Bible Answer Man Converts to Eastern Orthodox!

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

You would that all the body be a head. Or a hand. Or a foot.

We are the body, and members in particular.

But you would prefer to marginalize all who are not you. Make them of no importance. Cut of a toe. Or a finger. Or even an ear.

Maim the body for the sake of unity.

I do not see anything in Scripture which indicates that a group of Christians i.e. a denomination is a "hand" or a "foot". A view which says this denomination over here is a foot and this one over here is a hand is incorrect.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I do not see anything in Scripture which indicates that a group of Christians i.e. a denomination is a "hand" or a "foot". A view which says this denomination over here is a foot and this one over here is a hand is incorrect.

You are straining at the analogy while missing the point. Paul used the analogy of a body with constituent parts (hand, foot, head, eyes, etc.) to demonstrate that we need each other. When you argue that it does not apply to groups of Christians relative to other groups of Christians is to insist that it may not be OK to belittle or dismiss a single member, but doing it wholesale to an entire group is OK.

So cutting of a single member is a travesty that Paul spoke against, but if you can do it on a grand scale, like spiritual genocide, it is entirely OK. Arguing that the hand/foot/finger/head analogy does not properly fit is far from Carte Blanche to engage in such genocide. I was hoping that you had better reasoning skills than a 7th grader that might not even be able to grasp the idea as a person as being represented by a foot. Instead, you are unable to take an example that we understand and broaden it, even if it does not seem to fit because of the nature of the words.

You seem OK with the idea that the one body might have multiple feet, hands, etc. Even many more than the typical number in a real body. You don't have fits over the idea that an assembly might have 50 people that could all be referenced as hands. Yet you get your mind blown at the slightly errant use of the analogy when applied on a grander scale because it implied that a particular assembly might just be feet, or one foot. Pull your head out! Accept the limitations of the analogy and work with it. So an assembly is not simply a foot. But it is a collection of hands, feet, eyes, ears, and on and on, that is part of the body of Christ.

And you are willing to just throw them all into the trash because they do not follow your formula for naming churches. Or eating/not eating meat offered to idols. Or allowing a woman to speak in a church.

In other words, you are looking for reasons to invalidate Christians. Lots of them. In fact, most of them. They don't follow the teachings of your taste, which come from a very singular and certain teacher. His name adorns your bookshelves. Yet you think that you do not violate Paul's admonition of being too much for one teacher. (One which does not invalidate you or your group, but points to an error that needs correction.)

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

You are straining at the analogy while missing the point. Paul used the analogy of a body with constituent parts (hand, foot, head, eyes, etc.) to demonstrate that we need each other. When you argue that it does not apply to groups of Christians relative to other groups of Christians is to insist that it may not be OK to belittle or dismiss a single member, but doing it wholesale to an entire group is OK.

I agree that Christians need each other. So why the divisions/denominations? That is a much stronger argument for my view than yours.

Originally Posted by OBW

So cutting of a single member is a travesty that Paul spoke against, but if you can do it on a grand scale, like spiritual genocide, it is entirely OK. Arguing that the hand/foot/finger/head analogy does not properly fit is far from Carte Blanche to engage in such genocide. I was hoping that you had better reasoning skills than a 7th grader that might not even be able to grasp the idea as a person as being represented by a foot. Instead, you are unable to take an example that we understand and broaden it, even if it does not seem to fit because of the nature of the words.

You seem OK with the idea that the one body might have multiple feet, hands, etc. Even many more than the typical number in a real body. You don't have fits over the idea that an assembly might have 50 people that could all be referenced as hands. Yet you get your mind blown at the slightly errant use of the analogy when applied on a grander scale because it implied that a particular assembly might just be feet, or one foot. Pull your head out! Accept the limitations of the analogy and work with it. So an assembly is not simply a foot. But it is a collection of hands, feet, eyes, ears, and on and on, that is part of the body of Christ.

I am sure that Paul was not thinking about denominations when he wrote about the different parts of the body. Your fault, for misapplying the verse out of context.

I can easily show that my view is logical and yours is not.

Imagine there is a city with 1000 Christians. We believe it is one church with 1000 Christians. That number can grow as more people are converted.

With your view, suppose there are 10 denominations and exactly 100 people in each denomination. You would say there are 10 churches in the city. Assume the number of denominations grows, up to 20 denominations, but the number of Christians remains the same at 1000. There are now 20 churches with 50 in each church.

Take it to the limit - it is possible to have 1000 churches with 1 person in each church. That 1 person in each church is likely to be the pastor of each church, waiting for his church to grow in numbers so he can preach to some congregation and a conduct a church service. It might seem an unlikely, even silly, suggesting to contemplate - but the fact is that your definition of church allows for such a possibility, and mine does not. Therefore my definition is superior and yours is logically flawed.

Which of these two views are better representing the body of Christ that Paul talked about? Is it 1000 churches with 1 person in each church? Or is it 1 church of 1000.

Your view cannot handle the extreme cases - unlikely to happen, but possible.

Your view must also, by default, accept the LGBT churches, for example, as being a different "part of the body".

Originally Posted by OBW

In other words, you are looking for reasons to invalidate Christians. Lots of them. In fact, most of them. They don't follow the teachings of your taste, which come from a very singular and certain teacher. His name adorns your bookshelves. Yet you think that you do not violate Paul's admonition of being too much for one teacher. (One which does not invalidate you or your group, but points to an error that needs correction.)

As Drake alluded to, the denominations themselves, even their very existence, divides them. They invalidate themselves, when they stray from the New Testament way.

I can ask you a simple question which I know you cannot answer - give us one good bible verse that gives a biblical reason why the Baptist and Presbyterian churches should not be one church. Is the Bible their basis for division or is it something else?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

As Drake alluded to, the denominations themselves, even their very existence, divides them. They invalidate themselves, when they stray from the New Testament way.

I can ask you a simple question which I know you cannot answer - give us one good bible verse that gives a biblical reason why the Baptist and Presbyterian churches should not be one church. Is the Bible their basis for division or is it something else?

Let me ask you a simple question which I know you cannot answer -- why are there now numerous cities with multiple LC's? Many cities now have two, three, and even four churches all claiming to be the true LC, standing on the ground of oneness, and having nearly identical teachings and history, yet have no fellowship with one another. The Baptist and Presbyterian churches in the same city have far less animus, and far more fellowship, than any of these LC's, yet you readily condemn them, when they should be condemning you, but they don't.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Let me ask you a simple question which I know you cannot answer -- why are there now numerous cities with multiple LC's? Many cities now have two, three, and even four churches all claiming to be the true LC, standing on the ground of oneness, and having nearly identical teachings and history, yet have no fellowship with one another.

During my time in the LC I was told about a situation like this somewhere in the South - Tennessee? Texas? I don't remember. The point of the story was that the LSM elders actually do care about the ground of oneness - so if another local church started before the LSM denomination church, that non-LSM church would rightfully lay claim to that ground. As it turns out, that local church WAS established before the LSM church in that city, so the elders stepped in to merge the churches.

To no ones surprise, these two churches didn't merge - as the story goes
that church ultimately didn't want to merge (wonder why?)

For this reason the LSM church was able to claim the true ground of oneness (in their world) and it stands so today.

I'm sure certain members can come and try to poke holes, delegitimize, make accusations, to try and hang me from the rafters, but this was my experience and what I was told by a leading brother. Simple as that.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

During my time in the LC I was told about a situation like this somewhere in the South - Tennessee? Texas? I don't remember. The point of the story was that the LSM elders actually do care about the ground of oneness - so if another local church started before the LSM denomination church, that non-LSM church would rightfully lay claim to that ground. As it turns out, that local church WAS established before the LSM church in that city, so the elders stepped in to merge the churches.

To no ones surprise, these two churches didn't merge - as the story goes
that church ultimately didn't want to merge (wonder why?)

For this reason the LSM church was able to claim the true ground of oneness (in their world) and it stands so today.

The ground of oneness is according to a ministry. That's what makes them ministry churches. Many assemblies can say we meet according to the ground. Question is, what is the ground?
I know of two assemblies in Accra that met according to the ground. One is pro-LSM and the other is non-LSM.
Same can be said about other places.
Why don't assemblies in the same locality don't want to merge? I'm sure one of the issues that comes up is the matter of leadership and submitting to leadership. As well as what is the focus of the assembly?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I agree that Christians need each other. So why the divisions/denominations? That is a much stronger argument for my view than yours.

I am sure that Paul was not thinking about denominations when he wrote about the different parts of the body. Your fault, for misapplying the verse out of context.

I can easily show that my view is logical and yours is not.

Imagine there is a city with 1000 Christians. . . .

And we will stop there because the example is just too ridiculous to be worthy of supporting a doctrinal error.

Why the divisions? Because we don't agree on everything. Just like you don't. You are deluded into thinking that naming yourself on a magical formula gives you the standing to dismiss everyone else while deriding anyone else that might do the same thing to you or any other. There is no passage, paragraph or even verse (other than taken out of context) that grants special privilege to certain Christians because they got the name right or presume a certain boundary for the inclusion of Christians in their assembly.

As for your example of a city with 1,000 Christians . . . .

The first problem is that there is no church of 1. But even shrinking it in such a manner to 5 is to use a fantasy as your basis for truth.

The second problem is that an example of this kind is does not address the causes of the problem (even if you stop at 10 people per group).

But the primary problem is that you find the existence of 10 assemblies v 1 assembly to be a problem. Ignoring the extremist position of a very large number of very small groups, none of actual the assemblies (forget the forced shrinkage) that are in a general area think of themselves as the only proper church and the others as not church. (Always liked the old joke about the Church of Christ thinking that only they would be in heaven.) No. They recognize that the others are also part of the universal body of Christ. They disagree over points of doctrine or practice, but do not invalidate the others because of those differences.

And your little, new-kid-on-the-block group is really no different than the others. With one serious exception. You actually think that you have the standing to invalidate all the others. To demand that they come your way.

That your discovery of dirt means that they all have to come your way no matter how laughable so many of your doctrinal positions are. And how egregiously you disdain everyone else for not joining with you. (They don't do that. Only the "we are the true church" types do those things.)

You like what ifs. So I'll do one.

What if it actually happened. If everyone somehow got the idea that all in a city (or in a subset of a city that provided no more than a reasonable number meeting on one place) joined into one assembly.

You don't want what you would get. You would cease to be the ones in charge. You would first have to browbeat everyone into submission. And if that didn't work, you would have to rely on your headquarters in Anaheim to keep the influx of new people who disagree about Witness Lee from voting out the elders who want to run the show. You might not get some of your favorite doctrines. Christ would no longer be simply the Holy Spirit because too many true theologians of upright character would not tolerate such nonsense to be taught from the assembly that they attend.

Why would this be the likely outcome? Because to get your "everyone meeting together on the ground" you also would have to force them to accept so many horrible doctrines. And everyone would also have to desire to learn from Lee rather than the host of teachers available outside.

But it wouldn't happen. You might get a lot of people idealizing over the notion that all meeting together would be so "spiritual." But once you start tossing Lee and his doctrines into the mix, it would end.

Now the speck that is currently the LRC is the minority within the beast they created. No one reading HWFMR in the meetings. Most of the "open-mic" time eliminated because there is some concern that just anyone saying just anything could cause many to think that the group (and the Bible) agreed.

So what would you do?

Probably leave and start your own group that kept Lee as the MOTA, and was busy declaring all those in that one big church as "degraded Christianity" and your new splinter group as "God's unique move on the earth."

I can assure you that just getting the few that are regulars with the two assemblies that I have met with over the past 30 years in the DFW area would empty out the LSM bookstores, and end HWFMR, and errant doctrines like Christ became the Holy Spirit in the area. This would not be a matter of being mean. It would be the result of the local conference of spiritual leaders that would discuss and pray and declare that "it seems good to us and the Holy Spirit." It would end. Not more denigrating those who aren't meeting with us as "mooing cows" or the Whore of Babylon. No more teaching that the uniqueness of the Trinity is virtually irrelevant and Christ is just the Holy Spirit.

And if you think that appealing to Anaheim would help, I fear that Anaheim might itself be buried under a similar sea of change of direction.

In short, your fantasy that all the Christians in the world could leave the denominations and just meet as the church in their cities would look anything like the LRC or hold to any its doctrines would collapse. It would be like the Road Runner cartoon where the coyote goes into a large pipe which keeps getting smaller and smaller, then when he lets himself out of a faucet, is only 4 inches tall and grabs the Road Runner by the leg, but then holds up a sign that says "Now I've got him what do I do with him?" The answer is obvious. "Nothing." Because you don't have either the force of numbers or the force of spiritual right to run anything that you are not allowed to run by the group.

And I can assure you that nothing of consequence that comes from Lee would remain.

- - - -

Might a meeting with a lot of people who have different doctrinal leanings be a desirable thing? Actually, yes. But because of what it is, it simply would not look like any of the groups. And it would be unable to force strict following of a single teaching source. It might not always do the Lord's table in the form that you like, or that I like. (Actually, I like several different ways. And the LRC's way is not out of the question — just not some special, unique, and only way.)

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

And we will stop there because the example is just too ridiculous to be worthy of supporting a doctrinal error.

Why the divisions? Because we don't agree on everything. Just like you don't. You are deluded into thinking that naming yourself on a magical formula gives you the standing to dismiss everyone else while deriding anyone else that might do the same thing to you or any other. There is no passage, paragraph or even verse (other than taken out of context) that grants special privilege to certain Christians because they got the name right or presume a certain boundary for the inclusion of Christians in their assembly.

As for your example of a city with 1,000 Christians . . . .

The first problem is that there is no church of 1. But even shrinking it in such a manner to 5 is to use a fantasy as your basis for truth.

The second problem is that an example of this kind is does not address the causes of the problem (even if you stop at 10 people per group).

But the primary problem is that you find the existence of 10 assemblies v 1 assembly to be a problem. Ignoring the extremist position of a very large number of very small groups, none of actual the assemblies (forget the forced shrinkage) that are in a general area think of themselves as the only proper church and the others as not church. (Always liked the old joke about the Church of Christ thinking that only they would be in heaven.) No. They recognize that the others are also part of the universal body of Christ. They disagree over points of doctrine or practice, but do not invalidate the others because of those differences.

And your little, new-kid-on-the-block group is really no different than the others. With one serious exception. You actually think that you have the standing to invalidate all the others. To demand that they come your way.

That your discovery of dirt means that they all have to come your way no matter how laughable so many of your doctrinal positions are. And how egregiously you disdain everyone else for not joining with you. (They don't do that. Only the "we are the true church" types do those things.)

You like what ifs. So I'll do one.

What if it actually happened. If everyone somehow got the idea that all in a city (or in a subset of a city that provided no more than a reasonable number meeting on one place) joined into one assembly.

You don't want what you would get. You would cease to be the ones in charge. You would first have to browbeat everyone into submission. And if that didn't work, you would have to rely on your headquarters in Anaheim to keep the influx of new people who disagree about Witness Lee from voting out the elders who want to run the show. You might not get some of your favorite doctrines. Christ would no longer be simply the Holy Spirit because too many true theologians of upright character would not tolerate such nonsense to be taught from the assembly that they attend.

Why would this be the likely outcome? Because to get your "everyone meeting together on the ground" you also would have to force them to accept so many horrible doctrines. And everyone would also have to desire to learn from Lee rather than the host of teachers available outside.

But it wouldn't happen. You might get a lot of people idealizing over the notion that all meeting together would be so "spiritual." But once you start tossing Lee and his doctrines into the mix, it would end.

Now the speck that is currently the LRC is the minority within the beast they created. No one reading HWFMR in the meetings. Most of the "open-mic" time eliminated because there is some concern that just anyone saying just anything could cause many to think that the group (and the Bible) agreed.

So what would you do?

Probably leave and start your own group that kept Lee as the MOTA, and was busy declaring all those in that one big church as "degraded Christianity" and your new splinter group as "God's unique move on the earth."

I can assure you that just getting the few that are regulars with the two assemblies that I have met with over the past 30 years in the DFW area would empty out the LSM bookstores, and end HWFMR, and errant doctrines like Christ became the Holy Spirit in the area. This would not be a matter of being mean. It would be the result of the local conference of spiritual leaders that would discuss and pray and declare that "it seems good to us and the Holy Spirit." It would end. Not more denigrating those who aren't meeting with us as "mooing cows" or the Whore of Babylon. No more teaching that the uniqueness of the Trinity is virtually irrelevant and Christ is just the Holy Spirit.

And if you think that appealing to Anaheim would help, I fear that Anaheim might itself be buried under a similar sea of change of direction.

In short, your fantasy that all the Christians in the world could leave the denominations and just meet as the church in their cities would look anything like the LRC or hold to any its doctrines would collapse. It would be like the Road Runner cartoon where the coyote goes into a large pipe which keeps getting smaller and smaller, then when he lets himself out of a faucet, is only 4 inches tall and grabs the Road Runner by the leg, but then holds up a sign that says "Now I've got him what do I do with him?" The answer is obvious. "Nothing." Because you don't have either the force of numbers or the force of spiritual right to run anything that you are not allowed to run by the group.

And I can assure you that nothing of consequence that comes from Lee would remain.

- - - -

Might a meeting with a lot of people who have different doctrinal leanings be a desirable thing? Actually, yes. But because of what it is, it simply would not look like any of the groups. And it would be unable to force strict following of a single teaching source. It might not always do the Lord's table in the form that you like, or that I like. (Actually, I like several different ways. And the LRC's way is not out of the question — just not some special, unique, and only way.)

"But the primary problem is that you find the existence of 10 assemblies v 1 assembly to be a problem. Ignoring the extremist position of a very large number of very small groups, none of actual the assemblies (forget the forced shrinkage) that are in a general area think of themselves as the only proper church and the others as not church. (Always liked the old joke about the Church of Christ thinking that only they would be in heaven.) No. They recognize that the others are also part of the universal body of Christ. They disagree over points of doctrine or practice, but do not invalidate the others because of those differences."

You are talking about sects, not churches. For example the baptist sect is strict in its belief and practice on full immersion baptism, the Presbyterian sect is less so. Both sects are so similar they should have joined years ago - if they truly believed in the oneness of the body. Even though you say they recognize each other as part of the body of Christ, that is only in theory, not in practice.

"But it wouldn't happen. You might get a lot of people idealizing over the notion that all meeting together would be so "spiritual." But once you start tossing Lee and his doctrines into the mix, it would end."

Why would it end once Lee was put into the mix? That's like saying the early churches would end once the New Testament (of which almost 50% is written by Paul) was created.



You cannot provide one bible verse that justifies the division between Baptists and Presbyterians. Neither can Ohio. This shows that your view is unbiblical and wrong. The division was caused by man, not God.

I don't find it ridiculous at all, it is indeed a possibility under your definition of church, that a city have no net growth in the number of Christians and yet the number of denominations grows until there is only 1 person in each church/denomination. However under my definition of church, it is not possible for there to be a church of one person unless there is only 1 Christian in the whole city.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

"But the primary problem is that you find the existence of 10 assemblies v 1 assembly to be a problem. Ignoring the extremist position of a very large number of very small groups, none of actual the assemblies (forget the forced shrinkage) that are in a general area think of themselves as the only proper church and the others as not church. (Always liked the old joke about the Church of Christ thinking that only they would be in heaven.) No. They recognize that the others are also part of the universal body of Christ. They disagree over points of doctrine or practice, but do not invalidate the others because of those differences."

You are talking about sects, not churches. For example the baptist sect is strict in its belief and practice on full immersion baptism, the Presbyterian sect is less so. Both sects are so similar they should have joined years ago - if they truly believed in the oneness of the body. Even though you say they recognize each other as part of the body of Christ, that is only in theory, not in practice.

You cannot provide one bible verse that justifies the division between Baptists and Presbyterians. Neither can Ohio. This shows that your view is unbiblical and wrong. The division was caused by man, not God.

I don't find it ridiculous at all, it is indeed a possibility under your definition of church, that a city have no net growth in the number of Christians and yet the number of denominations grows until there is only 1 person in each church/denomination. However under my definition of church, it is not possible for there to be a church of one person unless there is only 1 Christian in the whole city.

If you study Corinthians, the divisions were more on a personal level, member versus member, eye versus hand, that any differences between churches. Look at the striking differences between the seven Asian churches. Many had more differences than today's church groupings.

But you love to apply your franchise model on all others in order to discredit them all, hiding behind false standards in order to cover up your own corruption. So who will God be pleased with? Who gives glory to God, and who brings shame to His name?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You are talking about sects, not churches. For example the baptist sect is strict in its belief and practice on full immersion baptism, the Presbyterian sect is less so. Both sects are so similar they should have joined years ago - if they truly believed in the oneness of the body. Even though you say they recognize each other as part of the body of Christ, that is only in theory, not in practice.

And at that, you have included the LRC as merely a sect because they do not carry any special status that excludes them from any of what you have stated. Your claim of special status is not founded on anything any more substantial than the RCC's claim that their pope links back to Peter and therefore has the keys of the kingdom.

And you distill the differences down to how they baptize. But if baptism is everything, then the Baptists were around practicing full immersion before the LRC came along practicing the same. I will use your own rhetoric on you to point out that despite the fact that you claim no set doctrines or practices ("No doctrines or forms that you have to learn to come and meet with us. Just . . . .") yet you do practice in certain ways. You would only immerse. Yet since the Baptists were around before you, why did you start a different group that opposes them. (Yes, you oppose them because you argue against their very legitimacy, not just think differently.)

You are not open to all believers. you are only truly open to those who will come to you. Who will agree to set aside other teachers and only learn from Lee (and a little of Nee). And who, to the extent that they can't quite do it all, will at least keep their disagreements about any of it quiet.

Otherwise it is the door.


There is a big difference between disagreement on issues and ideas and disagreement on who is actually in the church. And if you dare to say that we are all in the church, then when any of us get together to meet, we are the church no matter how much you don't like something about our positions on certain issues and ideas.

If there is a problem in the unity of the church, it is much greater when observed from the perspective of the LRC v everyone else. The 50,000 ft. view of Christianity as a whole looks more like a continent with cities and states while the LRC appears as an island with gunboats surrounding it. Why is that? Because you insist that it is so. You are so closed to everyone else (despite rhetoric about unity) that you put up a wall of partition. You declare that everything on your side of the wall is church and everything on the other side is sect.

And you think that if you just talk to the people individually you can persuade them. But what if the organizations do not come to you, but the mass of people who are in them and they collectively do not agree with you. What do you do then? It would no longer be about denominations. Your boogeyman would have been destroyed. I can assure you that I do not speak from the perspective of one denomination and not the others. We agree that when someone is saved they should become connected with the church. And not just my church. We would welcome them. But it is more important that they know Christ and connect with Christians than that they join my group.

How's that for your divisiveness claim??

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

And at that, you have included the LRC as merely a sect because they do not carry any special status that excludes them from any of what you have stated. Your claim of special status is not founded on anything any more substantial than the RCC's claim that their pope links back to Peter and therefore has the keys of the kingdom.

And you distill the differences down to how they baptize. But if baptism is everything, then the Baptists were around practicing full immersion before the LRC came along practicing the same. I will use your own rhetoric on you to point out that despite the fact that you claim no set doctrines or practices ("No doctrines or forms that you have to learn to come and meet with us. Just . . . .") yet you do practice in certain ways. You would only immerse. Yet since the Baptists were around before you, why did you start a different group that opposes them. (Yes, you oppose them because you argue against their very legitimacy, not just think differently.)

You are not open to all believers. you are only truly open to those who will come to you. Who will agree to set aside other teachers and only learn from Lee (and a little of Nee). And who, to the extent that they can't quite do it all, will at least keep their disagreements about any of it quiet.

Otherwise it is the door.


There is a big difference between disagreement on issues and ideas and disagreement on who is actually in the church. And if you dare to say that we are all in the church, then when any of us get together to meet, we are the church no matter how much you don't like something about our positions on certain issues and ideas.

If there is a problem in the unity of the church, it is much greater when observed from the perspective of the LRC v everyone else. The 50,000 ft. view of Christianity as a whole looks more like a continent with cities and states while the LRC appears as an island with gunboats surrounding it. Why is that? Because you insist that it is so. You are so closed to everyone else (despite rhetoric about unity) that you put up a wall of partition. You declare that everything on your side of the wall is church and everything on the other side is sect.

And you think that if you just talk to the people individually you can persuade them. But what if the organizations do not come to you, but the mass of people who are in them and they collectively do not agree with you. What do you do then? It would no longer be about denominations. Your boogeyman would have been destroyed. I can assure you that I do not speak from the perspective of one denomination and not the others. We agree that when someone is saved they should become connected with the church. And not just my church. We would welcome them. But it is more important that they know Christ and connect with Christians than that they join my group.

How's that for your divisiveness claim??

The fact that a new convert has to "choose a group", such as "your group" or "another group" after becoming a believer demonstrates the issue here. That is, being a born again believer and member of the universal body of Christ is not enough to grant a person connectivity with the whole body of Christ. The reason for that is denominations which create cuts or divisions in the body which simply did not exist in the new testament church.

You are pretending that denominations in a city are merely different groups of believers that see differently on a few things, which I know not to be the case at all.

If one wishes to be "connected with the church" the next question is "which church"?

In the bible this was not the situation of having to choose a church. They simply joined "the church" in the city.

In the denominational world, a person who wants to meet simply on the basis of them being a born again believer and living in a particular locality and being member of the universal body, does not have anywhere to go unless they choose the particular "type" of group that they want to join.