can cure it. Paul declared that saying you are "of Christ" could not even cure a division. But he did not say that saying you are of Christ was a division, only that being divided and declaring yourself to be of Christ did nothing to improve your situation.

Yet, after centuries, a couple of people come along and declare that there is a name that can cure division. It can allow people to call all other Christians the Whore of Babylon and her harlot daughters and still stand as cured before God. And that name is the name of the city in which you live. Not even "Christ" could to that. But "Ephesus," Anaheim," or "Taipei" can.

Get real. This is a shell game for the simple minded. And it is suspect that the minds that push it now are possibly too simple to see the error of their own teachings.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

You may be surprised, but it doesn't matter if the Baptism formula was added or not to the book of Matthew. The absence of the text doesn't disprove the Christian faith in the Holy Trinity.

We don't believe in Sola Scriptura. For the Orthodox, the Bible is the book of the Church, written by and for those who believe in God and constitute His people.

That may be so, however it shows that your previous claim is not correct where you said:

Christians have from the beginning recognized that the correct form of baptism requires one to baptize "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

The Trinitarian formula did not become universally adopted until years after Christ. The early church all baptized in the name of Jesus and did not invoke a Trinitarian dogma. In fact as I am not against the Trinity I am not saying the formula is wrong. I am saying there were at least two methods of baptism in the early church and you cannot claim one over the other, given the evidence - the Trinitarian one was not the first.

This is not a problem for my view because we do not claim history as our ground. This is a problem for your view because it means your faith is not based upon the Church in Jerusalem of 33 AD where baptism "in the name of Christ" was the norm. The history and apostleship you lay claim to is not from AD 33 but from later.

The Hasting's bible dictionary makes this clear:

http://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/hdb.html

It must be acknowledged that the formula of the threefold name, which is here enjoined, does not appear to have been employed by the primitive Church, which, so far as our information goes, baptized ‘in’ or ‘into the name of Jesus’ (or ‘Jesus Christ’ or ‘the Lord Jesus’: Acts 2:38 ; Acts 8:16 ; Acts 10:48 ; Acts 19:5 ; cf, 1 Corinthians 1:13 ; 1 Corinthians 1:15 ), without reference to the Father or the Spirit.

it is better to infer the authority of Christ for the practice from the prompt and universal adoption of it by the Apostles and the infant Church, to which the opening chapters of Acts bear witness; and from the significance attached to the rite in the Epistles, and especially in those of St. Paul.

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

You consider the New Testament to be a part of the Scriptures only because the Church decided to do so. Nowhere in the New Testament the Apostles asked to include their writings into the canon of the Scriptures. The Church did that. And now you are denying one of the teachings of the Church. Why do you trust the Bible then? Again, you are not consistent.

Who do you say is "the Church"? The history shows that your church was lazy and slow to develop a canon. Your church did not even think it necessary to strictly define the canon. It is the latin church we should thank for the canon we have today more than the Eastern churches.

http://www.ntcanon.org/closing-east.shtml

The eastern churches had, in general, a weaker feeling than the western for the necessity of making a sharp delineation with regard to the canon. It was more conscious of the gradation of spiritual quality among the books that it accepted (e.g. the classification of Eusebius) and was less often disposed to assert that the books which it rejected possessed no spiritual quality at all.

Your church had uncertainty for many years about what should go into the canon:

As an example of the uncertainty in the east, the Trullan Synod of 691-692 CE endorsed these lists of canonical writings: the Apostolic Canons (~385 CE), the Synod of Laodicea (~363 CE ?) , the Third Synod of Carthage (~397 CE), and the 39th Festal Letter of Athanasius (367 CE). And yet these lists do not agree. The Synod of Hippo Regius (393 CE) and the Synod of Carthage (419 CE) also addressed the canon and are discussed here.

There are even differences between the canons of the different churches:

Similarly, the New Testament canons of the national churches of Syria, Armenia, Georgia, Egypt (The Coptic Church), and Ethiopia all have minor differences; see [Metzger] pp. 218-228 for details. The Revelation of John is one of the most uncertain books; it was not translated into Georgian until the 10th century, and it has never been included in the official lectionary of the Greek Church, whether Byzantine or modern.

There have been many canons. So which "the canon" are you referring to?:

Eastern Orthodox canon?
The Roman Catholic canon from 1546?
The Roman Catholic canon from before 1546?
The Lutheran Canon?
Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563?
Origen of Alexandria's canon?
The Syrian canon?
The Coptic canon?
etc.

Which one of these do you think gave me the canon in my bible, which is the Recovery Version by Living Stream Ministries?

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

That's a misquote. Those Roman Catholics who really read the book say "that the Cardinal was referring to the Apostles Creed. Developing a Creed is not an invention, it's a declaration of a believe that already has existed but has been defined and articulated for edification."

Evangelical, you just repeated someone's lie and manipulation and showed no proof again.

This quotation was to emphasize that the Apostles Creed came from Rome, not the Church in Jerusalem of AD33. The claim is that Jesus taught it in Matthew 28:19 but this is not evident in the book of Acts, which shows that the apostles baptized in the name of Christ. The writings of the early church father Eusebius confirms that baptism in the three-name formula was not a universal practice at the time. Your assumption that the practice had always existed is wrong, as I have shown in the other quotations.

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

The Didache (around 70 AD) is the oldest extra-biblical source for information about baptism. If you want to know how the Christians of the 1st century practiced baptism, check out with the Didache:

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

There are some interesting things you should know about the Didache (taken from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache).

The New Testament is rich in metaphors for baptism but offers few details about the practice itself, not even whether the candidates professed their faith in a formula.[36] The Didache is the oldest extra-biblical source for information about baptism, but it, too lacks these details
The Oxford History of Christian Worship. Oxford University Press, US. 2005. ISBN 0195138864 p. 36–38

So the Didache is no better than the New Testament, and in fact in a number of ways the Didache is less reliable than the New Testament. That is, just because you have an extra-biblical writing does not make void the New Testament which clearly shows baptism was done in the name of Jesus as early as AD33.

The date of 70 AD you gave could be wrong - the Didache was originally dated to the late 2nd century, not 70AD. In fact, the precise date unknown, it could be as late as 150AD. "Dating the document is thus made difficult both by the lack of hard evidence and its composite character".

-It is an anonyomous work - it was probably not written by any early church father. It is probably not written by anyone so important.
-Lost for centuries, a Greek manuscript of the Didache was rediscovered in 1873, a latin version in 1900.
-The Didache may have been compiled in its present form as late as 150, although a date closer to the end of the first century seems more probable to many.

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

Your faith about baptism is similar to that of Jehovah Witness, another organization that preaches a different Christ. What you are doing is just protecting their heresy. This is another thing to ponder on.

Do you believe that to baptize in the name of Christ is a heresy? That is the only similarity between us and the JW.

[InChristAlone]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If we baptize in the name of Christ then we are heretics. That is divisive. If we do not share the same history as them, or accept the Three-name baptismal formula, we are automatically excluded. In contrast, we accept all believers who profess faith in Christ. So I cannot see how anyone can claim that we are "more divisive". More divisive than a division? I think not.

Evangelical, I believe, it is both, divisive and heretical: to preach another Christ and to baptize only in the name of Christ, without the Holy Trinity in mind. If you believe that God the Son is God the Father then your faith has nothing to do with the faith of the early Church.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Who do you say is "the Church"? The history shows that your church was lazy and slow to develop a canon. Your church did not even think it necessary to strictly define the canon. It is the latin church we should thank for the canon we have today more than the Eastern churches.

Why do you say "churches"? The church in Jerusalem, the church in Ephesus, the church in Antioch, etc. - they were one, unique, universal and undivided Church. It was the Body of Christ, not several different bodies.

The Church had to use the word "orthodox" so that distinguish herself from heretical groups in the same location which also claimed to be the Church. For example, imagine several churches claim to be the Church in Alexandria. One of them is the LRC. Where should I go? I need to make sure that I don't go to the place where they teach that God the Father is God the Son because it's not in the Creed.

The Bible is the voice of the Holy Spirit. But this voice was heard through human intermediates and by human means. Therefore, the Bible is a book with its own history. It is important to remember that "the Bible came out of the Church; the Church did not come out of the Bible."

The canon of the New Testament was developed over the early centuries of the Church. Its first known listing in its final form is the Paschal Letter of St. Athanasius of Alexandria in A.D. 367. As you can see, St Athanasius was not from the latin church. (Anyway, it was one Church that time).

The early Church did not have one canon of the Bible due to historical reasons. The local churches had only parts of the New Testament. One church could have certain books and didn't have others. For example, one local church had the Gospel of Matthew and didn't have the Gospel of Mark. So, it was the life of the Church and it took a few centuries to compile one canon of the Bible, approved by all local churches. Probably, it could be done earlier if the Church hadn't suffered under persecution for over 300 years.

Because the Apostles expected Christ to return soon, it seems they did not have in mind that these gospel accounts and apostolic letters would in time be collected into a new Bible. During the first four centuries A.D. there was substantial disagreement over which books should be included in the canon of Scripture. The first person on record who tried to establish a New Testament canon was the second-century heretic, Marcion. He wanted the Church to reject its Jewish heritage, and therefore he dispensed with the Old Testament entirely. Marcion’s canon included only one gospel, which he himself edited, and ten of Paul’s epistles...

It was the Church that rejected controversial books. So, it is because of the Church that your canon of the Bible doesn’t include the "Teaching of Peter", the "Gospel of Thomas" or the "Revelation of Peter" and other false and heretical gospels.

God bless.

PS Please check out Dr. Clark Carlton's article "The Structure and Worship of the Early Church" if you want to know what the early Church was like.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by InChristAlone

Evangelical, I believe, it is both, divisive and heretical: to preach another Christ and to baptize only in the name of Christ, without the Holy Trinity in mind. If you believe that God the Son is God the Father then your faith has nothing to do with the faith of the early Church.

It is not heretical to baptize in Christ's name if one is to be baptized into Christ. To baptize in Christ is to baptize in His name. This is what the early Christians did (see the book of Acts).

Rather it is heretical to baptize in the Holy Trinity without Christ in mind.

The name of the Father, name of the Son, name of the Spirit... what are these three names? Because Father, Son and Spirit are titles, not names. We know that the name of the Son is Jesus Christ. So when Jesus said "baptize them.. in the name of the Son", he meant "baptize in my name, Jesus Christ".

Because you baptize into titles and not names, how can you say your baptism is valid? How can you say you are baptized into Jesus when you do not use His name?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Rather it is heretical to baptize in the Holy Trinity without Christ in mind.

What are you smoking?

The "Holy Trinity" includes Christ. How do you propose to baptize in the Holy Trinity an not have Christ in mind?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

What are you smoking?

The "Holy Trinity" includes Christ. How do you propose to baptize in the Holy Trinity an not have Christ in mind?

I am wondering the same - how is it heretical to baptize in the name of Christ without having the Trinitarian dogma in mind?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

How is it heretical to baptize in the name of Christ without having the Trinitarian dogma in mind?

Interesting question. Who are you directing this question at? I did not say that anything was heretical. Those were your words.

Your questions implies that I called baptizing in the name of Christ without "having the Trinitarian dogma in mind" heretical. That is a strawman argument. I made no such statement. In fact, I did not infer that any of your positions were heretical.

I merely asked how it was that you could infer that baptizing into the "Holy Trinity" would fail to have Christ in mind and therefore be heretical in your view.

This seems to be one of the biggest problems in discussing with you. You infer into our writings just as liberally as Lee did into the scripture. It is never what is said or written. It is what you want to be said or written. So you infer into the scripture to your benefit without any consideration of the reasonableness of your inference. And you infer into my posts to create the pretense that I said something that I didn't.

Answer my question as posed earlier (and now restated even more clearly if you were unable to understand it the first time).

Why is it that baptizing into the "Holy Trinity" (something that I did not originally say) is presumed to not include an thought of Christ and therefore be heretical?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

That is your recast of what Ohio said (or more correctly, didn't say).

Your position is that the fact of a name is a division of ultimate separation. If that is the case, then there is no name that can cure it. Paul declared that saying you are "of Christ" could not even cure a division. But he did not say that saying you are of Christ was a division, only that being divided and declaring yourself to be of Christ did nothing to improve your situation.

Yet, after centuries, a couple of people come along and declare that there is a name that can cure division. It can allow people to call all other Christians the Whore of Babylon and her harlot daughters and still stand as cured before God. And that name is the name of the city in which you live. Not even "Christ" could to that. But "Ephesus," Anaheim," or "Taipei" can.

Get real. This is a shell game for the simple minded. And it is suspect that the minds that push it now are possibly too simple to see the error of their own teachings.

From Paul's writings we know a few things. Paul did not like them saying that they follow him, Apollos, or Christ. Paul did not say there was anything wrong with them referring to themselves by their locality. There is nothing divisive about saying "I am from Corinth" if you visit the church in Ephesus. In fact, Paul refers to them by their locality, never by anything else. The implication is that Paul wanted them to refer to themselves by their locality and nothing else. That is how Paul referred to them. Even today when we say "the Corinthians", or "the Ephesians" we are referring to the church by its locality, and nothing else.

So why do Christians today refer to the early Christians by their locality (Corinthians, Ephesians etc) but think they must have a prefix today?
All sects and sub-divisions today add a prefix to their locality name. Whether it is nationality of origin or language (e.g. Roman, Greek, Russian), to whether it is a founder's name (e.g. Luther), or whether it is a particular doctrine (e.g. Presbyterianism). The Roman Catholics for example, could simply refer to themselves as "the Christians in London". They add the pre-fix Roman, because they are not encompassing all the Christians in London, but a sect or sub-division of the locality which holds to the doctrines of Rome.

Most Christian's problem is that that they think the church must have a prefix. That is why they refer to us as the Witness Lee church or the Lord's Recovery church. They cannot refer to us as just the church in the locality because the moment they do so is the moment they admit that they are wrong and in a sect, not a church. In contrast, we can say that every believer in the city is just the church in the locality - only the genuine church can say that. Those who cannot say that are a sect, or sub-division of the genuine church.

The Orthodox church, on the other hand, believes their church to be the only true church in the city. They cannot call our church a church, or even say we have the same faith or the same Lord. If we baptize in the name of Christ then we are heretics. That is divisive. If we do not share the same history as them, or accept the Three-name baptismal formula, we are automatically excluded. In contrast, we accept all believers who profess faith in Christ. So I cannot see how anyone can claim that we are "more divisive". More divisive than a division? I think not.

As far as I can tell, there are two reasons why a church will not accept us as just the church in the city. One reason, is the view of the historical traditional churches like Roman Catholic , Orthodox etc. They believe themselves to be the only true church in the city, based upon their rich history and traditions. Those who do not accept these traditions cannot be considered to belong to them. They would never accept a sect like the Lutherans, Baptist etc to be a church, because to do so would be to deny their very existence, tradition and history. It would be for them to admit that they are a sect themselves.

The second reason, is the view of the protestant sects - the Lutherans, Baptist, Presbyterian, Pentecostals etc. They do not accept us as just the church in the city because they believe that no one can claim to be the only true church in the city. They say this because they are sects, and for any one of them to lay claim to the true church in the city would mean they are irrelevant. Their very reason for existence is because they are against a structure like the Roman Catholic or Orthodox, or Anglican, or anyone who claims to be "the one". In fact, the protestant sects have ulterior motives and a reason for not seeking unity. It is better for them to maintain the status quo so that they can preserve their own existence in a kind of homeostasis. If they were genuinely for unity, the so many protestant sects would have joined forces long ago - even the ecumenical movement has declined, because they were not really serious about unity. To ask two sects to join together would be like McDonald's joining Burger King. Even though they both sell burgers, and have much in common, they would never join because the brand, the name, is a powerful thing. Even though Lutherans are so much like Anglicans, they would never join because their brands, their names, are too powerful.

But what if McDonald's and Burger King changed their names to the same thing? Would it create unity? Yes of course it would. You may dismiss names as irrelevant or not important, even trivial. However as I have shown, names can be a powerful thing, they can divide and can also unite. A claim that "names cannot unite" is grounded in logical fallacy and blatant ignorance of the world around us. Even the wife will drop her surname and take the name of her husband because of the unifying power of names.

The solution as presented by Lee/Nee is simple - if every church dropped the prefixes, dropped the "brand names" and referred to themselves as only the church in the city, then we would be back to how it was in the New Testament times. Then it would be possible for a Baptist and a Roman Catholic (for example) to fellowship in the same church without dividing from each other by prefix. I understand there will be wide diversity, but that is how it was in the early church. It took the early church many years to agree on matters such as the canon or the creeds, it did not happen overnight. Those who are called "heretics" today such as those who reject the Trinity, were once accepted, before they were forced to accept the dogma of the Trinitarians or else be killed.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

From Paul's writings we know a few things. Paul did not like them saying that they follow him, Apollos, or Christ.

This is a way to understand the passage. But it is not "the way" to understand it. The problem wasn't what teacher(s) they mainly listened to. It was that they were dividing over which teachers to listen to. So the claim of being "of" anyone, including Christ, was not a positive comment about liking a particular teacher. It was a declaration of why they were dividing from others who followed other teachers.

In this context, being "or Christ" was not a common declaration that should apply to all believers, but was a claim that their reason for dividing was better than anyone else's. Simply declaring themselves to be "of Corinth" would not have cleared-up the mess. While their rhetoric would have changed, the underlying division would remain.

The LRC does not actually drop all "concepts" to be simply one with others. Instead, they wrap their preferences in a different kind of name and declare that it cures their division.

And since the others are not nearly as divided as you seem to think, it would appear that the LRC is more divided from the rest of Christianity than most of that myriad of groups with different names are from each other. It is a sad commentary that the group that declares itself to be, by definition, one with all believers is actually more divided from all of them than almost any of them are from each other.

And despite all the apparent disagreement here, we have less reason to reject you than you do to reject everyone else. And you probably agree with me and are proud of it. I stand as one with all believers without the need for them to come to my assembly and listen to the ministry of the dead man I follow. And I am not opposed to meeting with any of them. I choose where I meet as a preference, not as stand against the others. You are the one that intentionally refuses to meet with others unless they come to you.

Layering a tale about Mrs. Smith into the mix does not make your group superior. If that metaphor actually was relevant, then your group is claiming the name of a city, not of its husband, Christ.

Go pray-read that for a while and see what kind of spin you can put on it.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

This is a way to understand the passage. But it is not "the way" to understand it. The problem wasn't what teacher(s) they mainly listened to. It was that they were dividing over which teachers to listen to. So the claim of being "of" anyone, including Christ, was not a positive comment about liking a particular teacher. It was a declaration of why they were dividing from others who followed other teachers.

In this context, being "or Christ" was not a common declaration that should apply to all believers, but was a claim that their reason for dividing was better than anyone else's. Simply declaring themselves to be "of Corinth" would not have cleared-up the mess. While their rhetoric would have changed, the underlying division would remain.

The LRC does not actually drop all "concepts" to be simply one with others. Instead, they wrap their preferences in a different kind of name and declare that it cures their division.

Based upon your understanding, try explaining how the Lutheran church, is not a division over "which teacher to listen to"? Their very existence and name is because of Luther's teaching. They could have joined with the Anglican church long ago - they are very similar. Their name and teacher Luther is still a reason for them to maintain their division today. There is no way that they are all Lutheran today "just because they prefer to be Lutheran". Their preference comes from opposition.

Originally Posted by OBW

And since the others are not nearly as divided as you seem to think, it would appear that the LRC is more divided from the rest of Christianity than most of that myriad of groups with different names are from each other. It is a sad commentary that the group that declares itself to be, by definition, one with all believers is actually more divided from all of them than almost any of them are from each other.

If they are not so divided, then why do they still have different names and different identities? Why the largest of them still has closed communion? Your sensationalist claim that we are "more divided" is not grounded in fact. The first fact about division is that the largest church in Christianity - the Roman Catholic, of 1.2 billion, consider themselves to be the only church in the city, and no ecumenical movement or niceties between them and the protestant sects has ever changed that or will change that. That's divisive. They still practice closed communion, that has not changed.

The second fact is that the second largest group of Protestantism, numbering 800 million, is actually made up of hundreds of divisions itself.
Taken to the extreme, two or three here is one church, and another two and three there is another church. Suddenly there are 10,000 churches in the one city. It becomes not only more divisive than the Catholic, but also more ridiculous.

Originally Posted by OBW

And despite all the apparent disagreement here, we have less reason to reject you than you do to reject everyone else. And you probably agree with me and are proud of it. I stand as one with all believers without the need for them to come to my assembly and listen to the ministry of the dead man I follow. And I am not opposed to meeting with any of them. I choose where I meet as a preference, not as stand against the others. You are the one that intentionally refuses to meet with others unless they come to you.

Layering a tale about Mrs. Smith into the mix does not make your group superior. If that metaphor actually was relevant, then your group is claiming the name of a city, not of its husband, Christ.

Go pray-read that for a while and see what kind of spin you can put on it.

You choose where you meet based upon preference, pretending to be one with all the believers. I meet with the church in my locality despite my preference, and I am actually one with them because there is such diversity in culture, nationality, race, education, and yes doctrinal opinion and backgrounds. When you say you as an individual meet based upon preference and not as a stand against the others, it sounds good for you as an individual. If everyone did that, then your church is grounded on preference, and not the solid grounding such as Christ, locality, or even the Bible or apostolic traditions and history that Protestant or Orthodox lay claim to.

In the case of denominations, their existence is not because of personal preference, but some sort of opposition. If I asked a church, like the Lutheran church, would they say "I am not opposed to meeting with any of them, we call ourselves "the Lutheran church" based upon our preference, not because of our opposition".?

Of course they would not say that. It has never been a question of preference. The Lutheran church did not start and continue today just because they prefer to be Lutherans.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Based upon your understanding, try explaining how the Lutheran church, is not a division over "which teacher to listen to"? Their very existence and name is because of Luther's teaching. They could have joined with the Anglican church long ago - they are very similar. Their name and teacher Luther is still a reason for them to maintain their division today. There is no way that they are all Lutheran today "just because they prefer to be Lutheran". Their preference comes from opposition.

This is an overlay onto a description that is not warranted. There is nothing inherently divisive about identifying the separate instances of anything. Me having a name is not about denying the humanness of others who have different names. Yes, in business, the grocery chains Safeway, Kroger, and Albertson's are in competition. But in life, people are not in competition merely because they have names other than like "human male, age 43, that live at [address]." Some are in competition. But it is because of their choice, not because of their name.

Universities are mostly separate because they are actually separate. They surely compete for top-notch students. But after that, they tend to be parts of educational organizations that ensure that they all are up to snuff on their academic rigor so that the graduates they generate are worthy of being hired in the marketplace. They don't necessarily agree with each other on every minute thing that schools so. But the differences are not really important to the overall purpose.

Same for churches. There are many assemblies. They are primarily there to spread the message of Christ and to help their participants grow in their life as Christians.

But along the way, there have been many side doctrines that have come to be argued over. Some follow the practice of baptizing the newly converted "and their household," and therefore baptize the newborn among their families. Others follow a "believer's baptism" regimen. I would hold to the latter, but do not find those doing the former to be unchristian. Some follow varying levels of Calvinist teaching, primarily understanding that salvation is once for all and cannot be forfeited. Others follow varying degrees of Arminianism with the understanding that there is the possibility of losing salvation.

If we do not deny the salvation of those who have come to believe in the Arminian way, if you simply ignore that fact, how do you determine what will be taught within your assembly. And if you come to a new city and are faced with many assemblies due to the significant size of the city and the significant size of the single assembly that would be required to put them all under one roof, how would you feel if you happened to go to the nearest assembly and find that they teach an Arminian doctrine. What would you do? If its only designation was "the Church in [city] at 34th and Congress" (or even the Church in [city], Hall 137), would you argue that there is a reason to refrain from attending that particular assembly due to doctrinal difference? If so, then you have divided on no more basis than any of the rest have divided. They use the "correct" name, but you refuse them anyway. No less divided (if at all) than the rest of Christianity.

In short, the name is a hollow gesture to set yourself up as correct (according to your own claims) in the given environment. But if the environment changes, then you would have to deal with the fact that names do not alter whatever it is that is correct or incorrect about anything.

I accept that we do not all agree on how to do every non-essential thing. And some of them are different enough from my thinking that I would prefer to meet with people who are not busy arguing over their differences, but instead move forward because we are not busy worrying about differences.

I know that you would do exactly the same. And the so-called "Local Churches" have done exactly that with assemblies within their own sect. for example, several years ago a number of churches joined together to excommunicate Titus Chu for daring to publish his own materials, for teaching young people to refer to bible dictionaries and references prior to becoming steeped in Lee's teaching on the particular subjects, and for wanting clean sheets on his bed. When they were done, there were some churches that did not agree. And as a result, the so-called local churches excommunicated whole churches and went to court to get both the property used for their meetings, and the name that they used.

This makes it clear that the names "church in [city]" is not about oneness, but about identifying a group so that it can be different from others.

Yes, the LRC names are unique . . . just like all the rest.

BTW. your example of a woman and her husband's name is a cultural thing. That is not the way it works in all societies. And in some societies, the taking of the husband's name is optional. Actually, it is that way here in America. Taking the name may be the common thing. But it is not required. And it does not mean anything to do it or to not do it.

If Cary Grant had married Marilyn Monroe, what name was required for her? Norma Mortensen Leach? Norma Jean Leach? Norma Mortensen Grant? Norma Jean Grant? Marilyn Monroe Grant? Marilyn Grant? Marilyn Monroe Leach? Marilyn Leach? There are actually some others.

The point is that unless there is actual adultery involved, the name says nothing. Therefore a story about a woman's name is not meaningful. And it would appear that the story about the woman and her name is more meaningful to Lee in defining the naming basis for the LRC than anything in the Bible.

And that is because there really is nothing in the Bible to support it. So he needs a story to make it work.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

This is an overlay onto a description that is not warranted. There is nothing inherently divisive about identifying the separate instances of anything. Me having a name is not about denying the humanness of others who have different names. Yes, in business, the grocery chains Safeway, Kroger, and Albertson's are in competition. But in life, people are not in competition merely because they have names other than like "human male, age 43, that live at [address]." Some are in competition. But it is because of their choice, not because of their name.

Universities are mostly separate because they are actually separate. They surely compete for top-notch students. But after that, they tend to be parts of educational organizations that ensure that they all are up to snuff on their academic rigor so that the graduates they generate are worthy of being hired in the marketplace. They don't necessarily agree with each other on every minute thing that schools so. But the differences are not really important to the overall purpose.

Same for churches. There are many assemblies. They are primarily there to spread the message of Christ and to help their participants grow in their life as Christians.

But along the way, there have been many side doctrines that have come to be argued over. Some follow the practice of baptizing the newly converted "and their household," and therefore baptize the newborn among their families. Others follow a "believer's baptism" regimen. I would hold to the latter, but do not find those doing the former to be unchristian. Some follow varying levels of Calvinist teaching, primarily understanding that salvation is once for all and cannot be forfeited. Others follow varying degrees of Arminianism with the understanding that there is the possibility of losing salvation.

If we do not deny the salvation of those who have come to believe in the Arminian way, if you simply ignore that fact, how do you determine what will be taught within your assembly. And if you come to a new city and are faced with many assemblies due to the significant size of the city and the significant size of the single assembly that would be required to put them all under one roof, how would you feel if you happened to go to the nearest assembly and find that they teach an Arminian doctrine. What would you do? If its only designation was "the Church in [city] at 34th and Congress" (or even the Church in [city], Hall 137), would you argue that there is a reason to refrain from attending that particular assembly due to doctrinal difference? If so, then you have divided on no more basis than any of the rest have divided. They use the "correct" name, but you refuse them anyway. No less divided (if at all) than the rest of Christianity.

In short, the name is a hollow gesture to set yourself up as correct (according to your own claims) in the given environment. But if the environment changes, then you would have to deal with the fact that names do not alter whatever it is that is correct or incorrect about anything.

I accept that we do not all agree on how to do every non-essential thing. And some of them are different enough from my thinking that I would prefer to meet with people who are not busy arguing over their differences, but instead move forward because we are not busy worrying about differences.

I know that you would do exactly the same. And the so-called "Local Churches" have done exactly that with assemblies within their own sect. for example, several years ago a number of churches joined together to excommunicate Titus Chu for daring to publish his own materials, for teaching young people to refer to bible dictionaries and references prior to becoming steeped in Lee's teaching on the particular subjects, and for wanting clean sheets on his bed. When they were done, there were some churches that did not agree. And as a result, the so-called local churches excommunicated whole churches and went to court to get both the property used for their meetings, and the name that they used.

This makes it clear that the names "church in [city]" is not about oneness, but about identifying a group so that it can be different from others.

Yes, the LRC names are unique . . . just like all the rest.

BTW. your example of a woman and her husband's name is a cultural thing. That is not the way it works in all societies. And in some societies, the taking of the husband's name is optional. Actually, it is that way here in America. Taking the name may be the common thing. But it is not required. And it does not mean anything to do it or to not do it.

If Cary Grant had married Marilyn Monroe, what name was required for her? Norma Mortensen Leach? Norma Jean Leach? Norma Mortensen Grant? Norma Jean Grant? Marilyn Monroe Grant? Marilyn Grant? Marilyn Monroe Leach? Marilyn Leach? There are actually some others.

The point is that unless there is actual adultery involved, the name says nothing. Therefore a story about a woman's name is not meaningful. And it would appear that the story about the woman and her name is more meaningful to Lee in defining the naming basis for the LRC than anything in the Bible.

And that is because there really is nothing in the Bible to support it. So he needs a story to make it work.

You seem to be referring to like-minded Protestant churches, however the divisions are still there between Catholic and Protestant - there is no unity between them.

With the Protestants, your view that they are not actually separate brings me to wonder why they have not joined together? If there is such commonality and unity why not join together? It must be the name that is dividing them, because the name tells a person whether they believe in one kind of baptism over another, whether they are Calvinist or arminian etc. Take away the name, you take away the problem.

Those who have joined the LR from various denominational backgrounds have done this. They have dropped the names of difference and tolerate differences of opinion. Those who attend one denomination over another do so because of differences of opinion regarding minor doctrines.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

With the Protestants, your view that they are not actually separate brings me to wonder why they have not joined together? If there is such commonality and unity why not join together?

I could say the same for you. You are so dogmatic about your name that you won't even participate in communion with others even though very many of them are more than glad to allow you to participate.

Yes, there are some that practice closed communion, but this is more because they are being very cautious about whether those who would participate are truly saved (no matter how they arrive at that conclusion). Since they don't know you, they take Paul's charge that some are sick because of taking the table when they shouldn't as a charge to them as overseers, not just a warning to the general population. Can't really fault them too much for being cautious on your behalf.

But still, most evangelical assemblies practice open communion. So they do not preclude you. You preclude yourself by insisting that they are improper and avoiding their table. And if you were by coincidence to attend such a place with relatives when they were observing communion, it is typical that LRC people will refrain because they deem it unworthy. Therefore the ones closed concerning communion in those cases is you, not them. You refuse to participate with others unless they come to you. As if you have the corner on what is a "proper table."

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It must be the name that is dividing them, because the name tells a person whether they believe in one kind of baptism over another, whether they are Calvinist or arminian etc. Take away the name, you take away the problem.

So, are you suggesting that if the assembly I attend simply renames itself as "the Church in Dallas" then you will be willing to attend no matter what differences in teaching from your preferences there may be?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Those who have joined the LR from various denominational backgrounds have done this. They have dropped the names of difference and tolerate differences of opinion. Those who attend one denomination over another do so because of differences of opinion regarding minor doctrines.

Ah. The truth comes out. It is not that they drop their names. It is that they abandon their assemblies and join with yours. It really doesn't matter about the name. It is about being in the group that follows Nee and Lee. And reveres them as the top ministers in their "age." And follows LRC teaching. And attends the (however many there now are) feasts each year. And has a standing order for LSM materials and only reads eManna and HWFMR.

You don't want the whole of the Dallas area churches to abandon their names. You want them to abandon their doctrines and take on yours. You want them to abandon care for the needy. To abandon modern praise and worship music. To abandon drums and electric guitars in the meetings. To have the Lord's table with a single loaf according to the first century recipe (all the way down to the bleached white flour). To join in the demeaning of all Christians who are not like "us."

In other words, to be the Christian equivalent of White Supremacists.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

But what if McDonald's and Burger King changed their names to the same thing?

Good point. And, come to think of it, this would be like calling the Son the Father. How silly would that be!

It took the early church many years to agree on matters such as the canon or the creeds, it did not happen overnight. Those who are called "heretics" today such as those who reject the Trinity, were once accepted, before they were forced to accept the dogma of the Trinitarians or else be killed.

"The early church"? Wow, you're admitting any Christians outside of the Local Church of Witness Lee were the church? I'm very happy that this forum has had at least one good influence on you my brother! Yes there was a very vigorous debate regarding the nature of Christ and of the Trinity. But debate and controversy within the Christian church has, for the most part, been a very healthy thing. Without these debates we wouldn't have the solid rock of many of the core doctrines we have today. The Reformation would never have taken place.

And a lack of healthy debate is what will eventually kill the Local Church of Witness Lee. Lee created an atmosphere where healthy debate was considered anathema, even rebellion. And what has this atmosphere created? A bunch of empty suits that are only capable of repeating the messages of a guy who has been 6 feet under for 20 years. I'm afraid the religion of the Local Church movement is in critical condition. The signs of rigor mortis are already taking effect. May God have mercy.
-

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

"The early church"? Wow, you're admitting any Christians outside of the Local Church of Witness Lee were the church? I'm very happy that this forum has had at least one good influence on you my brother!

What am I going to say, that there were no churches or Christians until Lee/Nee came along? Even they did not believe that.

Lee/Nee believed that any Christians "outside" were the church. That's the core principle of locality - of all believers in the city, not having any divisions. Any that do not consider those outside the church to be part of the church, are a sub-division or a sect.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What am I going to say, that there were no churches or Christians until Lee/Nee came along? Even they did not believe that.

Lee/Nee believed that any Christians "outside" were the church. That's the core principle of locality - of all believers in the city, not having any divisions. Any that do not consider those outside the church to be part of the church, are a sub-division or a sect.

I've read some about the principle of locality, but I'm not well versed.

What if I went to a city, say Fairbanks Alaska, and started the "Church in Fairbanks". Before starting this church I was able to verify that no other churches exist with that particular name and no other meetings are occurring where they consider themselves the "Church in Fairbanks". The elders of my church decide we will do our best to be a group of spirit led, bible adhering believers on a mission to glorify our Lord and Savior. Members may (or may not) be familiar with the works of Lee/Nee, but their names never happen to be spoken by a member of our church. Neither is any member of the Church affiliated with the works of the LSM in any way. From your point of view, would this Church be meeting outside of the 'ground of oneness'?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

I've read some about the principle of locality, but I'm not well versed.

What if I went to a city, say Fairbanks Alaska, and started the "Church in Fairbanks". Before starting this church I was able to verify that no other churches exist with that particular name and no other meetings are occurring where they consider themselves the "Church in Fairbanks". The elders of my church decide we will do our best to be a group of spirit led, bible adhering believers on a mission to glorify our Lord and Savior. Members may (or may not) be familiar with the works of Lee/Nee, but their names never happen to be spoken by a member of our church. Neither is any member of the Church affiliated with the works of the LSM in any way. From your point of view, would this Church be meeting outside of the 'ground of oneness'?

As far as I know, the LCM has never recognized any church which met "as the church in the city" which was not subservient to Lee and LSM. They always find some technicality by which to dismiss such a group and then proceed to set up their own congregation in that city.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

I was able to verify that no other churches exist with that particular name and no other meetings are occurring where they consider themselves the "Church in Fairbanks". The elders of my church decide we will do our best to be a group of spirit led, bible adhering believers on a mission to glorify our Lord and Savior. Members may (or may not) be familiar with the works of Lee/Nee, but their names never happen to be spoken by a member of our church. Neither is any member of the Church affiliated with the works of the LSM in any way.

Thanks leastofthese! You know, this describes quite a number of orthodox, evangelical churches throughout the world. It's a miracle! Christians of all sorts of nationalities, colors, cultures, social statuses "are meeting together as Spirit led, bible adhering believers on a mission to glorify out Lord and Savior"...ALL WITHOUT EVER HEARING ABOUT WATCHMAN NEE OR WITNESS LEE OR LIVING STREAM MINISTRY!! Praise God. I guess with God all things ARE possible!
-

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

I've read some about the principle of locality, but I'm not well versed.

What if I went to a city, say Fairbanks Alaska, and started the "Church in Fairbanks". Before starting this church I was able to verify that no other churches exist with that particular name and no other meetings are occurring where they consider themselves the "Church in Fairbanks". The elders of my church decide we will do our best to be a group of spirit led, bible adhering believers on a mission to glorify our Lord and Savior. Members may (or may not) be familiar with the works of Lee/Nee, but their names never happen to be spoken by a member of our church. Neither is any member of the Church affiliated with the works of the LSM in any way. From your point of view, would this Church be meeting outside of the 'ground of oneness'?

Let me put it this way. What if you were the apostle Paul and did that, and had no connection to the Church in Jerusalem where Peter, James and John were? Does that represent oneness or not? What if Paul then called his church the "Pauline Church" - is that oneness? People who did not like Peter and James's teaches could attend the Pauline Church if they wanted to, as it suited their preference.

What if you lived in the time of the apostle Paul, and you started a church according to his pattern in a city where a church was not yet. And you had no affiliation with the churches he established nearby (despite perhaps some of your members being aware of him), and did not receive his letters, reading only the 4 gospels. Does that represent oneness or not?

The bible describes interaction between the local churches - by way of Paul's letters and ministry, and also by way of practical help.

[TLFisher]

"Now there were at Antioch, in the church that was there, prophets and teachers: Barnabas, and Simeon who was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. While they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then, when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away." Acts 13:1-3

Couldn't this happen today where brothers and sisters are led into and out of various assemblies?
From my time in the local churches, when brothers and sisters are led out of the local churches it gets a bit personal and a bit heated due to the concept the local churches is the end and end-all until the Lord's return.
The concept the Lord is doing things outside the so-called recovery is unfathomable.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Let me put it this way. What if you were the apostle Paul and did that, and had no connection to the Church in Jerusalem where Peter, James and John were? Does that represent oneness or not? What if Paul then called his church the "Pauline Church" - is that oneness? People who did not like Peter and James's teaches could attend the Pauline Church if they wanted to, as it suited their preference.

What if you lived in the time of the apostle Paul, and you started a church according to his pattern in a city where a church was not yet. And you had no affiliation with the churches he established nearby (despite perhaps some of your members being aware of him), and did not receive his letters, reading only the 4 gospels. Does that represent oneness or not?

The bible describes interaction between the local churches - by way of Paul's letters and ministry, and also by way of practical help.

This is a very interesting response. I make no mention of 'not liking' a particular teacher nor wanting to name this church after any particular person (although - based on this thread - this is your default mindset of modern Christianity). I do not live in the time of Paul, I have received Paul's letters. But it almost seems like you are equating Paul to Lee? The implications of your statements (especially when carried to their logical conclusion) are serious and concerning for those who don't know Witness Lee. But "there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”Acts 4:12

Evangelical - I wonder where you live in the US and what your interactions look like with other Christian believers in your city or around the world. As I read your statements, such as "Yes, the local churches are certainly more open and welcoming to all believers in the city than many denominations are. Yet some insist that we are the divisive ones, when our open communion policy shows otherwise." I feel for you and pray that the Lord may reveal Himself to you.

I have been to these churches, shared a meal, slept in homes, prayed with, played with, worshipped with.... and I want to very humbly tell you that your mindset and reality do not match. It is true - in my honest reflection - that the most divisive church that I've been a part of or attended was that of the LSM denomination. In evangelical, protestant churches around the world, I've found this to be the true. No perfection, still fallen men grasping by the grace of God.

May our Lord and Savior soften our hearts, pour His Spirit fresh upon us, deliver us from evil, and point us to His Truth.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What am I going to say, that there were no churches or Christians until Lee/Nee came along? Even they did not believe that.

Lee/Nee believed that any Christians "outside" were the church. That's the core principle of locality - of all believers in the city, not having any divisions. Any that do not consider those outside the church to be part of the church, are a sub-division or a sect.

On this we agree. But that's only one shoe.

The other shoe is that Nee/Lee believed that their group had some kind of validity and centrality that other groups did not. This all was established, they believed and as you seem to, merely by calling themselves "the church in...", which somehow magically granted them a recognition from God that transcended all other groups--even to the point of establishing their elders as authorities over all Christians in the city, and obligated all other Christian churches to close their doors, resign their elders, join the LCM, submit to its leaders and follow Lee's ministry exclusively!

Wow! That's a lot of power established simply by calling oneself "the church in...". Pretty impressive!

This, clearly, is unreasonable nonsense. But it is the essential LCM attitude.