LSM's Sacrament - the "Ground of the Local Church" NIGEL TOMES

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Nigel Tomes

LSM’s Sacramentalism

LSM’s local churches concur with the major tenets of evangelical Christianity. They are harsh critics of Roman Catholicism. However, LSM’s distinctive doctrine about the “ground of locality” is sacramentist; they claim that the physical ground of locality affords them an advantageous status before God. The fact that a local church is “standing on the local ground,” calling itself “the church in [city X]” (defined by the city’s physical boundary) allegedly provides members with greater divine blessings, compared to other Christians not “standing on the local ground.” Hence Witness Lee states that,6 “If you want the fullest blessing…you must come to the local churches.” Conversely, on leaving the “local ground” a believer (allegedly) forfeits God’s blessings; “when a person is in the church, he is blessed,” says W. Lee, 7 “but when he leaves the church, he loses the blessing. When I speak of the church, I am particularly referring to a local church that is standing on the proper ground.”

The Greek word for heresy meant “school of thought”. It has come to mean an opinion or teaching that is at odds with the orthodox beliefs. (The word should not be confused with apostasy or blasphemy.)

I think that by any viewpoint WL’s teaching “one city one church” is a heresy. It is a school of thought on what the NT teaches that is at odds with orthodox beliefs. The Apostle Peter referred to “damnable heresies”. These are heresies that involve God’s damnation and blessing. This quote from WL clearly ties his teaching of “one city one church” to God’s blessing and curse. You are blessed if you receive this teaching, you lose this blessing if you reject this teaching. The teaching is used to create the LSM sect. The teaching is used to denigrate other Christians who do not subscribe to this teaching. We have spent a lot of time examining this teaching and I think we have done a good job proving that it is a “damnable heresy”.

False teachers, according to Peter bring in “damnable heresies even denying the Lord that bought them”.

So then I have a question. Does WL’s teaching on “one city one church” deny the Lord that bought us? The NT is very clear that we have only one foundation, and that foundation is Christ. We stand on Christ alone (all other ground is sinking sand). So then, does adding a second requirement that we stand on “the ground of the church” in addition to Christ who is the foundation, does this requirement “deny the Lord who bought us”?

Originally Posted by Nigel Tomes

God’s “approval…based on their ground & not…their personal condition”—W. Lee

Moreover, W. Lee alleges that the mere position of “standing on the local ground” merits God’s approval. This privilege, he asserts is independent of the believer’s condition. Arguing by analogy from the Jewish exiles’ return from Babylon, W. Lee states,8 “among those [exiles] who returned, we find many who were not that spiritual…However, as far as their ground was concerned, they were approved by God…No matter how poor their situation was, their ground was still the right ground…no matter how poor and confused the returned captives were, they stood on the proper ground which God had ordained for them...Their approval was based on their ground and not on their personal condition.” Note the last statement asserts that God’s “approval was based on their ground and not on their personal condition.” W. Lee contends that this principle applies today;9 he argues that New Testament believers (regardless of condition) who “stand on the local ground” (defined by city boundaries) secure God’s approval, just as Jewish exiles’ who returned to Jerusalem merited God’s favor. He alleges that (independent of condition) if a believer “stands on the local ground,” this position earns God’s approval. This implies that, other believers, not in this position, are disapproved by God! Thus Witness Lee elevates a positional matter--“standing on the local ground”--into a sacrament which secures God’s approval.

The NT teaches clearly that we stand before God based solely on Christ's redemption and not on our merit. It is not by anything that we have done but by His grace. So then, does this teaching "deny the Lord that bought us"?

Originally Posted by Nigel Tomes

To justify this, LSM contends that the Spirit connects the church ground to the Triune God (the physical with the spiritual). They first state that,10 “three elements—the oneness of the Spirit, the ground of locality, and the reality of the Spirit—keep the genuine oneness of the church.” Here the physical, “ground of locality” is grouped with the Spirit. Then W. Lee insists,11 “it is by this Spirit that the genuine ground of the church is linked with the Triune God.” This is sacramentalism; the physical (ground of locality) is “linked with the Triune God.”

What are the alleged benefits of this linkage? We’ve already mentioned “God’s approval.” W. Lee also links being “in the local church on the ground” with “the full experience of the triune God.” He proclaims,12 “We know where we must be today—in the local oneness, that is, in the local church on the ground of oneness. If we are not in the local oneness…we cannot have the full experience of the…Triune God…Only on this ground can we have the full experience of the processed Triune God.” Lack of this ground, W. Lee argues, is the13 “reason many Christians today are in spiritual poverty.” Thus a physical attribute—being “in the local church on the ground”—is deemed to provide spiritual benefits in terms of “the full experience of the Triune God.” Again, this is sacramentalism. In essence LSM claims that “standing on the local ground” (defined by city boundaries) is a means by which the divine life &/or grace are dispensed to believers. This matches Catholic assertions that, “the sacraments are…means by which divine life is dispensed to us.”14 This substantiates our claim that the “local ground” is LSM’s distinctive sacrament. Let’s examine LSM’s doctrine of the local ground in more detail.

According to WL you have to stand on "the ground of the church" in order to have the "full experience of the Triune God". Jesus taught "I am the way, the truth and the Light, no man comes to the Father but by me". So then, again I ask, does this teaching of "the ground of the church" deny the Lord that bought us?

[alwayslearning]

Nigel has finally addressed the "sacred cow" of the LC system and as Ohio has pointed out I'm sure Titus Chu will not be a happy camper! (Smart move adding the disclaimer Nigel!)

This is a fundamental doctrine that makes the LC system tick. It grips people as a stronghold in their minds because it has a certain superficial logic to it: the NT says "The Church in Jerusalem", "The Church in Antioch" etc therefore we must do the same thing to to be a true NT church. And each church must have elders appointed by apostles like in the NT. So if we simply call ourselves the church in a city and have an apostle appoint elders it's the same as in the NT. Yippee! We'll be the only legitimate church in a city. But although it seems logical it ignores a basic tenet of exposition work i.e. application. It takes a historical description and turns it into dogma with no real practical application in 2013.

For this kind of thing to work today you need at least 2 things: cities with no Christians and apostles with apostolic authority to appoint elders. Where do these conditions exist? Where are these cities and where are these apostles?

And as some have already pointed out what is the history of the LC system in practicing their own ground of locality doctrine? If you disagree with the apostle they'll go down the street and start another church in that city which is why in Toronto for example there's about 4 variations of "The Church in Toronto." ( But before going down the street they'll probably try to sue you so you can go down the street instead of them!) So what is the true ground of oneness for the LC system? The LSM version is the ministry of Witness Lee. The Cleveland version is the ministry of Titus Chu. In promoting such a doctrine they are not only ignoring 2000 years of church history they are ignoring their own history as well. Why don't they just be honest and admit what they actually are: The Church of Witness Lee and The Church of Titus Chu?

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

So what is the true ground of oneness for the LC system? The LSM version is the ministry of Witness Lee. The Cleveland version is the ministry of Titus Chu. In promoting such a doctrine they are not only ignoring 2000 years of church history they are ignoring their own history as well. Why don't they just be honest and admit what they actually are: The Church of Witness Lee and The Church of Titus Chu?

I would go even further and suggest that the ground of the LSM/Local Churches is the person and work of Witness Lee. It is not just the work (the ministry) that these people follow, but they also fiercely follow his person. This dynamic was much easier to expose while Lee was still alive - he had the final say, the final authority in all matters of teaching and practice. Anyone who challenged his authority soon found themselves "quarantined", or at least shunned from the Local Church movement at large. If what Lee said or did was found to be ad odds with the Bible....oh well...."even if he was wrong he was right!". Yet this very same dynamic exists within the Movement today. This is why the Blended Brothers can run around the whole planet declaring such bizarre things such as they, and they alone have the proper "feeling of the Body". Their apostle declared such things on a regular basis, and since they are his "continuation"...voila!....

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I would go even further and suggest that the ground of the LSM/Local Churches is the person and work of Witness Lee. It is not just the work (the ministry) that these people follow, but they also fiercely follow his person. This dynamic was much easier to expose while Lee was still alive - he had the final say, the final authority in all matters of teaching and practice. Anyone who challenged his authority soon found themselves "quarantined", or at least shunned from the Local Church movement at large. If what Lee said or did was found to be ad odds with the Bible....oh well...."even if he was wrong he was right!". Yet this very same dynamic exists within the Movement today. This is why the Blended Brothers can run around the whole planet declaring such bizarre things such as they, and they alone have the proper "feeling of the Body". Their apostle declared such things on a regular basis, and since they are his "continuation"...voila!....

Very true! Thank you for this additional note on the true nature of their "ground of oneness".

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I would go even further and suggest that the ground of the LSM/Local Churches is the person and work of Witness Lee.

We were purchased with the blood of Jesus. This is the basis for our stand before God. It is the church that Jesus is building. Hence it is "His" church. Peter's revelation that Jesus was the Christ is the rock on which the church is built, that is our foundation. The ground of the church in typology was bought by King David as a Sin offering. Jesus work on the cross was a sin offering where we were bought with a price.

To say that "the ground of the LSM/Local Churches is the person and work of Witness Lee is equivalent to "denying the Lord who bought them".

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

Nigel has finally addressed the "sacred cow" of the LC system and as Ohio has pointed out I'm sure Titus Chu will not be a happy camper! (Smart move adding the disclaimer Nigel!)

This is a fundamental doctrine that makes the LC system tick. It grips people as a stronghold in their minds because it has a certain superficial logic to it: the NT says "The Church in Jerusalem", "The Church in Antioch" etc therefore we must do the same thing to to be a true NT church.

You don't even need apostolic appointment of elders. Let's call it what it is. Taking a name. All you need to do is register as the Church in _____ and no other assembly of Christians would be able to register as the same name.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Terry

You don't even need apostolic appointment of elders. Let's call it what it is. Taking a name. All you need to do is register as the Church in _____ and no other assembly of Christians would be able to register as the same name.

This is true of their practice at it's most basic level. But once done what are they really asking all Christians in a city to do? Meet with them and submit to the local eldership appointed by their apostle. They are the only legitimate church in that city - the Jerusalem. All else are Babylon. In their scheme of things all other churches have no legitimacy.

But what is the reality? In the NT churches did not have to register for tax purposes. So in NT terms registering such a name is meaningless. Today all Christians in a city are the one church in that city and most Christians know this as a common fact. Registering a name doesn't make it so spiritual reality makes it so. Registering a name, "taking the ground" and all the rest of it are just words.

Of course the LC system has shrunk this down and in fact their oneness now has nothing to do with locality at all. It has everything to do with the acceptance of the person and work of Witness Lee for LSM churches and the person and work of Titus Chu for GLA churches.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

And as some have already pointed out what is the history of the LC system in practicing their own ground of locality doctrine? If you disagree with the apostle they'll go down the street and start another church in that city which is why in Toronto for example there's about 4 variations of "The Church in Toronto." ( But before going down the street they'll probably try to sue you so you can go down the street instead of them!) So what is the true ground of oneness for the LC system? The LSM version is the ministry of Witness Lee. The Cleveland version is the ministry of Titus Chu. In promoting such a doctrine they are not only ignoring 2000 years of church history they are ignoring their own history as well. Why don't they just be honest and admit what they actually are: The Church of Witness Lee and The Church of Titus Chu?

We were taught that WN was bothered by the divisions in Christianity and so studied the NT looking for the solution, and from this study derived the "one city one church" doctrine.

However, this teaching is not the solution. Rather I would argue that the ground of oneness is the Lord's blood. That is the ground on which we must accept all believers and the ground on which all walls and barriers are broken down. Anyone who tries to create a denomination or sect of Christians through some teaching is denying "the Lord who bought them".

Meeting together according to the Lord's instructions to worship the Lord does not deny Jesus. But, teaching that you must meet in a way not according to the Lord's instructions otherwise you lose the blessing, and denigrating other Christians who do not subscribe to your unorthodox teachings is to deny the Lord who bought us. To then elevate this unorthodox teaching to the items of the faith is also to deny the Lord. To create a sacrament out of this teaching other than the ordinances given to us by the Lord is again to deny the Lord who bought us.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Anyone who tries to create a denomination or sect of Christians through some teaching is denying "the Lord who bought them".

I think this is going a bit too far, unless you are talking about a teaching which denies one of the "essential" items of the faith - The virgin birth - the incarnation of the Lord Jesus, His deity and lordship, his bodily resurrection after the third day and ascension to the Father, the giving of the gift of the Holy Spirit, baptism as a figure of our salvation, the resurrection of the saints. Maybe there are more, if so just fill in the blanks for me.

Creating a denomination or sect is certainly not the unforgivable sin, although this has caused untold confusion, grief and dissention among God's people for over 2,000 years. Yet the reality of the oneness of the Body of Christ still remains, as hard has man has tried to kill it....it still remains and thank God for this fact! I think the fact that man has not been able to completely extinguish the oneness of the Body is because it is based upon God’s life, which of course we know that nothing in the universe can extinguish God’s life.

I believe that the oneness of all the true believers, of the Body of Christ, is best described in Ephesians 4. “The unity of the Spirit” IS the unity of the Body. All the “ones” which follow – “one Lord, one faith, one baptism and one God and Father of all” are no more or less than the description of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit’s influence and work among the believers. Of course we latter day saints (especially those of us in the West) have fallen woefully short in our cooperation in letting the Head of the Body have his way in this glorious work. In light of all the recent world events, maybe we can do a little less fighting and bickering among us, and “let the Spirit have his precious way”.

[ZNPaaneah]

In Acts 9:5 Saul of Tarsus says “Who art thou Lord?” I think we all agree that this is the same Lord that Peter was referring to when he said that false teachers “deny the Lord that bought them”.

My understanding of Acts 9 is that when Paul persecuted Christians Jesus equated this to say that Paul was “persecuting Him”. I also understand this to be the basis of his revelation on “the Body of Christ”. I also do not see any reason to say that this principle only applies to unbelievers. Believers can also “Persecute Jesus”. Later Paul said he obtained mercy because he did it in unbelief.

This may seem harsh. You might take this to the extreme and say “if I call my brother a fool that is ‘persecution’, does that mean I am in danger of the judgment?” Suppose I call my sister “worthless” and excommunicate her on trumped up charges, does that mean that Jesus is also being persecuted with her, a kind of “footsteps in the sand” and that I am in danger of the gehenna of fire? I would say that is how I understand the Lord's word in the gospels.

So then, suppose I deny my brother’s stand in the Lord? Does that mean that I am also denying the Lord who bought him? Suppose I deny that my brother has the full blessings of God? Suppose I deny that my brother has the full experience of the Triune God? Does this mean that Jesus is also being denied? Again, that is the way I read the NT. Jesus died that I might be saved and stand before God. If you deny that, then you deny the Lord who bought me and placed me in Him.

[UntoHim]

ZNP,
Sorry, but your post is rather convoluted, and it doesn't begin to address what I stated in my post (I assume you were trying to address what I just wrote in the previous post.)

Sorry, but I don't know anybody who would "understand the Lord's word in the gospels" as you have here in your post. I'm not saying this to insult you, or show you up, but rather to nudge you a bit to maybe clarify what you are getting at. Maybe you could read my post again, gather your thoughts, and then take another shot at it? If you want your post to stand as it is, then that's just as well and good. No harm, no foul.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Sorry, but I don't know anybody who would "understand the Lord's word in the gospels" as you have here in your post.

Matt 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thoufool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Regardless of how you understand this word it is hard to believe that many don't understand it literally. I virtually quoted the word verbatim. How could you argue that no one would understand it the way it is written?

Matt
25:37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
25:38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
25:39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

Once again I virtually quoted this passage in Matt 25. Regardless of how you understand it it seems ridiculous that you cannot envision anyone taking this word at face value.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

ZNP,
Sorry, but your post is rather convoluted, and it doesn't begin to address what I stated in my post (I assume you were trying to address what I just wrote in the previous post.)

Your post said that "to deny the Lord who bought them" must refer to an essential item of the faith. The Lord's work on the cross which is the ground on which we stand when we appear before God is an essential item of the faith. To say that this is the sole ground on which we stand before God is an essential item of the faith. To say that the Lord broke down any middle wall of partition at the cross so that both Jews and Gentiles could be one is an essential item of the faith. To say that our stand before God or our blessing from God or our experience of God requires something in addition to this blood is to deny this essential item of the faith. This is what I said in my post which you dismissed because "it doesn't deny an essential item of the faith"? It is your post that presumed to address mine and didn't.

I added these quotes from the gospels and Acts because if you agree with Jesus that "If you have done it to the least of my brethren you have done it to Me" then you have to agree that everything WL did to the brethren he did to the Lord as well. I added the verse in Matt 5 because you might agree with the previous point but feel that "it is not that serious" as to rise to the level of a false teacher. Matt 5 makes it clear to me that the way we treat any saint can be as serious as hellfire and damnation.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

We were taught that WN was bothered by the divisions in Christianity and so studied the NT looking for the solution, and from this study derived the "one city one church" doctrine.

However, this teaching is not the solution. Rather I would argue that the ground of oneness is the Lord's blood. That is the ground on which we must accept all believers and the ground on which all walls and barriers are broken down. Anyone who tries to create a denomination or sect of Christians through some teaching is denying "the Lord who bought them".

I frankly don't think Watchman Nee was so bothered by the "divisions" in Christianity. He wanted to start indigenous churches in China and needed a model so he devised one and it so happened that the one he devised by nature had to illegitimize all other churches for it to work i.e. he had to classify them as divisions. Witness Lee took this further and classified all other churches as either the whore or daughters of the whore who were spiritually blind and stupid. By doing so his church became the elect of the elect, God's best, etc. All other Christians were 2nd class citizens or worse.

This teaching was not a solution because there isn't a solution and IMHO to waste our valuable time looking for one will only prove futile. Often (not always) there are some very valid reasons that Christians decide to meet separately from each other otherwise we would all still be meeting in the Roman Catholic Church - the church with the most historical legitimacy.

I agree the ground of oneness includes the blood of Christ i.e. His work of redemption but it also includes His person and other work i.e. the "common faith". The ground is certainly not a piece of dirt in a physical city and to make it such devalues Christians and the Lord they love.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

I frankly don't think Watchman Nee was so bothered by the "divisions" in Christianity. He wanted to start indigenous churches in China and needed a model so he devised one and it so happened that the one he devised by nature had to illegitimize all other churches for it to work i.e. he had to classify them as divisions. Witness Lee took this further and classified all other churches as either the whore or daughters of the whore who were spiritually blind and stupid. By doing so his church became the elect of the elect, God's best, etc. All other Christians were 2nd class citizens or worse.

I cannot speak concerning WN since I do not know enough. However, concerning WL I think I have seen some critical actions. Although it is not for us to know what was in his heart, we can and should examine his life. Each of these actions has the appearance of evil and though not proof of evil, the preponderance of so many elements does make a very strong case.

1. He brought in damnable heresies, creating a sect.
2. His ways were pernicious.
3. He operated through covetousness
4. He fabricated stories, particularly about WN, but also about any who stood against him.
5. He made merchandise of the saints
6. His sons, who he placed in very high positions and defended at all costs, walked in the lust of uncleanness
7. He despised the laws of this government in running DayStar
8. His teachings in the Bible were full of presumption. His teachings begin with the presumption that certain things are true.
9. He was self willed and answered to no one but himself.
10. He spoke evil of other Christians and other Christian leaders
11. His sons had eyes full of adultery (again relevant since they were supported and protected by WL despite his being made fully aware of this fact).
12. His heart was exercised with covetous practices.
13. And, he followed the way of Balaam, becoming a prophet for hire once he monetized LSM, the trainings, etc.

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

This teaching was not a solution because there isn't a solution and IMHO to waste our valuable time looking for one will only prove futile. Often (not always) there are some very valid reasons that Christians decide to meet separately from each other otherwise we would all still be meeting in the Roman Catholic Church - the church with the most historical legitimacy.

I agree the ground of oneness includes the blood of Christ i.e. His work of redemption but it also includes His person and other work i.e. the "common faith". The ground is certainly not a piece of dirt in a physical city and to make it such devalues Christians and the Lord they love.

I believe that the divisions are a result of immature Christians and false teachers that take advantage of their immaturity. This in part is due to the mature Christians not being active enough in their role and leave a vacuum for the swindlers to take advantage of.

Yes, oneness includes more than the Blood, but everything is based on our being redeemed by the Lord. Also, I do agree with WN and WL that the OT type is significant, only I disagree with their interpretation. When Jesus died on the cross He did purchase some dirt with His sin offering, us. The ground of the church is not the ever changing boundaries of thousands of cities on this earth, but rather the ground of the church is the redeemed of the Lord who stand on His blood.

Jesus said He would build the church. The argument that you cannot build a building on land that doesn't belong to you is valid. Hence, the land that the church is built on is the land purchased by Jesus in His redeeming work.

[Ohio]

Nigel's endnote #20 says ...

Titus 1:5, RcV, note 1, emphasis added. The footnote in its entirety read: “ These words, [Titus 1:5] compared with every church in Acts 14:23, indicate not only that the jurisdiction of a local church is the city in which it is located but also that in one city there should be only one church. The eldership of a local church should cover the entire city in which that church is located. Such a unique presbytery in a city preserves the unique oneness of the Body of Christ from damage. One city should have only one church with one presbytery. This practice is illustrated, beyond any question or doubt, by the clear pattern in the New Testament (Acts 8:1; 13:1; Rom. 16:1; 1 Cor. 1:2; Rev. 1:11) and is an absolute prerequisite for the maintaining of proper order in a local church. Because of this, the first thing the apostle charged Titus to do in setting things in order was to appoint elders in every city.” It asserts 3 propositions: [1] “the jurisdiction of a local church is the city”—the physical boundary of the church [2] In “one city there should be only one church”—one city, one church & [3] The “eldership of a local church should cover the entire city.”

I would add to Nigel's 3 propositions here that the one unique eldership over the one unique church within the boundaries of every unique city ...

[4] Said eldership must be appointed only by "the apostles"

[5] These apostles are only these which Lee recognizes

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I would add to Nigel's 3 propositions here that the one unique eldership over the one unique church within the boundaries of every unique city ...

[4] Said eldership must be appointed only by "the apostles"

[5] These apostles are only these which Lee recognizes

Indeed! And this is one of the main methods by which Witness Lee controlled the LC system while denying doing so. Another way was the curriculum.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I believe that the divisions are a result of immature Christians and false teachers that take advantage of their immaturity.

Some divisions may be of this nature but it's not a universal. Some divisions are the result of mature Christians not wanting to meet with a certain church any longer for very legitimate reasons.

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

This teaching was not a solution because there isn't a solution and IMHO to waste our valuable time looking for one will only prove futile.

Yes. Look how many people out there claim the true, or recovered, or reformed church.

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

This Often (not always) there are some very valid reasons that Christians decide to meet separately from each other otherwise we would all still be meeting in the Roman Catholic Church - the church with the most historical legitimacy.

I am not sure the Orthodox churches would call the Roman Catholic Church most legitimat.

See http://www.orthodoxresource.co.uk/or...y/timeline.jpg

and http://orthodoxdelmarva.org/images/a...rchHistory.gif
for example.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I am not sure the Orthodox churches would call the Roman Catholic Church most legitimat.

See http://www.orthodoxresource.co.uk/or...y/timeline.jpg

and http://orthodoxdelmarva.org/images/a...rchHistory.gif
for example.

Very true and thanks for pointing this out!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

False teachers, according to Peter bring in “damnable heresies even denying the Lord that bought them”.

So then I have a question. Does WL’s teaching on “one city one church” deny the Lord that bought us? The NT is very clear that we have only one foundation, and that foundation is Christ. We stand on Christ alone (all other ground is sinking sand). So then, does adding a second requirement that we stand on “the ground of the church” in addition to Christ who is the foundation, does this requirement “deny the Lord who bought us”?

According to WL you have to stand on "the ground of the church" in order to have the "full experience of the Triune God". Jesus taught "I am the way, the truth and the Light, no man comes to the Father but by me". So then, again I ask, does this teaching of "the ground of the church" deny the Lord that bought us?

I can't see how Lee's "one city one church" rises to the level of a "damnable heresy, denying even the Master who bought us."

Pentecostal Christians make the same arguments about "praying in the Spirit," i.e. praying in tongues. They are convinced that God's full blessing, i.e. the "full experience of the Triune God" is only experienced by those who "worship in the Spirit." They look with pity upon their Christian brethren who have not embraced the "gifts" of the Spirit, and have missed out on these promised blessings. The case could be made that they also consider tongues to be their "sacrament." Paul does make the case that tongues can be a childish toy to some immature ones.

They have their points. I could never in good conscience say that the insistence of some to speak in tongues rises to the level of heresy, "denying the Master who redeemed us." It is unfortunate, however, that every time the Bible says "in the Spirit," the Pentecostals do interpret this as praying in tongues.

Yes "heresy" refers to "schools of thought" in the original language, but Peter's use of the word must be reserved for those errant lines of reasoning that "deny the Master who bought them." In this way they propose another means of salvation apart from Christ, our Redeemer, and reject the deity of Christ, our Lord. The Jehovah Witnesses immediately come to mind.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I can't see how Lee's "one city one church" rises to the level of a "damnable heresy, denying even the Master who bought us."

Pentecostal Christians make the same arguments about "praying in the Spirit," i.e. praying in tongues. They are convinced that God's full blessing, i.e. the "full experience of the Triune God" is only experienced by those who "worship in the Spirit." They look with pity upon their Christian brethren who have not embraced the "gifts" of the Spirit, and have missed out on these promised blessings. The case could be made that they also consider tongues to be their "sacrament." Paul does make the case that tongues can be a childish toy to some immature ones.

They have their points. I could never in good conscience say that the insistence of some to speak in tongues rises to the level of heresy, "denying the Master who redeemed us." It is unfortunate, however, that every time the Bible says "in the Spirit," the Pentecostals do interpret this as praying in tongues.

Yes "heresy" refers to "schools of thought" in the original language, but Peter's use of the word must be reserved for those errant lines of reasoning that "deny the Master who bought them." In this way they propose another means of salvation apart from Christ, our Redeemer, and reject the deity of Christ, our Lord. The Jehovah Witnesses immediately come to mind.

Deny – to refuse the truth of.

Do you agree that the NT truth regarding our oneness is something that was obtained solely by the Lord’s earthly ministry, particularly His work on the cross (both crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension) as well as the sending of the Spirit? If so, does the teaching of “one city one church” deny this truth requiring something in addition to the Lord's work for us to have the "proper" oneness?

Denying the work of the cross is equivalent to denying “the Lord who bought them”. If I argue that the Lord's work is 90% of our oneness then I am denying the truth that the Lord's work is 100% of our oneness.

The Apostle Peter does not refer to apostasy or blasphemy. He doesn’t say they speak sacrilegiously about Jesus, or that he spoke profanely about Jesus, or that he renounced his faith in Jesus. He said that he has a non orthodox teaching of the NT, this teaching creates a sect of Christians, dividing the Body, which is damnable. This teaching requires us to stand on something other than the Lord's work of redemption, hence it denies the Lord who bought us.

According to UntoHim in post 58 the ground of the LSM/Local churches is the "person and work of WL". That, to my understanding, is to deny the Lord who bought us.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Deny – to refuse the truth of.

Do you agree that the NT truth regarding our oneness is something that was obtained solely by the Lord’s earthly ministry, particularly His work on the cross (both crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension) as well as the sending of the Spirit? If so, does the teaching of “one city one church” deny this truth requiring something in addition to the Lord's work for us to have the "proper" oneness?

No, OCOC does not deny the truth of the Lord's work on the cross (both crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension) as well as the sending of the Spirit.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Denying the work of the cross is equivalent to denying “the Lord who bought them”. If I argue that the Lord's work is 90% of our oneness then I am denying the truth that the Lord's work is 100% of our oneness.

The Apostle Peter does not refer to apostasy or blasphemy. He doesn’t say they speak sacrilegiously about Jesus, or that he spoke profanely about Jesus, or that he renounced his faith in Jesus. He said that he has a non orthodox teaching of the NT, this teaching creates a sect of Christians, dividing the Body, which is damnable. This teaching requires us to stand on something other than the Lord's work of redemption, hence it denies the Lord who bought us.

According to UntoHim in post 58 the ground of the LSM/Local churches is the "person and work of WL". That, to my understanding, is to deny the Lord who bought us.

They did not "deny the Master who bought them," but added extra conditions to the Person and work of Jesus Christ. Jesus said, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees." He never abolished nor refuted the place of the Pharisees nor the commandments of Moses which they claimed to uphold, instead He exposed their leaven and hypocrisy, elevating the teachings of man to the level of the word of God.

To the apostle Peter, what is "damnable" about these false teachings, is not that they resulted in divisions, but that they denied the Lord who redeemed us. Witness Lee has never done this. What he did was introduce and elevate the "extras," a.k.a. leaven, into the truth of the gospel.

If we apply this level of judgment to Lee, then we must also apply the same judgment to Lutherans, Pentecostals, Methodists, etc.

Is there anyone left who can then be properly acknowledged as "orthodox."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

They did not "deny the Master who bought them," but added extra conditions to the Person and work of Jesus Christ.

Adding extra conditions by definition is to deny the truth. For example, the NT says "whosoever will may drink freely". The minute you add conditions to that then you have denied that truth.

If you say that there are "extra blessings" if you follow my special teaching then you are denying the truth of God's blessing.

If you say that you don't have a proper stand before the Lord without my special teaching then you are denying the truth concerning our stand before the Lord.

If you say that you lose the blessing of the Lord if you leave the LRC then you are creating non biblical conditions on God's blessing and by definition you are denying the truth of the NT.

Originally Posted by Ohio

If we apply this level of judgment to Lee, then we must also apply the same judgment to Lutherans, Pentecostals, Methodists, etc.

Is there anyone left who can then be properly acknowledged as "orthodox."

Sure, Peter, Paul, John and the rest of the NT writers.

There was a time when you had to be baptized by a certain group to be able to partake of the Table with that group. That has for the most part been recognized as "a damnable heresy denying even the Lord who bought them". As a result people have backed away from that and become much more inclusive.

The cost for admitting an error is not in any way a valid reason to say there is no error.