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

[Evangelical]

Yes a genuine church would recognize that it is the genuine church and others are not genuine churches but sects. In the Bible there are only churches and sects. There is no such thing as "other churches in the city". If a church refers to "other churches in the city" it proves that the church itself is a sect, not a church. If a woman refers to other women besides herself that are in a relationship to the same man, it proves she is not his genuine wife.

It would be strange to read in Paul's letter to the Corinthian church, for example, that there is "the church in Corinth" but there is also some gathering of believers within Corinth who also claim to be genuine. Similarly it would be strange to read about multiple genuine churches within the one city in Revelation - no where does Jesus refer to the churches (plural) in any city.

I am waiting to hear from Sons to Glory about whether their church is a church or a sect. If it's a church then there is no reason not to have the Lord's Table there, but if a sect then there is a reason.

[Trapped]

If you have two gatherings in a city, both of which consider themselves to be the genuine church and all other gatherings in that city NOT the genuine church, which one is the genuine church (regardless of what they think of themselves)?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Trapped

If you have two gatherings in a city, both of which consider themselves to be the genuine church and all other gatherings in that city NOT the genuine church, which one is the genuine church (regardless of what they think of themselves)?

I think we can tell by knowing which was there first. So which one was there first? The church established by Witness Lee or the church which Sons to Glory now claims is the genuine church in the city? which seems more like a faction of the original church established.

If someone leaves a group and then creates their own group, can they really claim to be the genuine first church in the city?

There are only a few possibilities here:
*all the groups that say they are churches are genuine churches. Unlikely given that any sect who claims to be a church is then automatically one just because they say they are.
* a genuine church is one which is the first following the biblical pattern of one church per city is the genuine church - most likely in my opinion.
*a church which splinters from the genuine church of one church per city is the genuine church - unlikely given that it is an off-shoot. The bible is silent about churches splintering and the one which splinters being called genuine. I believe the correct term for that is a sect or faction.

[Trapped]

In my question I did not refer to Scottsdale. I am not talking about "Witness Lee's groups" or "StG's group". We are talking about the principles of determining a genuine church. Human names do not play a factor in determining the genuineness of a church.

I am speaking of a situation where two different groups that have no connection or offshooting one from another, who completely independently from each other, both consider themselves the genuine church in that city and believe all other gatherings are NOT the genuine church. In that case, which one is the genuine church? Are you saying it is just who claimed dibbsies first? If so, what if they were established at the same time? Which one, regardless of what they think about themselves, is truly the genuine church?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Trapped

In my question I did not refer to Scottsdale. I am not talking about "Witness Lee's groups" or "StG's group". We are talking about the principles of determining a genuine church. Human names do not play a factor in determining the genuineness of a church.

I am speaking of a situation where two different groups that have no connection or offshooting one from another, who completely independently from each other, both consider themselves the genuine church in that city and believe all other gatherings are NOT the genuine church. In that case, which one is the genuine church? Are you saying it is just who claimed dibbsies first? If so, what if they were established at the same time? Which one, regardless of what they think about themselves, is truly the genuine church?

If two groups of believers are completely independent and started at the same time and did not genuinely know about the other ones existing, then both are gatherings of the one genuine church in the city I would think.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If two groups of believers are completely independent and started at the same time and did not genuinely know about the other ones existing, then both are gatherings of the one genuine church in the city I would think.

Now you are shuffling words around - "groups" and "churches" and "gatherings". The word "church" by definition means a gathering.

Peter the illiterate fisherman and Paul the sophisticated urban Pharisee preached the same gospel in the book of Acts, that God had raised Jesus from the dead. Everything we do and speak and live is either a furtherance of this testimony or a distraction from it; this applies both as individuals and when collectively assembled together. As Stg has said, it's a message wholly centered on redeeming love. The Son loved the Father and obeyed, and the Father loved the Son and raised him to glory. There is nothing else.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

Now you are shuffling words around - "groups" and "churches" and "gatherings". The word "church" by definition means a gathering.

Peter the illiterate fisherman and Paul the sophisticated urban Pharisee preached the same gospel in the book of Acts, that God had raised Jesus from the dead. Everything we do and speak and live is either a furtherance of this testimony or a distraction from it; this applies both as individuals and when collectively assembled together. As Stg has said, it's a message wholly centered on redeeming love. The Son loved the Father and obeyed, and the Father loved the Son and raised him to glory. There is nothing else.

You are describing the gospel here and not discussing on topic. Gospel preaching is not for the church it's for outsiders who need to be saved. There is no verse in scripture which shows an evangelist being sent to a church to evangelize a church - if a church needs evangelizing it is not a church at all. You are getting confused just as you are confused over the meaning of ekklesia. The topic is church, and specifically, how do we observe the Lord's Table? In this sense, there is something else, it's called the Lord's Table, and Jesus asked us to observe it, and many think it is okay to observe it however we please. These same sort of people observe the Lord's birthday however they please, on a date which is not his real one, and in a way which celebrates other things, pagan things, at the same time. Their love for the Lord is shown by the disregard they have for his wishes in the matter, and it seems okay for them to observe the Lord's Table in front of a television, with a hamburger and a beer, because they love Jesus. And if there is two or three of them, a family, gathered in front of the television, it is, by definition a church (two or three gathered together), and must have a lampstand. Until we come to Revelation, the light of God's Word, which reveals that one church in each city each has only one lamp stand. Therefore, a simple gathering of two or three believers in front of the television, cannot be a church by biblical definition.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think we can tell by knowing which was there first. So which one was there first? The church established by Witness Lee or the church which Sons to Glory now claims is the genuine church in the city? which seems more like a faction of the original church established.

Additionally, what is the responsibility of a group who wants to begin what they consider "the" genuine church in a city, regarding due diligence to find out if there are any other groups in that city who already are "the" genuine church?

How do you come to, for example, a large city like Los Angeles or New York City and determine from the hundreds, probably thousands, of gatherings there whether one of them is the genuine church in that city already (or any city)? I know you will set aside any denomination, but there are still many, many gatherings of believers not connected to denominations.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

*a church which splinters from the genuine church of one church per city is the genuine church - unlikely given that it is an off-shoot. The bible is silent about churches splintering and the one which splinters being called genuine. I believe the correct term for that is a sect or faction.

LSM divided every church in the Midwest, with splinter groups in each city now favorable to them.

Yet LSM considers only these splinter groups to be genuine because only they use LSM's books.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I am waiting to hear from Sons to Glory about whether their church is a church or a sect. If it's a church then there is no reason not to have the Lord's Table there, but if a sect then there is a reason.

Greetings from 7,000 up, in our trailer, in Ridgway Colorado, where we're on a couple week vacation from the 110+ degrees in Scottsdale! I see this thread/question gained a little traction whilst we've been traveling . . .

When I get some time to muse more about this question, I intend to answer it. Thanks for your patience.