Churches vs sects: a logical viewpoint

[Evangelical]

In Christianity today, there are many buildings with the words "something church". Today, it seems anyone with a pastoral degree and a denominational affiliation can start a church.

Most Christians don't know that the groups that call themselves churches are actually sects, according to a definition of church which has lasted for 1200 years (until the Reformation). Since the Reformation until today, Catholics have not changed their view about this. On the other hand, in Protestantism, confusion reigns. Today, most Protestant Christians can easily define a church versus a cult, but find it challenging to properly define what is a sect versus a church. That is because they confuse the meaning of church versus sects and this actually stems from the Reformation, when for the first time, a group of Christians attempted to chart a new course apart from the Catholic church. These groups themselves, became the "new normal" in the countries they gained hold - Lutherans in Germany, Church of England in England. The term sect was then applied to any groups or dissenters which broke away from these. So on and so forth....

Today, the meaning of "sect" is largely reserved for JW's and Mormons, or any group which does not believe in the Trinity and is "different enough" from the major or well known denominations.

As the Catholic encyclopedia says:
The Protestant denominations which assume such an attitude are at a loss to determine the essential elements of a sect. In countries like England and Germany, where State Churches exist, it is usual to apply the name "sect" to all dissenters.

Over time, the meaning of the word sect and difference between a sect and a church has been lost. Today, Christians apply the word church to any group of Christians which reveals the truth of God, such as by preaching the Bible and holding to sound doctrine.
The flip side of this view is that any group who decides to preach the Bible and agree with the status quo is considered a "genuine church". It is not surprise then, that today almost anyone can start their own church and be accepted by the majority of denominations as a genuine church. Attributing the meaning of "church" to a group which preaches sound doctrine or is of sound quality, however, is a definition which does not stand up to the test of logic.

In another thread I raised a question regarding LGBT churches and their status as churches. Here is another: Why, according to most Christians, is a church which calls itself the LGBT church, not a church, but a church which calls itself "the Lutheran church" is a church?

Many Christians might say that the LGBT church is not a church because it stands for unbiblical things. They might say the Lutheran church is a church because its statement of faith is biblical and its doctrine is sound. However, suppose the LGBT church had only 10% actual LGBT members and the rest were faithful Christians, and 90% of the Lutheran church was LGBT with only 10% faithful Christians. Many Christians would not change their definition of which group is a church and which one is not. This is a kind of illogical viewpoint.

There is only one definition of a church that makes logical sense and is easy to apply and can resolve this paradox. That definition is that church is a single entity as defined by locality, and that both the LGBT and Lutheran churches are not churches but sects, or sub-groups within the Body of Christ. That is, the illogical viewpoint can be resolved by defining church not by quality, but by something which is independent of quality such as locality.

Under this definition, we can easily and clearly explain why the LGBT church is not a church. Why the LGBT is not a church? Not because they believe and practice unbiblical things, but because they are a sub-group of the church in the locality. Likewise, the Lutheran church is not a church, not because they believe and practice biblical things, but because they are a sub-group of the church in the locality.

To many Christians it may seem unfair to label both the the Lutheran and LGBT churches as sects, but we should realise that to label them both as sect in no way means that the quality of both churches is the same or that they are equal. There is clearly a difference - the quality of the Lutheran church may be very good. The term "sect" is viewed by many Christians as a negative thing, however its true definition does not have such negative meaning:

Some churches, however, still take exception to the application of the term to themselves because of its implication, in their eyes, of inferiority or depreciation.

The use of the word sect has become frequent among Christians. It usually implies at present disapproval in the mind of the speaker or writer. Such, however, is not necessarily the case as is evidenced by the widely used expression "sectarian" (for denominational) institutions and by the statement of the well-known authority H. W. Lyon that he uses the word "in no invidious sense" ("A Study of the Sects", Boston, 1891, p. 4). (The Catholic encyclopedia).


The Catholic encyclopedia says:
To the Catholic the distinction of Church and sect presents no difficulty. For him, any Christian denomination which has set itself up independently of his own Church is a sect. According to Catholic teaching any Christians who, banded together refuse to accept the entire doctrine or to acknowledge the supreme authority of the Catholic Church, constitute merely a religious party under human unauthorised leadership.



We have seen that to judge what is a church and what is not on the basis of quality or doctrine is not logical and leads Christians into confusion about what a church actually is. This is because what the church says it is and what it actually is may be different. The quality and doctrine of a church may change over time, just as it did for the apostle Paul in the New Testament. This does not, however, mean it is no longer a church.

For example, when the church in Corinth was founded, it was probably in a pure state. However various problems crept in over time, which the apostle Paul addresses in his letters found in our New Testament. According to the typical definition, the Corinthian church in the bible would not be a church because of its problems and immorality. However, we find that the apostle Paul never defines a church by its quality or soundness of doctrine. Paul never says to the Corinthians that they are not a church anymore because of their failures. Likewise for the Ephesians and other churches. In Revelation, most churches had problems, yet Jesus did not stop referring to them as churches. Ephesus had lost their first love for Christ, yet Jesus did not tell them to start a new denomination of the few lovers in their midst, and call it the "lovers of Jesus church".

So far I have defined church by its locality, as one way to define church without basing the definition on quality or doctrine. To my knowledge there are only two alternative ways that a church may be defined (without basing on quality or doctrine):

1. Catholicism /Orthodox - appeal to church history, traditions, lineage to the time of the apostles. Those who hold to this view may appreciate the organisation, structure and rich traditions. They make many convincing arguments regarding their authenticity as the genuine church. They do not see Protestant churches as real churches, but divisions or sects, because they consider themselves to be the one genuine church. Their viewpoint is independent of the quality of a church - a Catholic church, no matter how poor it is, will always be considered a genuine church, over a very good protestant church in the same locality.

2. Protestant and non-denominational - The true church is none of those which call themselves churches, but a third invisible, pure and perfect entity. This view I consider to be impractical. It exists in theory but not in practice. Those who hold to this view may have trouble settling down in one place and may be constantly seeking for "the perfect church". Some may settle for a good denominational or non-denominational church or one close enough to it (Baptist, for example), and live in the expectation that everything will be fixed on Jesus's return. Or they may stop attending church altogether out of frustration in being unable to find a church which fits their ideals. I believe that Spurgeon falls into this category - against denominationalism, and looking forward to a future time when the true church is revealed, while remaining in his denomination. This view might be characterised as a pessimistic or defeatist view. Their viewpoint is independent of the quality of a church, but they would never say that a church in the here and now can be a genuine church, because they do not believe that is possible until a future time when Jesus fixes all the problems. Typically, they believe that the genuine church no longer exists and cannot exist until a future time.

This viewpoint is somewhat right in the sense that Jesus will return and fix all the problems, and the many differences that divide Christians will be resolved. But this view is also wrong, in the sense that the New Testament does not speak of church in such a way, but as a practical and visible entity in the present.

There is a third definition of church I have not discussed which is independent of quality/doctrine which is that all who call themselves churches are genuine churches. While a number of Christians may hold to this view, I consider this view to be one that lacks discernment and common sense so will not address it.

reference:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13674a.htm

[OBW]

So there was:

1. The church traditional.
2. Then came the church universal (to make up for the outward splintering)
3. But from the beginning there was church that was simply church because it was the assembly of those called out by God.
4. And then came the group that took all that was deemed wrong with the others and deemed a better way upon an outward formula that would then require everyone to adhere to the internal preferences of one who declared himself to be the Oracle of God and the Minister of the Age.

When all is said and done, it looks as if the third one is most in keeping with the ways of Christ, the first and second have at least some support in the words and practices of the scripture, while #4 is the most sectarian of all.

And at the core of "sectarian" is "sect." So there you have it. Each has a view of what constitutes a sect based on their view of themselves. But the one that is the most completely dismissive of all others and insisting that theirs is the only way is the one that fits the definition the best.

And that is the LRC.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In Christianity today, there are many buildings with the words "something church". Today, it seems anyone with a pastoral degree and a denominational affiliation can start a church.

Most Christians don't know that the groups that call themselves churches are actually sects, according to a definition of church which has lasted for 1200 years (until the Reformation). Since the Reformation until today, Catholics have not changed their view about this. On the other hand, in Protestantism, confusion reigns. Today, most Protestant Christians can easily define a church versus a cult, but find it challenging to properly define what is a sect versus a church. That is because they confuse the meaning of church versus sects and this actually stems from the Reformation, when for the first time, a group of Christians attempted to chart a new course apart from the Catholic church. These groups themselves, became the "new normal" in the countries they gained hold - Lutherans in Germany, Church of England in England. The term sect was then applied to any groups or dissenters which broke away from these. So on and so forth....

Today, the meaning of "sect" is largely reserved for JW's and Mormons, or any group which does not believe in the Trinity and is "different enough" from the major or well known denominations.

I find it interesting that you are attempting to appeal to Catholic tradition in order to argue that most Protestant groups are just sects. First of all, while you are correct in pointing out that the word sect has a different meaning between Catholics and Protestants, an understanding of what defines a sect really has nothing to do with what identifies church.

I by no means believe that every group out there calling itself a church is a real church. As you have pointed out, the RCC would label any group who doesn’t recognize their authority as being a sect. So actually, it is the ‘traditional’ understanding of what a sect is that really serves no purpose. The reason Protestants label certain groups as sects is because it is a convenient way to point out that a group either differentiates substantially from standard Christian doctrine/practice, or also if the group is one of those ‘isolationist’ type of group that don’t want to play nice with everyone else. In any case, it is always good to be able to have a general way of identifying such groups.

It is only when the church is correctly defined that a sect can be identified. I’m happy with recognizing the church as an assembly of Christians, but I realize that kind of definition might be too simplistic or ‘broad’ for some. However, I think that a simplistic view of what defines the church is exactly where issues of doctrine or practice come into play, thereby helping to determine what is not the church.

As OBW has mentioned, groups who hold themselves in high regard are precisely those who are the most sectarian.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

So there was:

1. The church traditional.
2. Then came the church universal (to make up for the outward splintering)
3. But from the beginning there was church that was simply church because it was the assembly of those called out by God.
4. And then came the group that took all that was deemed wrong with the others and deemed a better way upon an outward formula that would then require everyone to adhere to the internal preferences of one who declared himself to be the Oracle of God and the Minister of the Age.

When all is said and done, it looks as if the third one is most in keeping with the ways of Christ, the first and second have at least some support in the words and practices of the scripture, while #4 is the most sectarian of all.

And at the core of "sectarian" is "sect." So there you have it. Each has a view of what constitutes a sect based on their view of themselves. But the one that is the most completely dismissive of all others and insisting that theirs is the only way is the one that fits the definition the best.

And that is the LRC.

Thankyou OBW for that insight. I agree that the third one would be most in keeping with the words of Christ, but unfortunately, this church does not exist. It is a theory. It ignores the practicality of the churches splintering into different groups. The apostle Paul no where sanctions this. In the bible we see visible, practical, imperfect churches, without any sort of name or identification other than "Christian" in each locality.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I find it interesting that you are attempting to appeal to Catholic tradition in order to argue that most Protestant groups are just sects. First of all, while you are correct in pointing out that the word sect has a different meaning between Catholics and Protestants, an understanding of what defines a sect really has nothing to do with what identifies church.

I by no means believe that every group out there calling itself a church is a real church. As you have pointed out, the RCC would label any group who doesn’t recognize their authority as being a sect. So actually, it is the ‘traditional’ understanding of what a sect is that really serves no purpose. The reason Protestants label certain groups as sects is because it is a convenient way to point out that a group either differentiates substantially from standard Christian doctrine/practice, or also if the group is one of those ‘isolationist’ type of group that don’t want to play nice with everyone else. In any case, it is always good to be able to have a general way of identifying such groups.

It is only when the church is correctly defined that a sect can be identified. I’m happy with recognizing the church as an assembly of Christians, but I realize that kind of definition might be too simplistic or ‘broad’ for some. However, I think that a simplistic view of what defines the church is exactly where issues of doctrine or practice come into play, thereby helping to determine what is not the church.

As OBW has mentioned, groups who hold themselves in high regard are precisely those who are the most sectarian.

Thankyou for that insight. I believe that a view which appeals to relativism (like OBW said, "our view of a sect is in light of how we view ourselves") cannot "define THE church", and therefore we cannot clearly see who are the sects. This is why, as the Catholics might say, they have no problem identifying the difference between the church and sects.

[aron]

We've noted on this forum that the most divisive of all may say, "Everyone but me is divisive". And the most fractious among us may insist that all agree with them on minutae or else there never will be peace.

Rather than simply wave off such, we might, for the sake of the young and the easily swayed, ask how such positions come about. And I'm guessing here it's not due to venality. Jesus said that we're all evil. ( Matt 7:11; Lu 11:3)

No, I think it is ignorance of God's word which forms the plate upon which human logic carries one away from peace, satisfaction and rest.

Note the gospel introduction: Jesus said, "My church" in Matthew 16. It was well understood to the hearers and subsequent readers that there were other 'ekklesia' besides Jesus's 'ekklesia'. For an example, we don't need to leave the NT. "And with these words he dismissed the ekklesia".(Acts 17) Which 'ekklesia' was that? Not one of Christ.

The same combination of ignorance and zeal carried forth the recent Sabbatarians, 'Jehovah-witnessers' and the like. They lack context, then mis-read and misunderstand, then proclaim, "It's in the Bible!" and somehow mandated by their logic trains, and therefore they now can bulldoze through the weak, simple, and gullible.

[Evangelical]

Could you elaborate on who these 'other ekklesia' are?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Could you elaborate on who these 'other ekklesia' are?

Do you even know what the word 'ekklesia' meant in 33 AD?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

Do you even know what the word 'ekklesia' meant in 33 AD?

Why don't you enlighten us.

A common definition is found here:
https://www.gotquestions.org/definition-ekklesia.html

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Thankyou OBW for that insight. I agree that the third one would be most in keeping with the words of Christ, but unfortunately, this church does not exist. It is a theory. It ignores the practicality of the churches splintering into different groups. The apostle Paul no where sanctions this. In the bible we see visible, practical, imperfect churches, without any sort of name or identification other than "Christian" in each locality.

I'm not so sure that #3 does not exist. For the most part, even #2 is on the edge of #3. From what I can read about the church, while it is universal, it is also "local" in the sense that an assembly is an assembly.

It appears to me that the difference between #2 and #3 is whether they are focused on the things that cause one assembly to exist separate from other assemblies v those who simply are an assembly and are not concerned about it. Either way, there are reasons that they separately exist. So the real question is not whether you know your reasons, but that there are reasons. So then you have to consider whether the fact that there are reasons is really that important, or that each assembly is of those called-out — Christians.

Whether or not Paul specifically allowed or disallowed is not really so important except that to the extent that he did speak against something, it is important. But he did not speak against the existence of separate assemblies. Period. Amen. End of statement. Move along to next point.

He did speak about people having differences that were so severe as to cause some to exclude others. That is different from whether there are multiple assemblies that have identifiers other than the name of the city. There was never any statement made about how a church should be identified. Churches are in places. In cities, regions, countries, etc. It is true that no other differentiators were supplied, but it is not evident whether there was not any such differentiators in existence, or whether the intent was to write to the whole of he body of Christ in an area therefore it was not simply to a single assembly but rather to all believers in a place.

It would appear that you presume that if there were two separate assemblies in a single city that there must already be a problem and that Paul would not write to such a situation. But that is clearly not known. And in at least a couple of places, it is evident that the first recipient was requested to be sure to make a specific greeting to another.

It was specifically the exclusionary and puffed-up behavior in Corinth that got any ink on the subject, and that was not clearly on-point. Was that in-fighting within a single assembly, or a collection of assemblies that were having very open warfare? And if there were multiple assemblies, was the problem that there were multiple assemblies, or the fact that they were so opposed to each other?

Do you really think that all these assemblies in whatever city you are in are any more (if not less) opposed to each other than the LRC is to any of them? You claim oneness with them all, but only if they come to you. What gives you the right to make that demand but denies them the same?

While I would say that there are groups that have some questionable positions and practices, should we really be so opposed to them that we lash out publically? That we take out newspaper ads telling of their errors? Many have done this with respect to how other churches:

• Do worship
• Deal with gays
• Do or don't allow women to preach
• . . . .

Do you really think this is a good testimony of Christ living on the earth today? If we are Christ's body, then we should behave in the manner that Christ did. Eat with tax collectors and prostitutes. Be seen with undesirables. (And not be defiled by any of it.)

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Why don't you enlighten us.

A common definition is found here:
https://www.gotquestions.org/definition-ekklesia.html

Not a very compelling definition since it is exclusively a "theological" definition. Provide the definition without the Christian overlay. Paul was writing ordinary words to ordinary people. The definitions that only speak of the church are prepackaged redefinitions created centuries later to close the inquiry rather than facilitate it.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

Not a very compelling definition since it is exclusively a "theological" definition. Provide the definition without the Christian overlay. Paul was writing ordinary words to ordinary people. The definitions that only speak of the church are prepackaged redefinitions created centuries later to close the inquiry rather than facilitate it.

So am I correct in assuming that your definition of ekklesia is an assembly of people of any kind?

You continue to show an aversion to the use of theology on this forum, in this and other topics.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

I'm not so sure that #3 does not exist. For the most part, even #2 is on the edge of #3. From what I can read about the church, while it is universal, it is also "local" in the sense that an assembly is an assembly.

It appears to me that the difference between #2 and #3 is whether they are focused on the things that cause one assembly to exist separate from other assemblies v those who simply are an assembly and are not concerned about it. Either way, there are reasons that they separately exist. So the real question is not whether you know your reasons, but that there are reasons. So then you have to consider whether the fact that there are reasons is really that important, or that each assembly is of those called-out — Christians.

Whether or not Paul specifically allowed or disallowed is not really so important except that to the extent that he did speak against something, it is important. But he did not speak against the existence of separate assemblies. Period. Amen. End of statement. Move along to next point.

He did speak about people having differences that were so severe as to cause some to exclude others. That is different from whether there are multiple assemblies that have identifiers other than the name of the city. There was never any statement made about how a church should be identified. Churches are in places. In cities, regions, countries, etc. It is true that no other differentiators were supplied, but it is not evident whether there was not any such differentiators in existence, or whether the intent was to write to the whole of he body of Christ in an area therefore it was not simply to a single assembly but rather to all believers in a place.

It would appear that you presume that if there were two separate assemblies in a single city that there must already be a problem and that Paul would not write to such a situation. But that is clearly not known. And in at least a couple of places, it is evident that the first recipient was requested to be sure to make a specific greeting to another.

It was specifically the exclusionary and puffed-up behavior in Corinth that got any ink on the subject, and that was not clearly on-point. Was that in-fighting within a single assembly, or a collection of assemblies that were having very open warfare? And if there were multiple assemblies, was the problem that there were multiple assemblies, or the fact that they were so opposed to each other?

Do you really think that all these assemblies in whatever city you are in are any more (if not less) opposed to each other than the LRC is to any of them? You claim oneness with them all, but only if they come to you. What gives you the right to make that demand but denies them the same?

While I would say that there are groups that have some questionable positions and practices, should we really be so opposed to them that we lash out publically? That we take out newspaper ads telling of their errors? Many have done this with respect to how other churches:

• Do worship
• Deal with gays
• Do or don't allow women to preach
• . . . .

Do you really think this is a good testimony of Christ living on the earth today? If we are Christ's body, then we should behave in the manner that Christ did. Eat with tax collectors and prostitutes. Be seen with undesirables. (And not be defiled by any of it.)

The is not about multiple assemblies in a locality. That is Scriptural.
The is about the identity "is Christ divided?", the division and sectarianism of "I follow Paul".

In Paul's time, there could have been a group following Apollos who held firmly to the teachings of Paul. In terms of doctrine and practice there would have been little difference. The difference was, that group took their identity as "Apollos followers", and for no good reason other than preferring the teaching of Apollos over Paul. So Christ looks divided, to which Paul would say "is Christ divided? did Apollos or Paul die for you?".

Some divisions are right. Without division we cannot be holy. For example, the division between the Roman Catholic and Lutheran church is right. The division between the brethren or presbyterian and church of England ( a Roman Catholic proxy) is also right. But there is little justification for the existence of two different community churches, or one baptist and one Presbyterian church, on the same street. The key difference between baptist and Presbyterian is really just the name and organizational structure. Both practice baptism by full immersion, both are very similar in structure and style. Yet they remain separated because of "I follow baptist" versus "I follow presbyterian".

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The is not about multiple assemblies in a locality. That is Scriptural.
The is about the identity "is Christ divided?", the division and sectarianism of "I follow Paul".

In Paul's time, there could have been a group following Apollos who held firmly to the teachings of Paul. In terms of doctrine and practice there would have been little difference. The difference was, that group took their identity as "Apollos followers", and for no good reason other than preferring the teaching of Apollos over Paul. So Christ looks divided, to which Paul would say "is Christ divided? did Apollos or Paul die for you?".

Some divisions are right. Without division we cannot be holy. For example, the division between the Roman Catholic and Lutheran church is right. The division between the brethren or presbyterian and church of England ( a Roman Catholic proxy) is also right. But there is little justification for the existence of two different community churches, or one baptist and one Presbyterian church, on the same street. The key difference between baptist and Presbyterian is really just the name and organizational structure. Both practice baptism by full immersion, both are very similar in structure and style. Yet they remain separated because of "I follow baptist" versus "I follow presbyterian".

You can't define the bases for separation on Lee's claim that they call out that they follow anything particular. The Baptists do not cry out "I follow Baptist" and refuse those who follow another way. That is a false statement added to the discussion to create a problem that is not there.

But the real problem is that you feel free to say some divisions are good while others are bad and then declare that you know which are which and that yours is the only one that stands properly, therefore everyone else is an improper division from you.

You make the divisions more than they are. The separation between the Baptists and the Presbyterians is less than the separation between either and the LRC. But that is not because of the positions of the Baptists or the Presbyterians. It is because of you. You refuse them, not the other way around.

While there are surely some personality cults around, the bulk of Christianity is mainly receiving help from many quarters. Almost none listen only to the insider teachers of their groups. (And I am not talking only about the level of the members, but also in the leadership.) But you can't say that about your group. Start a sermon serious on something written by John Piper and find out how fast it is shut down and a return to Witness Lee is enforced. (And you say you are not of Lee.) There are Baptist congregations getting good teaching from Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, and even Catholic theologians and writers. That is just like your example of people following Apollos that are well versed in the teachings of Paul.

But your group openly decries as a waste any attempt to read other than Nee or Lee as a means of spiritual enlightenment.

And you want us to stop being part of Christianity as a whole and separate to your little sect where we can be limited to only Nee and Lee (mostly Lee). All in the name of unity.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

You can't define the bases for separation on Lee's claim that they call out that they follow anything particular. The Baptists do not cry out "I follow Baptist" and refuse those who follow another way. That is a false statement added to the discussion to create a problem that is not there.

The fact that you would say "follow another way" proves that you don't understand the oneness of the Body or the teaching of the Bible that says there is only one way. To a denominational person, the Baptist is one way, and Catholic another, and Presbyterian is another way.

If there is a Baptist church and a Presbyterian church next door in the same street, and we choose one over the other, that shows who we are following. We may as well say "I follow Baptist" if we choose the baptist. There is no good reason why both churches cannot drop their denominational names and meet as one in the same street - that would be biblical.

Originally Posted by OBW

But the real problem is that you feel free to say some divisions are good while others are bad and then declare that you know which are which and that yours is the only one that stands properly, therefore everyone else is an improper division from you.

Some divisions are good - Lutheran separating from the Catholic church for example.

The problem is you don't have the discernment to be able to divide properly and know the difference

We are a right division based upon what the bible teaches, just like the Lutheran church is a right division from the Roman Catholic church because of what the bible teaches.

But try explaining the division between Baptist and Presbyterian churches based upon what the Bible teaches. I bet you can't, and thus my point is proven about right versus wrong divisions. That is because they are a division based upon what man teaches not the Bible.

Originally Posted by OBW

You make the divisions more than they are. The separation between the Baptists and the Presbyterians is less than the separation between either and the LRC. But that is not because of the positions of the Baptists or the Presbyterians. It is because of you. You refuse them, not the other way around.

How so? Our doors are open and the sign on the front says "All welcome".
We don't refuse anyone from a denomination to meet with us.

Originally Posted by OBW

While there are surely some personality cults around, the bulk of Christianity is mainly receiving help from many quarters. Almost none listen only to the insider teachers of their groups. (And I am not talking only about the level of the members, but also in the leadership.) But you can't say that about your group. Start a sermon serious on something written by John Piper and find out how fast it is shut down and a return to Witness Lee is enforced. (And you say you are not of Lee.) There are Baptist congregations getting good teaching from Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, and even Catholic theologians and writers. That is just like your example of people following Apollos that are well versed in the teachings of Paul.

I would think that the teaching based upon the Bible + Witness Lee is superior to the Bible + Methodist + Presbyterian + Catholic, + 10 other denominations. The sum total of teaching they receive in that Baptist church must resemble something like a Christian bookstore. Confusions, contradictions and in many cases, just wrong.

Baptists getting teaching from Catholic theologians? I am amused but not surprised that you would consider that to be a good thing and something to be admired. Even a devoted baptist might be shocked by that statement and agree with me that it is not right.

I wonder if Melton the Vampire slayer is one of the Methodist Priests teaching the Baptists?

Originally Posted by OBW

But your group openly decries as a waste any attempt to read other than Nee or Lee as a means of spiritual enlightenment.

And you want us to stop being part of Christianity as a whole and separate to your little sect where we can be limited to only Nee and Lee (mostly Lee). All in the name of unity.

Probably one's mind would be as befuddled as a person who shops at the fiction section of a "Christian" bookstore.

There is a problem that is there is a group of Baptists on the same street as the group of Presbyterians. Denominations and denominational names are unnecessary constructs that were not required in the early church and are not required toady. In that street, to choose a baptist church that says Baptist on the front door is like saying "I follow Baptist".

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Why don't you enlighten us.

A common definition is found here:
https://www.gotquestions.org/definition-ekklesia.html

You're hiding. The question was, "What did the word mean when Jesus spoke it to the disciples in AD 33?" It wasn't, "What does the word mean to us today, e.g., on 'gotquestions.org?"

Come to the light, it's okay.

Witness Lee would say, "Most Christians believe that. . ", and "Most Christians think that. . ". I notice you follow the same trend, using similar phrases in the first post. Wouldn't it be good then to have some interest in what most hearers would reasonably grasp, when Jesus spoke something to them? Especially when it's apparently a word so utterly foundational and crucial to the conduct of one's spiritual journey?

I'll give a clue: look at the Septuagint, find the word 'ekklesia', and see what it typically translates to. And my other NT reference was wrong, it wasn't Acts 17; it was Acts 19:41. "And with these words, he dismissed the 'ekklesia'".

Just think for a bit. Don't be so dismissive. You're trying to be logical -- then go into the language, and think. Follow it, and don't shoe-horn it into pre-suppositions. Let the word speak. "The unfolding of Your word gives light; it brings understanding to the simple." Let the word open itself to you, as it's actually used, and it will guide you. You're really not far from escaping a bear-trap presently gripping your brain. "The word is near you. . "

[aron]

Suppose, for the sake of discussion, that Evangelical was spot-on. One church per city! So simple! God's plan!

Okay then why don't we all join the Orthodox faith? And I'm not just thinking Greek, here; the Abyssinian was arguably founded by an apostle in the book of Acts. The Armenian was started in the 4th century. Question: why so cavalierly dismiss the church based on 'history and tradition', as you say, if that history is found in the Bible?

It certainly seems to have more basis than the church founded by Watchman Nee in China in 1924. Look at the 'history and tradition' of that movement.

Imagine, for the sake of discussion, that you've been faithfully meeting according to 'the ground' for decades, and one day you get a phone call from Anaheim. Are you with BP & the Blendeds or with TC? Or DYL? At some point you should begin to realize that it was all a sham, that 'the church' was a cover for 'the ministry', which was a cover for the sleights of humanity.

No, the Greeks were wrong. The Jews. Luther. Everybody but Nee. History and tradition, indeed. As I said, this is the kind of untrammeled subjectivism, of zeal and ignorance that produced the Sabbaterians and Jehovahs Witnesses. "Everyone is in darkness but us."

As Lee told it, Then God raised up Watchman Nee, and through this special anointed vessel led us all to the glorious church.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

You're hiding. The question was, "What did the word mean when Jesus spoke it to the disciples in AD 33?" It wasn't, "What does the word mean to us today, e.g., on 'gotquestions.org?"

Come to the light, it's okay.

Witness Lee would say, "Most Christians believe that. . ", and "Most Christians think that. . ". I notice you follow the same trend, using similar phrases in the first post. Wouldn't it be good then to have some interest in what most hearers would reasonably grasp, when Jesus spoke something to them? Especially when it's apparently a word so utterly foundational and crucial to the conduct of one's spiritual journey?

I'll give a clue: look at the Septuagint, find the word 'ekklesia', and see what it typically translates to. And my other NT reference was wrong, it wasn't Acts 17; it was Acts 19:41. "And with these words, he dismissed the 'ekklesia'".

Just think for a bit. Don't be so dismissive. You're trying to be logical -- then go into the language, and think. Follow it, and don't shoe-horn it into pre-suppositions. Let the word speak. "The unfolding of Your word gives light; it brings understanding to the simple." Let the word open itself to you, as it's actually used, and it will guide you. You're really not far from escaping a bear-trap presently gripping your brain. "The word is near you. . "

Dismissive of what? Your definition? You haven't even presented your definition.

My reading has revealed that the original meaning was "assembly" and is made up of two words meaning "called out". It means assembly or congregation.

"Ekklesia is a Greek word defined as “a called-out assembly or congregation."

Now it's time to present your definition.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by aron

Suppose, for the sake of discussion, that Evangelical was spot-on. One church per city! So simple! God's plan!

Okay then why don't we all join the Orthodox faith? And I'm not just thinking Greek, here; the Abyssinian was arguably founded by an apostle in the book of Acts. The Armenian was started in the 4th century. Question: why so cavalierly dismiss the church based on 'history and tradition', as you say, if that history is found in the Bible?

It certainly seems to have more basis than the church founded by Watchman Nee in China in 1924. Look at the 'history and tradition' of that movement.

Imagine, for the sake of discussion, that you've been faithfully meeting according to 'the ground' for decades, and one day you get a phone call from Anaheim. Are you with BP & the Blendeds or with TC? Or DYL? At some point you should begin to realize that it was all a sham, that 'the church' was a cover for 'the ministry', which was a cover for the sleights of humanity.

No, the Greeks were wrong. The Jews. Luther. Everybody but Nee. History and tradition, indeed. As I said, this is the kind of untrammeled subjectivism, of zeal and ignorance that produced the Sabbaterians and Jehovahs Witnesses. "Everyone is in darkness but us."

As Lee told it, Then God raised up Watchman Nee, and through this special anointed vessel led us all to the glorious church.

Would answer to these questions be the recovery? or dispensational schemes?
Just like Luther recovered faith without works, Nee recovered locality based on a ministry?


To your point: You can't define the bases for separation on Lee's claim that they call out that they follow anything particular. The Baptists do not cry out "I follow Baptist" and refuse those who follow another way. That is a false statement added to the discussion to create a problem that is not there.

Amen, I have lived with, worked, worshipped, read scripture, etc with countless Christians without discussion of our denominations (or lack there of).

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Dismissive of what? Your definition?

The Bible. The word of God.

The typical post-Protestant way to create a faction is to look at the word until one finds their special meaning, then declare, "The Bible says thus-and-such", and proceed to create a following and a ministry. Like I said, the Sabbaterians and Jehovah's Witnesses are obvious examples. I put the "one church per city" so-called revelation in the same class. A vision is granted, the so-called vision of the church, which nobody's seen except with special glasses (Paul and Jesus saw it, but nobody picked up on it over the centuries). Then lo and behold God's special 'oracle' comes along with an understanding, or definition, that places them at the Top Dog position (no coincidence). The Nee 'ground' was followed hard upon by others that placed him squarely at the apex.

And what happens to the Bible? Where it can be used, it's used; where it doesn't fit and can be explained away, it is explained away, and where it can't be explained away it's ignored, or worse. Lee told us that great swaths of scripture were fallen, darkened men's human concepts, there only to show us what not to think. And his 'economy' supplanted it all. (But not Jesus' 'economy' of the gospels, per Luke 16:2. Paul's economy, as only seen by Lee. Again, selective use of scripture)

We all know the drill. But I'm willing to repeat it, if you didn't get it the first 856 times.

Lee showed no open-ness or curiosity to the word. He'd already figured it all out. He hadn't learned anything from anyone for 45 years. He just got successive 'revelations' that pulled his flock further and further into the ditch.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

My reading has revealed that the original meaning was "assembly" and is made up of two words meaning "called out". It means assembly or congregation.

"Ekklesia is a Greek word defined as “a called-out assembly or congregation."

Now it's time to present your definition.

Congregation. Assembly. Or, in LSM LC parlance, Meeting. Like the Monday night prayer meeting, or the Tuesday night Vital Group meeting, or the Saturday night college-age meeting, or the Lord's Table meeting. Can several meetings exist in the same metropolitan area? Or is that a division? Or do we play word-games? Like "Chinese-speaking meeting" and "English-speaking meeting" next to each other? Or, Meeting Hall One and Meeting Hall 2? It's not a name, right?

And Living Stream Ministry isn't a name, right? Or, Shouters (a term which Lee himself spoke giddily from the podium - apparently the prospect of 20 million acolytes was too strong). Your proposed One True Church has been played out dozens of times, post-Luther, and I've seen better variants than the Nee/Lee version. Why bother?

Why? Because it's a route to power. Temporal, earthly, human power. Just like the Gentiles, just like Jesus repeatedly warned us against. If the Baptists or Presbyterians get too weird, the sheep can beat feet - it's a safeguard against lording over the flock. But in the LSM LC we have to cover drunken Noah. "I'm proud to be an ostrich with my head in the sand", said one current Blended. That's no vision.

When Jesus spoke of "my ekklesia" there were others, as well; that would be understood, because the word was already in wide usage, pre- 33 AD. (And what of the gates of Hades? They attack the church? Where did gates ever attack anyone? Read up on your military history. And look up the adamantine gates of Hades. Then think about your 'ekklesia' and what it should be doing...think!)

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Witness Lee showed no open-ness or curiosity to the word. He'd already figured it all out. He hadn't learned anything from anyone for 45 years. He just got successive 'revelations' that pulled his flock further and further into the ditch.

In the Lee world, anything that challenged the so-called revelation of the oracle wasn't admissable. So all one has to do is bring up the verses that aren't part of the oracle. And the conversation is effectively over. It won't get them to change their mind, usually, because they have a default "the oracle is always right" mode, but at least it will preserve you.

In the case of the 'ekklesia' issue, note that they aren't keen on addressing the LXX. The 'ekklesia' predates Christ by centuries. Yet in the OT it's translated "assembly" and in the NT it's translated "church". And no curiosity why?

"I will declare your name to my people; in the assembly I will praise you." NIV Psalm 22:22

Saying, "I will declare Your name to My brothers; in the midst of the church I will sing hymns of praise to You.'' Recv Hebrews 2:12. No mention of the disparity.

Or, why is the town clerk in Acts 19:41 found to be dismissing an 'ekklesia'? Here if you look at the RecV footnote for the verse, the 'ekklesia' is called a "demonic uproar". I kid you not.

But no curiosity in the land of the LSM LC. The oracle wasn't interested, so neither are the acolytes.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Our doors are open and the sign on the front says "All welcome".
We don't refuse anyone from a denomination to meet with us.

It's a misleading statement to say "All welcome".
Maybe ones from a denomination would be considered more welcome than certain ones who used to meet in the local churches.
Certain ones experienced what it was to be shunned. Sure they have forgiven, but perhaps are not so willing to re-live the experience again.
Other ones it is a foregone conclusion, will be escorted out of the meeting. Only question is how long will he or she be able to sit before being escorted out?
Suppose I disclosed my last name. There's no guarantee I'll be permitted to sit through an entire LDM next time I visit the locality where my parents live.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The fact that you would say "follow another way" proves that you don't understand the oneness of the Body or the teaching of the Bible that says there is only one way. To a denominational person, the Baptist is one way, and Catholic another, and Presbyterian is another way.

The fact that you would argue that everyone should follow your way is evidence that you are unable to discern when the word "way" is talking about the way of salvation or the "way to the Father" v the way of meeting. Nowhere in the Bible is the way that a meeting occurs a factor in salvation or access to the Father. And the fact that we are able to use the word "way" to discuss it does not mean that we are talking about a different "way" to the Father.

Your way is just as different as any other. It cannot claim to be the "way to the Father." Only a way to meet. That is a completely different discussion.

And I figure you are smart enough to know that. Therefore it suggests an attempt to win an argument by cunning speech. Being crafty in you equivocation so that hopefully people do not realize that when you declare that there is only one way, you are not actually talking about the discussion at hand in any way, shape, or form. Just a carnival huckster trying to fool more to step into your house of mirrors.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There is a problem that is there is a group of Baptists on the same street as the group of Presbyterians.

Why? Because you want them to be with you instead of someone else? The real problem is that after there were Baptists and Presbyterians on the same street, a new group started up to declare that they were the true church and the others are divisions from them.

And the only persons stupid enough to fall for that were those who couldn't remember the order of numbers and thought that somehow the last one on the scene was really the first one.

And if you say that once upon a time I was that stupid, I just resort to my 12-step mantra. . . . "Hi, I'm Mike. (Hi Mike). I used to think that this new group I joined was the only real church because they said they were. I drank from their Kool Aid thermos for over 14 years. But now I've been sober for 29 years, 9 months and about 10 days."

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

Why? Because you want them to be with you instead of someone else? The real problem is that after there were Baptists and Presbyterians on the same street, a new group started up to declare that they were the true church and the others are divisions from them.

And the only persons stupid enough to fall for that were those who couldn't remember the order of numbers and thought that somehow the last one on the scene was really the first one.

And if you say that once upon a time I was that stupid, I just resort to my 12-step mantra. . . . "Hi, I'm Mike. (Hi Mike). I used to think that this new group I joined was the only real church because they said they were. I drank from their Kool Aid thermos for over 14 years. But now I've been sober for 29 years, 9 months and about 10 days."

Because I don't see that situation in my Bible of two assemblies in the one street divided by a denominational name and a global/international organization. Their insistence on remaining distinct from each other and holding separate Lord's table meetings every Sunday proves they don't recognize each other as genuine members in the body of Christ.

Now before you twist that around and say we do the same, I would point out that our division is based upon rejection of denominationalism which has sound biblical basis. Their division is based upon man's preference.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

The fact that you would argue that everyone should follow your way is evidence that you are unable to discern when the word "way" is talking about the way of salvation or the "way to the Father" v the way of meeting. Nowhere in the Bible is the way that a meeting occurs a factor in salvation or access to the Father. And the fact that we are able to use the word "way" to discuss it does not mean that we are talking about a different "way" to the Father.

Your way is just as different as any other. It cannot claim to be the "way to the Father." Only a way to meet. That is a completely different discussion.

And I figure you are smart enough to know that. Therefore it suggests an attempt to win an argument by cunning speech. Being crafty in you equivocation so that hopefully people do not realize that when you declare that there is only one way, you are not actually talking about the discussion at hand in any way, shape, or form. Just a carnival huckster trying to fool more to step into your house of mirrors.

Christ is the only "one way" whether we are talking about personal salvation or the church. The fact that you would take issue with my statement proves you have little concept of the oneness of the body or genuine salvation and do not believe in the universality and centrality of Christ.

In as much as the bible says Christ died for individuals, it also says He gave His life for the church (Eph 5:25).

Denominations focus only on the salvation of the individual and neglect the corporate aspects. This is why you struggle to understand what I said and meant by "one way".

Eph 5:25 says Christ died for "the church". A denominational person, in their lack of understanding, would first task "which church does Christ refer to?". They say that because they don't believe that "the church" exists, because they believe there are many churches.

So in reading Eph 5:25, they typically hold to a couple of incorrect views:

1) "the church" is only their denomination - Catholic, Orthodox etc are like this.

2) "the church" - is the sum total of all denominations - this is a conglomeration/confusion.

3) "the church" is the "mystical church" - a theoretical concept of a true and perfect church (in future time when Christ returns) which does not exist in the present.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Amen, I have lived with, worked, worshipped, read scripture, etc with countless Christians without discussion of our denominations (or lack there of).

But ask yourself why the pastor of one church would not be allowed to take a communion service in a different denomination. In other words, the inter and cross denominational efforts are still restricted to an extent.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

The Bible. The word of God.

The typical post-Protestant way to create a faction is to look at the word until one finds their special meaning, then declare, "The Bible says thus-and-such", and proceed to create a following and a ministry. Like I said, the Sabbaterians and Jehovah's Witnesses are obvious examples. I put the "one church per city" so-called revelation in the same class. A vision is granted, the so-called vision of the church, which nobody's seen except with special glasses (Paul and Jesus saw it, but nobody picked up on it over the centuries). Then lo and behold God's special 'oracle' comes along with an understanding, or definition, that places them at the Top Dog position (no coincidence). The Nee 'ground' was followed hard upon by others that placed him squarely at the apex.

And what happens to the Bible? Where it can be used, it's used; where it doesn't fit and can be explained away, it is explained away, and where it can't be explained away it's ignored, or worse. Lee told us that great swaths of scripture were fallen, darkened men's human concepts, there only to show us what not to think. And his 'economy' supplanted it all. (But not Jesus' 'economy' of the gospels, per Luke 16:2. Paul's economy, as only seen by Lee. Again, selective use of scripture)

We all know the drill. But I'm willing to repeat it, if you didn't get it the first 856 times.

Lee showed no open-ness or curiosity to the word. He'd already figured it all out. He hadn't learned anything from anyone for 45 years. He just got successive 'revelations' that pulled his flock further and further into the ditch.



Congregation. Assembly. Or, in LSM LC parlance, Meeting. Like the Monday night prayer meeting, or the Tuesday night Vital Group meeting, or the Saturday night college-age meeting, or the Lord's Table meeting. Can several meetings exist in the same metropolitan area? Or is that a division? Or do we play word-games? Like "Chinese-speaking meeting" and "English-speaking meeting" next to each other? Or, Meeting Hall One and Meeting Hall 2? It's not a name, right?

And Living Stream Ministry isn't a name, right? Or, Shouters (a term which Lee himself spoke giddily from the podium - apparently the prospect of 20 million acolytes was too strong). Your proposed One True Church has been played out dozens of times, post-Luther, and I've seen better variants than the Nee/Lee version. Why bother?

Why? Because it's a route to power. Temporal, earthly, human power. Just like the Gentiles, just like Jesus repeatedly warned us against. If the Baptists or Presbyterians get too weird, the sheep can beat feet - it's a safeguard against lording over the flock. But in the LSM LC we have to cover drunken Noah. "I'm proud to be an ostrich with my head in the sand", said one current Blended. That's no vision.

When Jesus spoke of "my ekklesia" there were others, as well; that would be understood, because the word was already in wide usage, pre- 33 AD. (And what of the gates of Hades? They attack the church? Where did gates ever attack anyone? Read up on your military history. And look up the adamantine gates of Hades. Then think about your 'ekklesia' and what it should be doing...think!)

Your post is more of a rambling than clearly defining what you believe ekklesia to mean.

I think you don't know yourself what it means.

I will help you by starting the sentence:

The ekklesia means...

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Your post is more of a rambling than clearly defining what you believe ekklesia to mean.

I think you don't know yourself what it means.

I will help you by starting the sentence:

The ekklesia means...

Rambling? In the RecV, Acts 19:41, the footnote says the 'ekklesia' is a "demonic uproar"? What kind of definition are you using?

I already gave my understanding, which I'm suggesting was the understanding when Jesus spoke it in the gospels, and the disciples would have understood: "My 'ekklesia'" of Matt 16 was the gathering or assembly over which Jesus presided. The same assembly as in Psalm 22:22, and in Hebrews 2:12. No need to translate a word one way to fit your concepts, and differently where you can't make it fit. "All the 'ekklesia' of Christ greet you" - there were ekklesia not of Christ, as Acts 19:41 shows.

And there could be, by definition, more than one ekklesia per metropolitan area. The LSM LC gets around this by re-labeling, and calling them "meetings". So a word means one thing for you when you need it to, and something else when you needit to be something else.

Notice how Lee never explained how 'ekklesia' went from 'meeting' or 'gathering' or 'assembly' in the OT to (mostly, where it fits the definition) 'church' in the NT. I daresay he was counting on us not noticing. Like with a lot of his stuff.

[aron]

At some point I expect Evangelical to fall back on the "everybody does it" argument concerning the varied translations of 'ekklesia'. In Psalm 22 it's translated 'assembly'; the same phrase, quoted in the NT, gets translated 'church'. Everybody does it. Why are you being mean and picking on us?

I'll tell you why I'm taking the LSM LC to task over it: because the Presbyterians and Baptists don't owe their existence to ignorant misunderstanding. The LSM LC does. It's whole being is predicated upon everyone being wrong but them, and when you point out their inconsistency they'll say, "everyone does this".

No, what most everyone else does is point to the gospel news of Jesus our Saviour. You point to the 'ground of the church' which doesn't exist outside your imaginations. In this you're very akin to the Jehovas Witnesses and Sabbaterians whose special revelations have led them astray.

[aron]

And we still haven't gotten to the gates of Hades. Was Jesus rambling, when He mentioned them in the same passage as the introduction of His 'ekklesia', or meeting, or assembly? One can only conclude that Jesus hadn't read the epistles of Paul and didn't yet sufficiently grasp 'God's economy'.

You know what Lee said about the gates of Hades? "Satan will attack the church". . uh, no.The gates of Hades took humanity in Genesis 3, and now Jesus the Son of Man was coming and death itself had to give way. O death, where is thy sting? This is the power of the ekklesia: to declare the atoning sacrificial death of Jesus Christ, and the resurrection and glories that followed. This is our testimony and hope, and I daresay the Baptists and Presbyterians, for all their faults, do a much more faithful job of it in their meetings than the elitist and self-centered LSM LC assemblies do.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

But ask yourself why the pastor of one church would not be allowed to take a communion service in a different denomination. In other words, the inter and cross denominational efforts are still restricted to an extent.

Interesting question. I'll ask around and report back. Anglican, Baptist, Lutheran, non-denominational, anyone else?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Interesting question. I'll ask around and report back. Anglican, Baptist, Lutheran, non-denominational, anyone else?

Those first 3 denominations should be enough. I am fairly sure that a priest or pastor from one denomination cannot take a service in the other denomination without being ordained in that denomination. Particularly with the traditional (Lutheran etc). They need to have special training to conduct the communion service.

If they were genuine churches then their pastors/priests would be able to minister in any church, just like Paul could minister in any church in the bible. Thus these denominations are not churches but sects. They are not like the different genuine church assemblies within the one city as per the New Testament, as some here are claiming. They are sects - a priest of a Lutheran church in one city may be able to minister in a different city, but only in the Lutheran church. A priest of a Lutheran church could not minister in an Anglican church of their same city. This is clearly a case of "I follow Lutheran" versus "I follow Anglican".

Furthermore, many Lutheran churches practice closed communion, but many Anglican churches practice open communion. In other words, unless a person is committed to "I follow Lutheranism", they cannot partake of communion in those churches.

You have said you have "worked, worshipped, read scripture, etc with countless Christians". However you will find the more fundamental church matters such as ministry, communion, and baptism etc is not something that can easily be done without mention of denomination.

By the way, members of the Recovery can also worship, pray and read scripture with Christians of various denominations and even with people in other religions. We do not prevent people from meeting with us or meeting with them.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

I already gave my understanding, which I'm suggesting was the understanding when Jesus spoke it in the gospels, and the disciples would have understood: "My 'ekklesia'" of Matt 16 was the gathering or assembly over which Jesus presided.

How exactly is your definition different to the ones I already posted?:

I will repeat:

The gotquestions.org article says:

"Ekklesia is a Greek word defined as “a called-out assembly or congregation."

The word in the New Testament was also used to refer to any assembly of people. In his address to the Sanhedrin, Stephen calls the people of Israel “the assembly [ekklesia] in the wilderness” (Acts 7:38). And in Acts 19:39, ekklesia refers to a convening of citizens to discuss legal matters.


My reading has revealed that the original meaning was "assembly" and is made up of two words meaning "called out". It means assembly or congregation.

"Ekklesia is a Greek word defined as “a called-out assembly or congregation."

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

How exactly is your definition different to the ones I already posted?:

I will repeat:

The gotquestions.org article says:

"Ekklesia is a Greek word defined as “a called-out assembly or congregation."

The word in the New Testament was also used to refer to any assembly of people. In his address to the Sanhedrin, Stephen calls the people of Israel “the assembly [ekklesia] in the wilderness” (Acts 7:38). And in Acts 19:39, ekklesia refers to a convening of citizens to discuss legal matters.


My reading has revealed that the original meaning was "assembly" and is made up of two words meaning "called out". It means assembly or congregation.

"Ekklesia is a Greek word defined as “a called-out assembly or congregation."

Good. We agree. And how many ekklesia can exist in one 'locality'? The LSM LC answer seems to be, that depends. If you label the assembly a "church", only one. But if you label it a "meeting", then you can have more than one.

Which means, if we do it, we call it one thing, and it's spiritual, biblical, and approved by God. If others do the same thing, we re-label it, call it dark and satanic and condemn it. This is subjectivism in full bloom, patently labeling the same thing as different things, depending on convenience.

Do you then get the point about Jesus saying, "My 'ekklesia'" in Matt 16? That there were understood to be 'ekklesia' not of Jesus?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Over time, the meaning of the word sect and difference between a sect and a church has been lost. Today, Christians apply the word church to any group of Christians which reveals the truth of God, such as by preaching the Bible and holding to sound doctrine.

This was along the lines of what I've been saying. The original meaning of 'ekklesia', that of a meeting, gathering, or assembly of some sort was lost. But at the time when Jesus spoke of "My ekklesia" in Matt 16, it would be well enough understood that there were other ekklesia not of Jesus' purview. A good example is in Acts 19:41. And when Paul said, "All the ekklesia of Christ greet you" in Rom 16:16, it was also well enough understood that there were in existence both ekklesia of Christ and also ekklesia not of Christ.

Likewise, there can be ekklesia on Friday night in Sister Smith's house, Saturday morning prayer ekklesia etc. They are meetings, gatherings, assemblies.

The LSM LC way is to label their gatherings as "meetings", and say it's okay to have many of them. This, they say, is multiplication. A blessing to God. But if anyone gives meetings non-LSM-affiliated labels, they're division! They've taken a name, are disapproved and near to burning. Only one church per city. Sorry. We are it.

And if they call it "XYZ Christian Fellowship" or "Jonesville Christian Assembly" that's also doomed in LC eyes. Because, again, it isn't affiliated with the LSM LC. Likewise the "Free Groups" who don't take a name at all. Lee & Co. put a label on them anyway. No label? Don't worry, we'll give you one. We have names for everyone. BUT of course we don't take a name! No! (daintily wipes corner of mouth)

Watchman Nee really just didn't know any better. He didn't grasp the 1st-century meaning of 'ekklesia', but instead read 18th- and 19th-century readings back onto it. But his gambit was hugely successful since the Chinese of his era didn't understand either, and it was the best way to get shed the Occidentals and remain 'biblical'. But 100 years later it looks much less sanguine. And the excuse of ignorance gets thinner as time passes. One has to be deliberately obtuse, at some point. "Oh, I'm just an ostrich with my head stuck in the sand."

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Those first 3 denominations should be enough. I am fairly sure that a priest or pastor from one denomination cannot take a service in the other denomination without being ordained in that denomination. Particularly with the traditional (Lutheran etc). They need to have special training to conduct the communion service.

If they were genuine churches then their pastors/priests would be able to minister in any church, just like Paul could minister in any church in the bible. Thus these denominations are not churches but sects. They are not like the different genuine church assemblies within the one city as per the New Testament, as some here are claiming. They are sects - a priest of a Lutheran church in one city may be able to minister in a different city, but only in the Lutheran church. A priest of a Lutheran church could not minister in an Anglican church of their same city. This is clearly a case of "I follow Lutheran" versus "I follow Anglican".

Furthermore, many Lutheran churches practice closed communion, but many Anglican churches practice open communion. In other words, unless a person is committed to "I follow Lutheranism", they cannot partake of communion in those churches.

You have said you have "worked, worshipped, read scripture, etc with countless Christians". However you will find the more fundamental church matters such as ministry, communion, and baptism etc is not something that can easily be done without mention of denomination.

By the way, members of the Recovery can also worship, pray and read scripture with Christians of various denominations and even with people in other religions. We do not prevent people from meeting with us or meeting with them.

Direct quote from Anglican Priest: "Good to hear from you. It’s a question I get often, actually. Not sure why. Maybe because Roman Catholics have a closed communion. For Anglicans, all baptized christians are invited to the table. This is what I love about Anglicanism, is it’s insistence that it isn’t a denomination but merely Christian. So with things like this, we say we have no communion that isn’t the church’s communion, no theology of our own but only that which the church has always believed and upheld as seen in scripture. "

He didn't really address he (himself as priest) taking communion, but nevertheless there is the quote.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Direct quote from Anglican Priest: "Good to hear from you. It’s a question I get often, actually. Not sure why. Maybe because Roman Catholics have a closed communion. For Anglicans, all baptized christians are invited to the table. This is what I love about Anglicanism, is it’s insistence that it isn’t a denomination but merely Christian. So with things like this, we say we have no communion that isn’t the church’s communion, no theology of our own but only that which the church has always believed and upheld as seen in scripture. "

He didn't really address he (himself as priest) taking communion, but nevertheless there is the quote.

Doesn't really address the question, but is interesting. Thanks for sharing.

For further about this, see:
http://anglicanpastor.com/anglicanis...enominational/

Anglican sees itself as the genuine church in the city. No different really to Catholic and Orthodox.

They try to stay true to the traditions of the early church, like Catholic/Orthodox, but reject that communion (I think we all know the history of a particular immoral English king).

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

This was along the lines of what I've been saying. The original meaning of 'ekklesia', that of a meeting, gathering, or assembly of some sort was lost. But at the time when Jesus spoke of "My ekklesia" in Matt 16, it would be well enough understood that there were other ekklesia not of Jesus' purview. A good example is in Acts 19:41. And when Paul said, "All the ekklesia of Christ greet you" in Rom 16:16, it was also well enough understood that there were in existence both ekklesia of Christ and also ekklesia not of Christ.

Likewise, there can be ekklesia on Friday night in Sister Smith's house, Saturday morning prayer ekklesia etc. They are meetings, gatherings, assemblies.

The LSM LC way is to label their gatherings as "meetings", and say it's okay to have many of them. This, they say, is multiplication. A blessing to God. But if anyone gives meetings non-LSM-affiliated labels, they're division! They've taken a name, are disapproved and near to burning. Only one church per city. Sorry. We are it.

And if they call it "XYZ Christian Fellowship" or "Jonesville Christian Assembly" that's also doomed in LC eyes. Because, again, it isn't affiliated with the LSM LC. Likewise the "Free Groups" who don't take a name at all. Lee & Co. put a label on them anyway. No label? Don't worry, we'll give you one. We have names for everyone. BUT of course we don't take a name! No! (daintily wipes corner of mouth)

Watchman Nee really just didn't know any better. He didn't grasp the 1st-century meaning of 'ekklesia', but instead read 18th- and 19th-century readings back onto it. But his gambit was hugely successful since the Chinese of his era didn't understand either, and it was the best way to get shed the Occidentals and remain 'biblical'. But 100 years later it looks much less sanguine. And the excuse of ignorance gets thinner as time passes. One has to be deliberately obtuse, at some point. "Oh, I'm just an ostrich with my head stuck in the sand."

Once a label is put on it, that is, a denominational label, it becomes more than just an ekklesia - there are clear differences between a denominational church and a mere gathering/meeting/assembly.

An argument that a denominational church is simply just another ekklesia in the city doesn't stick.

As I am discussing with leastofthese, denominational churches have a number of constraints that make them more than just an ekklesia. Matters of ordination, baptism, and communion etc show the difference.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Once a label is put on it, that is, a denominational label, it becomes more than just an ekklesia - there are clear differences between a denominational church and a mere gathering/meeting/assembly.

An argument that a denominational church is simply just another ekklesia in the city doesn't stick.

As I am discussing with leastofthese, denominational churches have a number of constraints that make them more than just an ekklesia. Matters of ordination, baptism, and communion etc show the difference.

I do get your point, and share at least some of your concerns, and like you I hope for a better future. But I'm concerned that our ideational template is not based on reality. We see the word 'ekklesia' used repeatedly, and we agree it had meaning established already when Jesus spoke first (at least on record) of "My ekklesia". And there does seem to be some fluidity. The ekklesia in someone's house in Romans 16 could be what the LSM LC typically refers to as a 'home meeting' or it could be what some regard as a 'house church'.

The danger, as I see it, is in reading present understanding and present perceived need back onto millenia-old text. Then we translate words one way or another to suit our fancy. And ignorance reigns. And the loudest and most persistent ignoramus wins the day, or at least a considerable following.

The way to break the chains is to repeatedly read, consider, and think. How, if at all, was the case of Corinthians stating they were "of Paul" or "of Peter" different from saying "The local church, lovers of Jesus affiliated with the ministries of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee, welcomes you"? How is "affiliated with" different from "of"?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Once a label is put on it, that is, a denominational label, it becomes more than just an ekklesia - there are clear differences between a denominational church and a mere gathering/meeting/assembly.

An argument that a denominational church is simply just another ekklesia in the city doesn't stick.

As I am discussing with leastofthese, denominational churches have a number of constraints that make them more than just an ekklesia. Matters of ordination, baptism, and communion etc show the difference.

Have you ever read W. Nee's book TNCCL in light of LSM?

Why do you keep critiquing obscure sects like the Anglican/Episcopalians to contrast with the LC? That's like comparing the Biblical ekklesia to your local mosque, thus "proving" that your LC alone is legit.

By Nee's own teachings, once a LC gets tied to an exclusive ministry like LSM, they are no longer a N.T. church.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

I do get your point, and share at least some of your concerns, and like you I hope for a better future. But I'm concerned that our ideational template is not based on reality. We see the word 'ekklesia' used repeatedly, and we agree it had meaning established already when Jesus spoke first (at least on record) of "My ekklesia". And there does seem to be some fluidity. The ekklesia in someone's house in Romans 16 could be what the LSM LC typically refers to as a 'home meeting' or it could be what some regard as a 'house church'.

The danger, as I see it, is in reading present understanding and present perceived need back onto millenia-old text. Then we translate words one way or another to suit our fancy. And ignorance reigns. And the loudest and most persistent ignoramus wins the day, or at least a considerable following.

The way to break the chains is to repeatedly read, consider, and think. How, if at all, was the case of Corinthians stating they were "of Paul" or "of Peter" different from saying "The local church, lovers of Jesus affiliated with the ministries of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee, welcomes you"? How is "affiliated with" different from "of"?

Or more accurately "solely and exclusively affiliated with," otherwise you can and will be excommunicated.

Go explore the historical facts surrounding the Blended's divisive activities on the GLA.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Because I don't see that situation in my Bible of two assemblies in the one street divided by a denominational name and a global/international organization. Their insistence on remaining distinct from each other and holding separate Lord's table meetings every Sunday proves they don't recognize each other as genuine members in the body of Christ.

Now before you twist that around and say we do the same, I would point out that our division is based upon rejection of denominationalism which has sound biblical basis. Their division is based upon man's preference.

You don't see that many assemblies could be in reasonable proximity and not simple be one assembly for many reasons. But even if part of the reason is that the have some disagreements on doctrines, your declaration that because the each have a Lord's table meeting that they don't recognize each other is a presumption, not a fact. And that is a presumption that the LRC continually makes about all of Christianity.

If I attend your Lord's table meeting, I am welcome and will participate. But if you attend ours, while you are welcome to participate, the general position of your sect is to abstain. So the lack of unity is on your part.

And it is based on your preference, not mine.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

An argument that a denominational church is simply just another ekklesia in the city doesn't stick.

As I am discussing with leastofthese, denominational churches have a number of constraints that make them more than just an ekklesia. Matters of ordination, baptism, and communion etc show the difference.

If your frame of reference is towards Lutherans, Methodists, etc you might have a point. In my LC upbringing it's generally implied all non-LSM affiliated assemblies are "denominations".
I would argue LSM affiliated assemblies have become denominated by making LSM publications essential for fellowship.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

How, if at all, was the case of Corinthians stating they were "of Paul" or "of Peter" different from saying "The local church, lovers of Jesus affiliated with the ministries of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee, welcomes you"? How is "affiliated with" different from "of"?

Suppose you take two assemblies from Seattle, WA and two from Bellevue, WA. The Church in Seattle, Seattle Christian Assembly, the Church in Bellevue, and Eastside Christian Community Church. Each of these assemblies share the influence of Watchman Nee's ministry, yet Church in Seattle will only fellowship with Church in Bellevue and not SCA or ECCC based on "affiliated with the ministries of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee". Assemblies such as SCA and ECCC that don't share the same affiliation, there's no fellowship.
So undoubtedly "affiliated" does come across as "of".

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Terry

If your frame of reference is towards Lutherans, Methodists, etc you might have a point. In my LC upbringing it's generally implied all non-LSM affiliated assemblies are "denominations".
I would argue LSM affiliated assemblies have become denominated by making LSM publications essential for fellowship.

Terry - Very diplomatic!

My experience has been the same, even a non-denominational congregation is a denomination - no question about it, no grey area, Babylon. In my experience the LSM publications are absolutely essential for fellowship - more so than scripture.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by OBW

If I attend your Lord's table meeting, I am welcome and will participate. But if you attend ours, while you are welcome to participate, the general position of your sect is to abstain. So the lack of unity is on your part.

And it is based on your preference, not mine.

I would add OBW same attitude exists towards home meetings. Inviting guests to a LSM affiliated home meeting is encouraged, the consensus by many meeting in the local churches is to reject invitations to non-LSM affiliated home meetings.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

In my experience the LSM publications are absolutely essential for fellowship - more so than scripture.

It's not just your experience. It's in print in a HWFMR I saw last time I visited the locality where my parents live.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Christ is the only "one way" whether we are talking about personal salvation or the church. The fact that you would take issue with my statement proves you have little concept of the oneness of the body or genuine salvation and do not believe in the universality and centrality of Christ.

In as much as the bible says Christ died for individuals, it also says He gave His life for the church (Eph 5:25).

Denominations focus only on the salvation of the individual and neglect the corporate aspects. This is why you struggle to understand what I said and meant by "one way".

Let me start at the end.

To say that non-LRC groups that have such significant focus on salvation of the individual and neglect the corporate aspects is either a statement from ignorance, or a fabrication. The part of the individual and the church are both consistently emphasized. I have seen and heard both in every place that I have been, whether briefly or regularly.

Your comments about "one way" show that you do not correctly understand that the reference to Christ being "the way" does not subsume every possible use of the word. I do not struggle to understand what you meant. You meant that the fact that the word "way" is or could be used means that it is just about Christ as the way, therefore the struggle is yours to recognize that every word used in the Bible does not suddenly become restricted in meaning and scope.

And if you are trying to make a statement like "Christ is the way to worship," or "Christ is the way to pray" then you are sort of correct, but only in a way that is so hyper-broad that it says nothing about the actual act of worship or prayer. While true, it makes actual issues of prayer or worship disappear into a generic term that does not answer any question.

Sort of like saying that the planet we live on is "Earth" and when asked about various aspects of the upper layers of the crust, instead of talking about rock and sediment layers, you just say "it is Earth." It is true, but not helpful.

So when you look at the act of worship, some will talk about how a period of corporate worship progresses — whether somewhat set ways or more fluid ways. Some will talk about music — sung, played, a cappella, hymns, with piano/organ only, with other instruments. Some talk about sermons — shorter homilies or longer sermons; topical or passage-focused.

All of these are "ways." Christ should be the center of whatever we do in any of them in whatever "way" we do it, but none of that usurps Christ as "the way." It is only your struggle to understand something this simple that is making the discussion so difficult.

In all of this, Christ is central and he is universal. He is not mono-versal — only found in once mode of worship. Or in one way of praying. He is in his people. And the collection that is his people is not defined by the assemblies in which they meet.

In fact, I do not find anything that causes there to be the kind of differentiator between assemblies that you insist upon — that some would be right just because they have a formula down and others would not and therefore are excluded from the household of faith. I am not saying you don't think the others are Christian. But you think that their assembling is wrong because it does not follow your rules. Show me where your rules are stated. And to the extent that any of them are actually rules, show me how it is that they actually fail. I think that if you are honest you will find that they meet the actual rules and that the rest is extra-biblical drivel wedged between you and them by none other than you (collectively, not personally).

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

You don't see that many assemblies could be in reasonable proximity and not simple be one assembly for many reasons. But even if part of the reason is that the have some disagreements on doctrines, your declaration that because the each have a Lord's table meeting that they don't recognize each other is a presumption, not a fact. And that is a presumption that the LRC continually makes about all of Christianity.

If I attend your Lord's table meeting, I am welcome and will participate. But if you attend ours, while you are welcome to participate, the general position of your sect is to abstain. So the lack of unity is on your part.

And it is based on your preference, not mine.

Your view of unity is like "you didn't play with me so you don't want to be my friend". But this is not about who participates and who doesn't, but why one denomination holds a Lord's table right next door to the other? It's a clear statement of disagreement.

It is as if the 12 disciples split into two groups of 6 next door to each other. Christ broke bread with the first group at 9 am, and the second group at 10 am.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Terry

If your frame of reference is towards Lutherans, Methodists, etc you might have a point. In my LC upbringing it's generally implied all non-LSM affiliated assemblies are "denominations".
I would argue LSM affiliated assemblies have become denominated by making LSM publications essential for fellowship.

LSM publications are not essential for fellowship. I have been to many meetings and so have others, that do not bring or use LSM publications but just the bible. In fact the first hour of most meetings do not require the use of LSM publications at all, except the hymn book.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Your view of unity is like "you didn't play with me so you don't want to be my friend". But this is not about who participates and who doesn't, but why one denomination holds a Lord's table right next door to the other? It's a clear statement of disagreement.

It is as if the 12 disciples split into two groups of 6 next door to each other. Christ broke bread with the first group at 9 am, and the second group at 10 am.

EvanGelly will condemn every Table in town, but he will never address his own LC's which have 2 or 3 Lord's Table meetings in the same city, and they won't talk to each other either.

One Table is of Lee, one Table is of Chu, and the third Table is none of the above.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

EvanGelly will condemn every Table in town, but he will never address his own LC's which have 2 or 3 Lord's Table meetings in the same city, and they won't talk to each other either.

One Table is of Lee, one Table is of Chu, and the third Table is none of the above.

The same street are they?

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

And if you are trying to make a statement like "Christ is the way to worship," or "Christ is the way to pray" then you are sort of correct, but only in a way that is so hyper-broad that it says nothing about the actual act of worship or prayer. While true, it makes actual issues of prayer or worship disappear into a generic term that does not answer any question.

Sort of like saying that the planet we live on is "Earth" and when asked about various aspects of the upper layers of the crust, instead of talking about rock and sediment layers, you just say "it is Earth." It is true, but not helpful..

Not only this, but the subjective vagueness allows the Christ who's touted as the all-in-all to be nothing like the one we see in the gospels. We see a so-subjective Christ come in, who cares only for good building material, so-called, to the point of consciously and deliberately ignoring those who cannot repay us in this age. We see a Christ who doesn't care about righteousness, waving it off breezily as mere "right and wrong", which supposedly doesn't "give life". Etc.

Like the song goes, "So subjective is my Christ to me . . ." Don't you know it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The same street are they?

Have you moved from one church one city to one church per street?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

But this is not about who participates and who doesn't, but why one denomination holds a Lord's table right next door to the other? It's a clear statement of disagreement.

Only if you insist that it is, which means that you disagree with them no matter what they think about you.

If you ask them you may find that they are not opposed to each other or really disagree with each other on other than peripheral issues. And as a result, they do not declare that the other is not a proper church. But as they are meeting, they do partake of the table. That they ended out across the street from each other is a twist of circumstance. They might simply meet together. Or not. There is no call to force either.

That is your overlay. You would force a unified meeting, and it would only be according to your ways (there's that word again). What does that say about you?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Your view of unity is like "you didn't play with me so you don't want to be my friend". But this is not about who participates and who doesn't, but why one denomination holds a Lord's table right next door to the other? It's a clear statement of disagreement.

It is as if the 12 disciples split into two groups of 6 next door to each other. Christ broke bread with the first group at 9 am, and the second group at 10 am.

This is so stupid.

From the very beginning the breaking of bread was in more than one place. Even in the same city. In Jerusalem it was all in one accord even though from house to hose for much of it.

And Paul talked about the oneness of the body. Yet he did not make any effort to change the ways of Corinth relative to Philippi, relative to Ephesus, relative to Thessaloniki, etc. And he did not argue that the ones meeting in some house church that required that the recipients of a letter go to greet them needed to get with the program. None of those cities was just like any other. They didn't travel around to other cities. It is possible that some individuals did, but travel was not a regular thing in those days, unlike today where we take a week or two of vacation, get in a car or plane and travel somewhere else. So making a big deal about joining with other groups is sort of a theoretical issue anyway unless you are just talking about our spiritual oneness. And that remains true even between groups that have differences of doctrine. Your mantra about joining with others is a requirement not placed on churches of the time of the writing of the epistles. And if we were to still argue that it should be required, then why do you only travel to meet with you own kind and not any others? Last time I was in a city on a weekend and could get around to a church, I did not meet with one that was just like the one I meet with back home. In fact, it has seldom been that way other than when I was in the LRC and we avoided the other places like a plague, and if we did attend, avoided their "communion" as if it proved they were not "one" because it wasn't our "table." Seems to me that the ones failing at unity were us from the LRC, not those who welcomed us in and beckoned us to participate even though we were not part of their "brand."

Churches are the assemblies of the followers of Christ; of the believers in Christ. Sects are those that somehow fail at that. That are somehow so much in error that we might not openly declare, but fear that they are not truly Christian. That there is a reasonable question as to whether they really believe in the same Christ.

Those that simply cut off others that they definitely consider Christian should ask themselves, "Is Christ divided? Did Christ only die for those who follow the doctrine of dirt?" If your honest answer is "no," then you should seriously question whether you have been duped into thinking that somehow those for whom Christ died and who have taken advantage of the free gift of eternal life that comes from that can somehow not be "church" — of the body of Christ — when they meet, unless it is in your way.

But the evidence is that Christ sees himself in his believers while you see failure. It would appear that you want there to be division that is greater than actually exists so that you can justify your delusions of superiority of doctrine. Without the ability to dismiss everyone else, your group's claim to fame is meaningless.

And since it isn't in the Bible, it is meaningless anyway.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Have you moved from one church one city to one church per street?

Well no but the denominations have!

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

From the very beginning the breaking of bread was in more than one place. Even in the same city. In Jerusalem it was all in one accord even though from house to hose for much of it.

You are right that there were multiple meetings. But each household assembly did not consider itself to be a church with its own church organization (eg Presbyterian) and ordained pastor (who cannot work in the church down the street). And if you wanted to be a member of both churches the Presbyterian would not allow it! If a person follows the presbyterian denomination they will most certainly choose to meet with the presbyterian church in the street than the baptist. If these were simply two different meetings as per the new testament times, a person might choose to meet based upon the leading of the Spirit or might go to a different one each week.

The issue is not multiple meetings in the city. The issue is the creation of churches within the one city to cater for different needs:

If this was biblical then the version of Last Supper / Lord's table in the bible would be one of Jesus setting up multiple meetings to cater for the different needs of his disciples. One Last Supper at 9 am to cater to Peter and John's belief that the wine turns into the blood of Christ, and the next at 10 am to cater for Andrew and Matthew who believes the wine is just a symbol, and the Last Supper meeting at 11 am to cater for Judas Iscariot who believes the wine can be replaced with orange juice.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You are right that there were multiple meetings. But each household assembly did not consider itself to be a church with its own church organization (eg Presbyterian) and ordained pastor (who cannot work in the church down the street).

Actually, you may be wrong on this. The scripture does not refer to ordination of pastors. Nor does it tell what kind of leadership a house church may have had. But it was a church meeting in the house, not a part of some other church meeting separately from that church in a house.

So what constitutes a church? And how do you declare that some larger church has the fullness of presbytery that a house church does not, therefor the house church is not really a church. If not, why call it a church in the scripture?

You so want to deny it the status as church. But you can't get there. you go circular trying. You declare it doesn't have everything it needs, but then admit that it is a church, then say it couldn't be (presumably because it was too small). Full-blown churches have met in houses for years on end without any larger group looking out for it or subsuming it as actually part of that group.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

Actually, you may be wrong on this. The scripture does not refer to ordination of pastors. Nor does it tell what kind of leadership a house church may have had. But it was a church meeting in the house, not a part of some other church meeting separately from that church in a house.

So what constitutes a church? And how do you declare that some larger church has the fullness of presbytery that a house church does not, therefor the house church is not really a church. If not, why call it a church in the scripture?

You so want to deny it the status as church. But you can't get there. you go circular trying. You declare it doesn't have everything it needs, but then admit that it is a church, then say it couldn't be (presumably because it was too small). Full-blown churches have met in houses for years on end without any larger group looking out for it or subsuming it as actually part of that group.

I am resigned to the fact that I could be wrong and that no body actually knows what they looked like. Perhaps the elder in each house wore a flower pot on their heads while they broke bread. Who knows. However if we trace the beginnings of the church, the simplicity of the fellowship of Christ with his disciples, with no fat and trimmings, I think the "likelihood needle" will swing towards one view over the other. Take cavemen for instance. We can only assume they did not drive cars, we weren't there. They had the wheel, maybe they had Flintstone cars. We are pretty sure that cavemen did not drive cars because things progress from simplicity to complexity. But somehow we think the early church was comprised of so many different churches like the situation today.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I am resigned to the fact that I could be wrong and that no body actually knows what they looked like. . . But somehow we think the early church was comprised of so many different churches like the situation today.

But where o where did it all go so horribly wrong? How do you know it wasn't when they began appointing deacons to feed the wodows in Acts 6? How do you know it wasn't when Paul confirmed the elders chosen by the assembly?

When Jesus fed the thousands, he set up faithful ones before the groups of fifty and of hundred. But when the bread was eaten & the remnants collected, Jesus fired them all! No word of position, or office.

You know what the LSM LC elders told me, when I asked about registering a name with the government as a 503(c) corporation? "We had to do it". Says who, the Bible? Or buying property? Aren't you fully "of men" at that point and not of God?

The problem with our logic (all of us, not just Evangelical) is that we use simplification to slide past the gaps & smooth over the rough spots. We create the modern equivalent of "Just so stories" and think we've got it sussed. The LSM LC isn't any different from 'fallen Christianity' other than their hypocrisy. They all know the apostle's neer-do-well son was repeatedly caught molesting the help, even being found en flagrante delecto, and witnesses were run out of town or buried. But everyone else is abnormal, and they're the glorious church without spot or wrinkle.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Have you moved from one church one city to one church per street?

The word for church, in Greek, is ekklesia. But ekklesia didnt translate always very well as church. Sometimes it translated better as meeting or gathering. So let's rephrase the question using the NT vernacular - how many ekklesia are biblically permitted per street? Was the ekklesia meeting in someone's house, greeted by the apostle at the end of his epistle, expected to compose the sum total of all believers in that city? Please. Can we move along to more important matters? Talk about straining the gnat.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I am resigned to the fact that I could be wrong and that no body actually knows what they looked like. Perhaps the elder in each house wore a flower pot on their heads while they broke bread. Who knows. However if we trace the beginnings of the church, the simplicity of the fellowship of Christ with his disciples, with no fat and trimmings, I think the "likelihood needle" will swing towards one view over the other. Take cavemen for instance. We can only assume they did not drive cars, we weren't there. They had the wheel, maybe they had Flintstone cars. We are pretty sure that cavemen did not drive cars because things progress from simplicity to complexity. But somehow we think the early church was comprised of so many different churches like the situation today.

Cute. make a mockery of what was serious then talk about the Flintstones.

But the point that I was making is the one that you sort of made, then mocked. That is that the text is not as specific, especially in the ways that Lee/you try to make it. We find that church is used broadly and specifically. It refers to the body of Christ in general, in a region, etc., and also to the assemblies wherever they are. The problem is that when it is stated in plural, you know that it is talking about assemblies because and assembly is one collection. But when it is spoken in singular, you cannot be sure that it is making a reference to a single assembly or to a collection of assemblies within some place because it could be either form.

And while Lee had a penchant for declaring the ambiguous as being simple one way because that is what suited him, there is nothing making it so except his declaration. Even the epistle which we say was to the Ephesians had no such title for some time. The earliest manuscripts are said to be without name. It was know to have gone there, but it was not clear that it was intended for just the city or the area surrounding it. But eventually others added "Ephesus." And the way it is stated in the greeting doesn't even refer to the church, but to the people who are there. If it was really such an important doctrinal exactitude, Paul would have carefully stated it each time he made a greeting. Instead he makes no reference in most.

And in at least one — Romans — he simply refers to the people, then later charges them to greet Priscilla and Aquila, and the church that meets in their house. So Nee and Lee would insist that must either mean the church in Rome met in their house, or they lived somewhere else. The letter went to Rome, to somebody's hands. Given the significant part that P&A have played in laboring with Paul, why does the letter not start with them if the church is simply at their house? And if they live somewhere else. When did they expect anyone to travel to where they were? And if they lived somewhere else, why was the church meeting in their house not identified by the city in which it was situated? Too much avoiding of the use of the identifier "church in [city]" to be ignored in a discussion of the meaning of the term "church."

So, from a logical viewpoint, it would appear that "church" does not even murkily have the precise definition and use that you insist upon. So if it is not so specific, then how does a sect mean any group that does not adhere to your definition? It would appear that the mode of use does not support a rule anything like what Nee and Lee propose. At best, it could be true. But if it is that uncertain yet true, then it would have been important to actually make a statement that settles the matter. There are too many things stated clearly to leave something you think is so important to a reading between the lines coupled with a reading of the tea leaves.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

The word for church, in Greek, is ekklesia. But ekklesia didnt translate always very well as church. Sometimes it translated better as meeting or gathering. So let's rephrase the question using the NT vernacular - how many ekklesia are biblically permitted per street? Was the ekklesia meeting in someone's house, greeted by the apostle at the end of his epistle, expected to compose the sum total of all believers in that city? Please. Can we move along to more important matters? Talk about straining the gnat.

Whoa there aron!

I was just responding to Evangelical's query. Read his quoted post.

But to answer your question, it depends on how long the street is. The Lincoln Highway spans the US since the early 20th century, passing thru hundreds of small towns, each with churches. Count them all up using Google street view!

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

LSM publications are not essential for fellowship. I have been to many meetings and so have others, that do not bring or use LSM publications but just the bible. In fact the first hour of most meetings do not require the use of LSM publications at all, except the hymn book.

In the last 30 years in all the localities I've visited in Washington state, Oregon, and California I have yet to see one locality that's not taking a LSM publication corporately. It may not be a HWFMR, but it is a LSM publication. I am sure there are those within those assemblies that take the Bible only.
How long would they be permitted to meet abstaining from the publications?
I don't know, but whenever someone sticks out like a sore thumb compared to the rest of the assembly, they're going to draw attention.
Much as if someone would consistently stay only for the Table meeting, but leave before the Prophesying meeting begins. It's going to draw attention and maybe even questions.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

LSM publications are not essential for fellowship. I have been to many meetings and so have others, that do not bring or use LSM publications but just the bible. In fact the first hour of most meetings do not require the use of LSM publications at all, except the hymn book.

Did you really just say that?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Terry

In the last 30 years in all the localities I've visited in Washington state, Oregon, and California I have yet to see one locality that's not taking a LSM publication corporately. It may not be a HWFMR, but it is a LSM publication. I am sure there are those within those assemblies that take the Bible only.
How long would they be permitted to meet abstaining from the publications?
I don't know, but whenever someone sticks out like a sore thumb compared to the rest of the assembly, they're going to draw attention.
Much as if someone would consistently stay only for the Table meeting, but leave before the Prophesying meeting begins. It's going to draw attention and maybe even questions.

So basically the issue is that we are all using the same hymn book. Seriously?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

But where o where did it all go so horribly wrong? How do you know it wasn't when they began appointing deacons to feed the wodows in Acts 6? How do you know it wasn't when Paul confirmed the elders chosen by the assembly?

When Jesus fed the thousands, he set up faithful ones before the groups of fifty and of hundred. But when the bread was eaten & the remnants collected, Jesus fired them all! No word of position, or office.

You know what the LSM LC elders told me, when I asked about registering a name with the government as a 503(c) corporation? "We had to do it". Says who, the Bible? Or buying property? Aren't you fully "of men" at that point and not of God?

The problem with our logic (all of us, not just Evangelical) is that we use simplification to slide past the gaps & smooth over the rough spots. We create the modern equivalent of "Just so stories" and think we've got it sussed. The LSM LC isn't any different from 'fallen Christianity' other than their hypocrisy. They all know the apostle's neer-do-well son was repeatedly caught molesting the help, even being found en flagrante delecto, and witnesses were run out of town or buried. But everyone else is abnormal, and they're the glorious church without spot or wrinkle.

I can see your point but linking the feeding of the 5000 to the matter of churches is a bit of a stretch, and represents the situation of a single church holding multiple meetings. It does not represent the situation today of multiple churches in the same street. This would constitute each group that Jesus set up to appoint themselves a leader (chief pastor, president, archbishop, or pope) and create a new name for themselves (baptist, lutheran, presbyterian) etc, etc etc. The fact that none of these groups were organized in this way by Jesus proves that denominationalism is wrong. This is a strong argument against those who think denominations are necessary for "practical reasons".

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

The word for church, in Greek, is ekklesia. But ekklesia didnt translate always very well as church. Sometimes it translated better as meeting or gathering. So let's rephrase the question using the NT vernacular - how many ekklesia are biblically permitted per street? Was the ekklesia meeting in someone's house, greeted by the apostle at the end of his epistle, expected to compose the sum total of all believers in that city? Please. Can we move along to more important matters? Talk about straining the gnat.

All the different ekklesia considered themselves to be of the same church. Denominations do not see themselves as merely ekklesia on the street. Particularly the highly institutionalized traditional ones like Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran.
That is the difference between then and now.

If you tell a Catholic priest that his grand Cathedral is just a simple ekklesia like in bible times the same as the local brethren assembly he will laugh at you. I see a gross over simplification when people pretend that denominations are merely different ekklesia on the street.