If you were in Scottsdale would you take the Table..

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I was hoping for more answers to this thread (thanks to those who did answer), so I want to direct this question to current LC saints: Would you take the table with us here in Scottsdale, since our legal name is "The Church in Scottsdale" and why or why not?

FYI - I know of a brother who gathers with us here in Scottsdale, whose father routinely meets with the LC in another state. When his father visits here he will come to gatherings, but he will not take the table with us. I think the reason he stated was something about "violating the oneness." I'm hoping someone could explain further what this means, as it doesn't make sense to me . . .

Best way I can explain is ones meeting with the local churches believe they're meeting in oneness and everyone else is meeting divisively. May come and meet, but to take communion would be considered partaking of division.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Terry

Best way I can explain is ones meeting with the local churches believe they're meeting in oneness and everyone else is meeting divisively. May come and meet, but to take communion would be considered partaking of division.

Are you with the LC now, Terry? I was curious about this matter since we in Scottsdale don't take any names (legal name is, "The Church in Scottsdale") and it would seem therefore, for all LC intentions, we should not be a division. Is then the reason a LC saint wouldn't take the table with us here in Scottsdale, only because we are not now "officially" affiliated with the LC?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Are you with the LC now, Terry? I was curious about this matter since we in Scottsdale don't take any names (legal name is, "The Church in Scottsdale") and it would seem therefore, for all LC intentions, we should not be a division. Is then the reason a LC saint wouldn't take the table with us here in Scottsdale, only because we are not now "officially" affiliated with the LC?

I am not. It's not about what name is being taken than it is about the assembly you meet with. Do they have a relationship with LSM? If not, they meet in division because of not meeting on the proper ground.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Terry

I am not. It's not about what name is being taken than it is about the assembly you meet with. Do they have a relationship with LSM? If not, they meet in division because of not meeting on the proper ground.

Let me see if I understand - so this doesn't actually apply to you now because you don't meet with the LC, right? I think you are saying someone with the LC would not take the table with us because we are not affiliated with LSM . . . is that correct?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Let me see if I understand - so this doesn't actually apply to you now because you don't meet with the LC, right? I think you are saying someone with the LC would not take the table with us because we are not affiliated with LSM . . . is that correct?

Not everyone meeting in the local churches may feel this way, but ones I have spoken to would abstain from taking the table.

[TLFisher]

Agree or disagree see the following thread started by Indiana

http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...ead.php?t=3710

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Is then the reason a LC saint wouldn't take the table with us here in Scottsdale, only because we are not now "officially" affiliated with the LC?

I would even say even to basics of meeting house to house. If the home meetings is not based on LSM publications, the fellowship is considered illegitimate. Thus no interest to meet with a non-LSM home meeting. This isn't based on opinion, but rather personal experience.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Are you with the LC now, Terry? I was curious about this matter since we in Scottsdale don't take any names (legal name is, "The Church in Scottsdale") and it would seem therefore, for all LC intentions, we should not be a division. Is then the reason a LC saint wouldn't take the table with us here in Scottsdale, only because we are not now "officially" affiliated with the LC?

Depends who has the genuine lampstand so I don't think a local church member would take the table with another group if they are not genuine lampstand. If God told your leader to start the lampstand in the city then we should fellowship there so it depends if you have the lampstand or not?

A feature of a genuine lampstand is that each lampstand is identical in appearance. Can we say that the Church in Scottsdale is of the same appearance and same shining as other local churches? What is the dominant expression of the church, is it evangelical, free/brethren, pentecostal, liturgical ? etc. Does it consider itself the genuine church in the city?

One question - do you consider "the Church in Scottsdale" to be "the genuine church in the city"?: Or do you see it as just one of many genuine churches in the city. If it's like this it not shining the same light as other local churches.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

A feature of a genuine lampstand is that each lampstand is identical in appearance. Can we say that the Church in Scottsdale is of the same appearance and same shining as other local churches? What is the dominant expression of the church, is it evangelical, free/brethren, pentecostal, liturgical ? etc. Does it consider itself the genuine church in the city?

Can you provide some more concrete examples or definitions of "same appearance and same shining"? This is an important topic and I think it would help to make sure there is a common understanding of what the terms being used mean practically, rather than floating around in the undefined, nebulous realm of metaphorical terminology. When we talk about different groups of people in different cities "having the same appearance" or "the same shining", can you flesh out a little further what that actually means or how it is practically worked out? It would help me. Thanks.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Can you provide some more concrete examples or definitions of "same appearance and same shining"? This is an important topic and I think it would help to make sure there is a common understanding of what the terms being used mean practically, rather than floating around in the undefined, nebulous realm of metaphorical terminology. When we talk about different groups of people in different cities "having the same appearance" or "the same shining", can you flesh out a little further what that actually means or how it is practically worked out? It would help me. Thanks.

Ditto! I wondered the same thing. Evangelical.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Can you provide some more concrete examples or definitions of "same appearance and same shining"? This is an important topic and I think it would help to make sure there is a common understanding of what the terms being used mean practically, rather than floating around in the undefined, nebulous realm of metaphorical terminology. When we talk about different groups of people in different cities "having the same appearance" or "the same shining", can you flesh out a little further what that actually means or how it is practically worked out? It would help me. Thanks.

A bigger question is can there be "same appearance and same shining" without Living Stream Ministry influences?
If the answer is yes, I say amen.
If the answer is no, then I say what we have are ministry churches.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Can you provide some more concrete examples or definitions of "same appearance and same shining"? This is an important topic and I think it would help to make sure there is a common understanding of what the terms being used mean practically, rather than floating around in the undefined, nebulous realm of metaphorical terminology. When we talk about different groups of people in different cities "having the same appearance" or "the same shining", can you flesh out a little further what that actually means or how it is practically worked out? It would help me. Thanks.

Does it consider itself the genuine church in the city or but one of many genuine churches (including denominations etc) ? If not, it is not of the same appearance and shining as other local churches which do. In other words, is it the genuine church in the city or is it one sect of many in the city?

That's why I asked Sons to Glory if they consider their church "the church in the city" as per "the church in Corinth, the church in Ephesus etc", or only "a church in the city" (one of many in the city). If it is only "a church in the city" then they cannot claim to be the one lampstand in the one city, but their lampstand would be smaller than that so would not have the same shining.

Whether or not the Lord's table is genuine or a sectarian Table is the key difference. The name doesn't matter if the identity is sectarian.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Does it consider itself the genuine church in the city or but one of many genuine churches (including denominations etc) ?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That's why I asked Sons to Glory if they consider their church "the church in the city" as per "the church in Corinth, the church in Ephesus etc", or only "a church in the city" (one of many in the city)

So the requirement to be a genuine church is just to consider yourself the church in that city?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Trapped

So the requirement to be a genuine church is just to consider yourself the church in that city?

It is one requirement surely. Why would a genuine church not consider itself to be the church in the city?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

So the requirement to be a genuine church is just to consider yourself the church in that city?

Exactly.

Just puff yourself up. Condemn all others. And claim to be something.

That is the very definition of Pride and arrogance.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Does it consider itself the genuine church in the city or but one of many genuine churches (including denominations etc) ? If not, it is not of the same appearance and shining as other local churches which do.

This does not provide any useful information as to what "same appearance and shining" means.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Trapped

This does not provide any useful information as to what "same appearance and shining" means.

Appearance - what it looks like - a denomination or a genuine city church?
Shining - what is it expressing - denominationalism or oneness?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Does it consider itself the genuine church in the city or but one of many genuine churches (including denominations etc)?

Did the 'ekklesia' of Acts 19:41 which was dismissed by the town clerk consider itself to the the "genuine church in the city" in Ephesus? Did the 'ekklesia' that Paul wrote greeting to in Romans 16:5 consider itself the "genuine church in that city"? If so, why didn't Paul call it as such?

We tend to read a 19th and 20th-century meaning back on a 1st- and 2nd-century text, and these are the kinds of presuppositions we need hold in order to ask the kind of questions we're asking.

I'd say, rather, that a "genuine church" doesn't consider whether it's the "genuine church" or not, simply because it has neither time nor inclination for such fancies. Instead it's focused on Jesus Christ, as Lord, Saviour, and Ruler of the kings of the earth. There's nothing else to consider. Everything else that comes into being comes from this one singularity (Heb 1:2; John 1:3). There's no need for our divided attention. Focus on "the one thing" and everything else is taken care of (Luke 10:42). Focus on anything else and the subtle one has room for his machinations. The "house of mirrors" begins - what is 'genuine' and 'proper' and so forth.

The Body doesn't focus on the Body - it's focused on the Head. The Bride doesn't consider itself but the Bridegroom. The only reality is in Jesus Christ, nothing else; nothing else is worth even considering.

There's no "ground" nor "ministry" nor "present truth" nor "present move" nor anything else. Jesus is the Minister of the Age. Jesus is the Faithful Witness. There is no other. The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews said, "We see Jesus" (2:8). When you see Jesus there's nothing else.

[Sons to Glory!]

DELETE PLEASE

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

Did the 'ekklesia' of Acts 19:41 which was dismissed by the town clerk consider itself to the the "genuine church in the city" in Ephesus? Did the 'ekklesia' that Paul wrote greeting to in Romans 16:5 consider itself the "genuine church in that city"? If so, why didn't Paul call it as such?

It's very simple - Paul does not use the language "genuine church" because there was not such thing as a "false church" at the time.

To be strictly biblical there are only churches and sects. Just as there are only believers and nonbelievers. The term "genuine believer" is a bit of an oxymoron, so is the term "genuine church". But because everyone thinks a building with a "yada yada church" sign on the front is a real church, I must make the distinction between current practice and the bible by using the word "genuine". Especially considering that a number of these churches are controlled by lesbians.

But now we have the situation where any group of believers can claim to be a church. Most Christians cannot discern the difference between a church (genuine) and a sect. This is because they don't have a solid biblical definition of what a church is. Some say there is no definition but there is if we look hard enough - if they want to say that they should cut out and keep only the red letters in their bible if they only want to follow the prescriptive parts.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by aron

Did the 'ekklesia' of Acts 19:41 which was dismissed by the town clerk consider itself to the the "genuine church in the city" in Ephesus? Did the 'ekklesia' that Paul wrote greeting to in Romans 16:5 consider itself the "genuine church in that city"? If so, why didn't Paul call it as such?

We tend to read a 19th and 20th-century meaning back on a 1st- and 2nd-century text, and these are the kinds of presuppositions we need hold in order to ask the kind of questions we're asking.

I'd say, rather, that a "genuine church" doesn't consider whether it's the "genuine church" or not, simply because it has neither time nor inclination for such fancies. Instead it's focused on Jesus Christ, as Lord, Saviour, and Ruler of the kings of the earth. There's nothing else to consider. Everything else that comes into being comes from this one singularity (Heb 1:2; John 1:3). There's no need for our divided attention. Focus on "the one thing" and everything else is taken care of (Luke 10:42). Focus on anything else and the subtle one has room for his machinations. The "house of mirrors" begins - what is 'genuine' and 'proper' and so forth.

The Body doesn't focus on the Body - it's focused on the Head. The Bride doesn't consider itself but the Bridegroom. The only reality is in Jesus Christ, nothing else; nothing else is worth even considering.

There's no "ground" nor "ministry" nor "present truth" nor "present move" nor anything else. Jesus is the Minister of the Age. Jesus is the Faithful Witness. There is no other. The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews said, "We see Jesus" (2:8). When you see Jesus there's nothing else.

Perhaps the very best thing I've read concerning this whole conversation!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Depends who has the genuine lampstand so I don't think a local church member would take the table with another group if they are not genuine lampstand. If God told your leader to start the lampstand in the city then we should fellowship there so it depends if you have the lampstand or not?

A feature of a genuine lampstand is that each lampstand is identical in appearance. Can we say that the Church in Scottsdale is of the same appearance and same shining as other local churches? What is the dominant expression of the church, is it evangelical, free/brethren, pentecostal, liturgical ? etc. Does it consider itself the genuine church in the city?

One question - do you consider "the Church in Scottsdale" to be "the genuine church in the city"?: Or do you see it as just one of many genuine churches in the city. If it's like this it not shining the same light as other local churches.

I left LSM and their LC's because there was no more shining. No more gold.

Israel also claimed to have the only golden lampstand in their temple, and the Lord Jesus left them with their house desolate.

Exclusive claims mean nothing to God. You can talk all day about who has the "genuine lampstand," and you have nothing more than talk, but nothing real.

If you don't have enough love to break bread with the church in Scottsdale, then you have nothing. You are sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. Without love, the LSM is nothing.