Bible Answer Man Converts to Eastern Orthodox!

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Drake

Koinonia,

You asked me a question in #90. That is what I am referring to. I am starting to get the impression that you are not taking this discussion seriously. Again, was that a rhetorical question on your part? If not, then what do you offer as a scriptural alternative to my response?

Drake

Drake, I did read your answer and found it difficult to take seriously. I understand the premise of your argument about Dan/the altar/Jerusalem/etc. in the context of denominations vs. the LC. But I was asking about the divisions that occur within the LC. You have numerous cities all over the world with multiple local churches (e.g. -- Toronto, New York, Stuttgart, Accra, Singapore, Manila, Quezon City, Sydney, Houston, Dallas, Chicago, Sao Paulo, Pittsburgh, Paris, Berlin, Montreal, Columbus, Indianapolis, etc., etc.) and numerous cities all over the world with (presumably) singular local churches that do not follow LSM (e.g. - Moses Lake, Scottsdale, Westminster, Cleveland, Neuchatel, Rosemead, Fountain Valley, etc.).

In all of these cases, the dividing line is the ministry of Witness Lee. So, is following Witness Lee the equivalent of returning to Jerusalem?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Drake, I did read your answer and found it difficult to take seriously. I understand the premise of your argument about Dan/the altar/Jerusalem/etc. in the context of denominations vs. the LC. But I was asking about the divisions that occur within the LC. You have numerous cities all over the world with multiple local churches (e.g. -- Toronto, New York, Stuttgart, Accra, Singapore, Manila, Quezon City, Sydney, Houston, Dallas, Chicago, Sao Paulo, Pittsburgh, Paris, Berlin, Montreal, Columbus, Indianapolis, etc., etc.) and numerous cities all over the world with (presumably) singular local churches that do not follow LSM (e.g. - Moses Lake, Scottsdale, Westminster, Cleveland, Neuchatel, Rosemead, Fountain Valley, etc.).

In all of these cases, the dividing line is the ministry of Witness Lee. So, is following Witness Lee the equivalent of returning to Jerusalem?

Koinonia,

Not take it seriously? You do realize that Dan got cut off from the tribes permanently in Revelation.

Do you think any of those "local churches" you listed should cut anyone off or refuse to fellowship with them because they use LSM material?

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Koinonia,

Not take it seriously? You do realize that Dan got cut off from the tribes permanently in Revelation.

Do you think any of those "local churches" you listed should cut anyone off or refuse to fellowship with them because they use LSM material?

Drake

Drake, I understand that honesty is not your strong suit.

But when, oh when, did anyone or any church get "cut off" for using LSM's material?

The "CUTTING OFF" has only gone one way. Only Witness Lee and now the Chief Blended has ever "CUT OFF" any brother, any church, or any region of churches.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Drake

Koinonia,

Not take it seriously? You do realize that Dan got cut off from the tribes permanently in Revelation.

Do you think any of those "local churches" you listed should cut anyone off or refuse to fellowship with them because they use LSM material?

Drake

Drake, history shows that the "cutting off" is almost always in the opposite direction. That is exactly the point I am making.

And, no, I would not agree with cutting off someone or refusing to fellowship with him for using LSM material.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Drake, history shows that the "cutting off" is almost always in the opposite direction. That is exactly the point I am making.

And, no, I would not agree with cutting off someone or refusing to fellowship with him for using LSM material.

Ok Koinonia

What do you mean almost always?

Drake

[Koinonia]

Drake, I already told you:

And, no, I would not agree with cutting off someone or refusing to fellowship with him for using LSM material.

I still hope you will address my post 122.

[Evangelical]

It was asked whether there was a church in LA before Witness Lee. This question can be answered in different ways depending upon the context.

As Ohio rightly stated
"The church is spiritual, composed of believers, those born of God to be children of God. When these ones gather, it is the church, and He is in their midst."

and Drake stated
"the answer is that every christian in Los Angeles is a member of the church in Los Angeles regardless of where they attend and where they go."

This church is the universal church, the one that we are always apart of, 24/7 whether we "go to church" on Sunday or not. This is sometimes referred to as the universal body of Christ.

In this sense, the answer to the question of a church in LA is yes - there was a church in LA before Witness Lee.

But when we come to the practicality of it all, the Sunday church meetings, it is a different story. The practical expression of the church in a city should be simply "composed of believers, those born of God to be children of God". The local expression of the church should match the universal church definition.

If there was no practical local expression of the universal church before Lee then the answer is "no, there was no (practical) church in LA before Witness Lee.

It is easy to show that a denominational gathering in a city is not a local expression of the universal church - a gathering of Lutherans in one city and gathering of Lutherans in another city, are expressions not of the universal church but of those who adhere to Lutheranism. They do not define a gathering of simply "those born of God to be children of God".

However when a Christian goes to a baptist church because they agree with baptism by full immersion, and a Presbyterian goes to Presbyterian because that is all they have ever known, we have the situation of denominations. A denomination is a sect which means a cut, or divide in the body of Christ. Strictly speaking, a cut, or divide in the universal body of Christ, is not a church but a sect.

The reason why many people believe any denomination/sect is entitled to recognition as a church is explained by the following statement:

There is a "tendency of the modern non-Catholic world to consider all the various forms of Christianity as the embodiment of revealed truths and as equally entitled to recognition." http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13674a.htm

This is the reason many Protestants consider that any denomination that teaches the bible is a church. In other words, if you have a gathering of believers in your city and they teach/preach the bible then they are entitled to be a church according to this thinking. The problem is a church may preach and teach the bible but also be part of the gay church alliance. Clearly, a gathering of believers which supports homosexuality should not be considered a church. This situation is possible if sects are wrongly defined as churches.

If a person believes that any gathering in a city is a church then the answer to the question is "yes there was a church in LA before Witness Lee". This thinking is flawed however, because hypothetically speaking, a LGBT church could have been meeting in the city before Lee came, and no bible believing Christians would accept that a LGBT church is a genuine church.

However if we consider that all denominations in the city before Witness Lee were not churches, but sects, then the answer is "no, there was no church in LA before Witness Lee, only sects/divisions/denominations of various names, doctrines and practices".

[Evangelical]

Based upon Ohio's definition of the church as "The church is spiritual, composed of believers, those born of God to be children of God.", I went on a search to find which was the first genuine local expression of the universal church in LA that fits this definition? I tried to answer my own question "Which church was the church in Los Angeles before Witness Lee?".

The first historical church in LA was a Roman Catholic church (there are two I think). I don't know many bible believing Christians who would say this was "the church in LA". It was the first Roman Catholic sect in LA, but not the genuine local expression of the universal church - it is not for those who are simply born again by faith, but for those who subscribe to Catholicism.

Then we come to the the First Congregational Church of Los Angeles founded in 1867. Today it practices gay marriage. I don't know many bible believing Christians who would say this is "the church in LA". This was the first Protestant congregational sect in LA, but still not the genuine local expression of the universal church.

There is the Angelus temple built in 1922 - "Angelus Temple was built in 1922 under the direction of Aimee Semple McPherson, who was the founder of the denomination, International Church of the Foursquare Gospel" http://www.10best.com/destinations/c...oric-churches/

This is not the genuine local church but a denomination of "International Church of the Foursquare Gospel".

I am still trying to find that genuine church that calls itself "the church in LA". We don't find it until we come to Witness Lee..Christians began meeting as the church in Los Angeles in 1962 http://www.churchinlosangeles.org/

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Drake, I already told you:



I still hope you will address my post 122.

I have hundreds of posts he and Evan refuse to address.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have hundreds of posts he and Evan refuse to address.

Here's a question - where did the preaching of the gospel to an Ethiopian eunuch, arguably good, become the 'abomination' the Abyssinian Orthodox Church? Where did Luther promulgating justification by faith become the harlot "Lutheranism"? If not at the beginning, where?

If there is indeed a slippery slope to doom, how is the LSM LC so sure it's not well on the way, or over the edge? What gives them their bland assurance, beyond Lee's repeated assurances?