What is the New Testament Definition of a Church

ZNPaaneah · 10-14-2016, 05:37 AM

What is the church? The church is the composition of the Lord’s many brothers. Individually, we are the Lord’s brothers; corporately, we are the church. The church is the composition of the firstborn Son and the many sons of God. (Witness Lee, The Subjective Truths in the Holy Scriptures, Chapter 3, Section 1)

On another thread this has become a bone of contention.

Matt 18:20 20 for where there are two or three gathered together -- to my name, there am I in the midst of them.'

According to Witness Lee

Suppose that you and others in the city where you live are fed up with Christianity, so you start to meet together separately in the Lord's name. You say, “We give up Christianity; we have had enough of the old system of religion; now we are just meeting by ourselves in the name of the Lord Jesus, assured according to Matthew 18:20 that we have His presence.” We would simply ask you, Is your meeting taking the stand with the true local church in your city? Or is your meeting some isolated thing, something without the church as a standing? If so, your meeting is divisive and not a proper meeting. Do not isolate Matthew 18:20—it must be understood by the context. Read the context, and you will see the right meaning of meeting in the name of the Lord. (How to Meet, Chapter 1, Section 2)

So then the question is this What is the "true local church in your city"?

How do you know what it is?

What does it mean to have a meeting that is "some isolated thing", "something without the church as a standing"?

ZNPaaneah · 10-14-2016, 05:42 AM

Witness Lee provides several tests:

1. No particular name

In the Bible a name is a great matter. Referring to the Lord's name, Acts 4:12 says, “There is salvation in no other, for neither is there another name under heaven given among men in which we must be saved.” Romans 10:13 says, “Whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Matthew 18:20 says, “Where there are two or three gathered into My name, there am I in their midst.” John 14:14 says, “If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.” Hence, salvation is obtained in the Lord's name, and the church is gathered into the Lord's name. Furthermore, even baptism is involved with the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19). By reading the New Testament, we can see that a name is a great matter. Witness Lee, The Bridge and Channel of God, Chapter 3, Section 1)

2. No particular teaching

The basic need for the building up of the Body of Christ is the apostles' teaching. We should have no particular teaching other than the teaching of the apostles, which is the teaching concerning Christ's person and redemptive work and concerning God's economy in faith (2 John 9-11; 1 Tim. 1:3-4; Jude 3; Titus 1:4). (Witness Lee, Elders' Training, Book 10: The Eldership and the God-Ordained Way (2), Chapter 10, Section 2)

3. Fellowship is universal, not isolated

Some people say that they do not have any of the above conditions and that they are non-sectarian and non-denominational. They do not have a special name, a set of special beliefs, or a special fellowship. However, we still need to know whether their fellowship is isolated rather than universal. Over the past thirty years, quite a number of people have seen the error of sects and left the denominations. Because they do not have a special name, a set of special beliefs, or a special fellowship, they think that they are non-sectarian and non-denominational. But there may still be a problem. Although they do not have a special name, a set of special beliefs, or a special fellowship, they have an isolated local fellowship, not a universal fellowship. They do not fellowship with all the saints on the earth. As a result, they become a local sect. According to lesson 14, even though the churches are expressed in different localities, they are still the Body of Christ, and their fellowship is universal. Therefore, if a Christian fellowship is limited to its locality and has lost its universality and the nature of the Body of Christ, it will be a local sect and will result in a division in the church. (Witness Lee, Lessons for New Believers, Chapter 17, Section 4)

4. Do not have separate administration.

We also need to look at whether there are separate administrations in the same locality. Some groups have nothing special, having no special name, no special belief, and no special fellowship. They seem to be nondenominational, but their administration is separate from other nondenominational groups in the same locality. They do not meet together as one with other nondenominational groups in the same locality. For example, in Taipei there may be three small groups, none of which have a special name, special belief, or special fellowship, but the three groups have separate administrations and are independent of each other. This is also sectarianism. According to the Scriptures, a locality can have only one church, and in a church there can be only one group of elders which represent one administration. The Bible says that the apostles appointed elders in every church (Acts 14:23), and it also says that the apostle charged Titus to appoint elders in every city (Titus 1:5). This shows that the elders in a church are the elders in a city, and the elders in a city are also the elders in a church. The apostle did not charge Titus to appoint elders in every street. If he had, we would need to admit that there could be a church on a street. Rather, the apostle charged Titus to appoint elders in every city. Therefore, in a city there can be only one group of elders, and there can be only one administration of the church; there cannot be two or more groups of elders, and there cannot be two or more separate administrations of the church. Although the church in a certain locality may meet separately in many places because of a large number of believers, the administration should still be one. (Witness Lee, The Testimony and the Ground of the Church, Chapter 10, Section 4)

5. No connections with other organizations.

"One other factor is a test of a genuine local church. There may be a Christian group that has no particular name, no particular fellowship, and no particular teaching. Their fellowship is universal, not isolated, and they do not have a separate administration. Although they pass all these tests, do not be quick to say that they are a true local church. It is still possible that this group has a hidden connection with another organization. They are like a kite in the air: someone on the ground is holding the string." (Witness Lee, Young People's Training, Chapter 14, section 5).

So when I consider this definition I find it really useless at explaining why a gathering of 3 saints into the name of Jesus is not a church.

No particular name -- could be
No particular teaching -- could be
Fellowship is universal -- could be
Not some isolated thing -- could be.
Do not have separate administration -- Might be problematic
No connections with other organizations -- could be.

So the only real issue that Witness Lee has with a gathering of 3 saints into the name of Jesus is that they might have a separate administration. Look at how interesting this word "administration" is. They have the same Lord. They submit to the apostles fellowship which is the NT authority. But the elders are the "administration". So then according to Witness Lee a true church is one that has the one true bureaucracy, the one appointed by the apostles.

He doesn't identify the apostles, but he does identify the true churches, they are all ones where he himself appointed the elders.

So then Witness Lee's working definition is this: Any church that has an administration appointed by Witness Lee and answerable to Witness Lee is a true church, all others are not because they have a separate administration.

As a result I completely reject Witness Lee's teaching on this matter as being self serving with another Jesus.

The apostle Peter said that he was an elder. Who appointed him? What apostle appointed him? Surely it was Jesus who appointed him.

I also reject the entire teaching about 2 or 3 by Witness Lee as self serving and hypocritical. I see the church as being analogous to a body. How many cells does it take to have a human body? When the egg splits into two cells is that a body? How about 4 cells? Do you have to wait until you can see the hands and feet? Do you have to wait until you can identify the sex? Do you have to wait until the baby can survive outside the womb? It is a continuum. Once the cell is fertilized it has everything that it needs to grow into a complete human being. From this point on it is simply a matter of maturation.

ZNPaaneah · 10-14-2016, 08:31 AM

Here is how I read the NT on this question:

1. Paul said "There is one body" — This is equivalent to Witness Lee's no denomination. We aren't of Paul or Peter or Apollos. But it is completely opposite to Witness Lee. WL sees this as a way to show which churches aren't true, Paul shows this as a way to state that all believers are part of the one true Body of Christ.

2. Paul said "and one Spirit" — This is equivalent to Witness Lee's fellowship is universal, but it explains why fellowship is universal. This is not something that we have to do, it is due to the Spirit that we have received.

3. Paul said "even as also ye were called in one hope of your calling" — This is equivalent to Witness Lee's 'Central lane of God’s economy' which is based on Paul telling Timothy to charge some to "not teach differently". Why? Because there is one hope of your calling.

4. Paul said "one Lord —" This is equivalent to Witness Lee's one administration, except Witness Lee has distorted "one Lord" to be "one administration". Jesus is Lord, as long as we all submit to Jesus, the Lord, we can be one. Witness Lee created a new requirement that we need "one administration", elders which he himself picks and controls. This makes WL lord. This is abominable. This is why it is a "damnable heresy". This is why he denies the Lord who bought us.

5. Paul said "one faith" — This is equivalent to Witness Lee's no particular teaching, except that WL's word doesn't make sense whereas Paul's word makes it very clear what he is talking about. We all recognize the fellowship of the apostles as our "one faith". We have lots of particular teachings. Baptism and the Lord's table are two very particular teachings. Justification by faith, the Lord's redemption, eternal salvation, etc. Once again Paul is inclusive, Witness Lee is exclusive. Everyone who embraces the one faith is included by Paul, anyone who has "particular teaching" whatsoever it is, is excluded by Witness Lee.

6. Paul said "one baptism" — This is equivalent to Witness Lee's no connection with other organizations. We died to the world and the world to us when we were baptized. Every one of us is associated with other organizations (our job, our family, our community, our nation, etc). It is the Lord's work that makes us one, not some phony baloney claim to independence. It is being immersed into the triune God, separated from the world, and translated into the kingdom of the Son of His love, this is what makes us the true church.

7. Paul said "one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all"— He is over the apostles, the prophets, the elders. He is working through all, whether a group of 2 or 3, or a mega church of 10,000. He is in all, He is the good housekeeping seal of approval. Witness Lee tries to make "locality" over all, it isn't. He tries to make himself the MOTA, he isn't. He tries to be "through all" by only sanctioning churches that have elders that he picked and that answer to him, sorry he isn't God. He tries to make his ministry in all of the church meetings, once again he isn't God.

In addition I agree when Witness Lee says that individually we are sons of God, corporately we are the church. The minimum number of believers to have a corporate experience is 2 or 3. If these 2 or 3 meet in the name of Jesus as described in the 7 ones I just went through then yes, they can have the Lord's table and yes, they can be a lamp stand and yes one of them can be the "elder".

aron · 10-14-2016, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

On another thread this has become a bone of contention.

Matt 18:20 20 for where there are two or three gathered together -- to my name, there am I in the midst of them.'

Lee added discourse about the "true local church" in the quote you included, which - surprise - is based on completely subjective criteria. "When we do it, it's the church" is the bottom line.

Another poster here mentioned that there is context in Matt 18, about dealing with a sinning brother. But I say that the context shows Jesus going from the particular, a sinning brother, to the universal, wherever 2 or 3 are gathered together. "Tell it to the church" means publish it abroad. Tell it in the market place, shout it from the rooftops. The covering that you initially afforded the sinning brother is now gone. It is not a means to pry an ontological entity, the church, with its "proper elders" and so forth, out of the text.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

Two or three may have the Lord's name, His presence, His commission ("God forth before Me"), His binding and loosing, and His testimony ("Tell it to the church"). But all this seems insufficient to some posters here, because, "It's not the church."

I am not saying, "2 or 3 equals the church". What I am saying is that God is quite willing to work with 2 or 3; in fact if you see Jesus function, He often dismisses "the crowd", even some of the disciples, and works with only a few. But God can work with 3 thousand or 3 or 355.

And God may work within city limits, or on a boat or on the deserted highway. But there is power in being together, and even more power in being one. "Then you shall be one, even as I am one with the power." Then, this oneness brings the destruction of Satan. "The gates of Hades will not prevail against My builded church."

But please understand context here. The ekklesia was an assembly, to the Greeks. See, "And with these words he dismissed the assembly [ekklesia]" of Acts 19:41 or "In the midst of the assembly [ekklesia] I will praise Thee" of Psalm 22:22, which Psalm predated Christ by centuries.

To me the hallmark of the meeting, or gathering, or ekklesia of Jesus (i.e. "My church") is that Satan is put to rout. It isn't about playing church, with its networks of quanxi determining who's 'responsible one for Africa'. It is about gathering together and destroying the gates of Hades and setting the prisoners free. That is done with 2 or 3 or whatever.

The rest of it, to me, is just playing games with words. I meet with anyone who will work with me to destroy Satan. I see the love of Christ for me, as He lay there pinned to the cross, and I get up out of the dust and follow. Whoever is coming with me, is whoever is coming with me. "Receive those whom God has received in Christ Jesus." The rest of it is distraction at best.

The church in Anaheim, that doesn't take a name, but is affiliated with the ministry of Witness Lee, doesn't guarantee any special blessing, in my view. In fact I see too many stumbling qualifiers.

Ohio · 10-14-2016, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

Lee added discourse about the "true local church" in the quote you included, which - surprise - is based on completely subjective criteria. "When we do it, it's the church" is the bottom line.

Another poster here mentioned that there is context in Matt 18, about dealing with a sinning brother. But I say that the context shows Jesus going from the particular, a sinning brother, to the universal, wherever 2 or 3 are gathered together. "Tell it to the church" means publish it abroad. Tell it in the market place, shout it from the rooftops. The covering that you initially afforded the sinning brother is now gone. It is not a means to pry an ontological entity, the church, with its "proper elders" and so forth, out of the text.

aron, I think you went too far. Going from private meetings to the market place is not intended either. I believe the Lord wanted to keep these "family" offenses "in house" so to speak. "Tell it to the church" should be indicative of the boundaries of discussion.

I think this verse parallels I Cor 6 concerning lawsuits in Gentile courts. Our Heavenly Father's intentions were similar to those with Israel, i.e. we should handle our problems internally.

aron · 10-14-2016, 01:26 PM

When I mention the ekklesia of Jesus destroying the gates of Hades and setting the prisoner free, I don't suggest some "work", religious or otherwise, rather a testimony of the work of God in sending His Son Jesus Christ, that we might believe and be saved. This ekklesia, or gathering, or meeting, can occur at any point, in multiples; in New York City or London there might be dozens of 'ekklesia' occurring simultaneously. All of them in my view have one mission: to testify of Christ, and in this testimony destroy the king of this age. The love of God compels us to assemble and testify.

So to focus on the church as a subject in its own right is to begin to move away from the testimony of Jesus and into the testimony of human affairs. Then, the unbeliever happens upon our discussion and sees incessant wrangling over names and positions and doctrines, and say, "No way do I want to be a Christian!", and who could blame them?

No, the power of the church is to testify of Jesus Christ, not only in theory but in actuality, in the assembling together. Peter stood with the eleven, and the gates of Hades crumbled before his testimony of Christ risen from the dead, and thousands at that very hour streamed into the Kingdom Of God. The ekklesia should be, in my estimation, a birth chamber for the new life. "Blessed is that man that is born in her"

Quote:

1 He has founded his city on the holy mountain.
2 The Lord loves the gates of Zion
more than all the other dwellings of Jacob.

3 Glorious things are said of you,
city of God:
4 “I will record Rahab and Babylon
among those who acknowledge me—
Philistia too, and Tyre, along with Cush—
and will say, ‘This one was born in Zion.’”
5 Indeed, of Zion it will be said,
“This one and that one were born in her,
and the Most High himself will establish her.”
6 The Lord will write in the register of the peoples:
“This one was born in Zion.”

7 As they make music they will sing,
“All my fountains are in you.”

Blessed are those who are born in her, in Zion, the ekklesia, or meeting, or assembly, or gathering together in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Those who are born there are blessed indeed.

aron · 10-14-2016, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

aron, I think you went too far. Going from private meetings to the market place is not intended either. I believe the Lord wanted to keep these "family" offenses "in house" so to speak. "Tell it to the church" should be indicative of the boundaries of discussion.

I think this verse parallels I Cor 6 concerning lawsuits in Gentile courts. Our Heavenly Father's intentions were similar to those with Israel, i.e. we should handle our problems internally.

But Jesus doesn't say, "Tell it to My church", a la Matthew 16, but to the church. The ekklesia in gospel context was any gathering, religious or not. Only with the passage of time did ekklesia come to mean exclusively religious, even specifically Christian, assembly. We tend to read current understanding back upon the text, and assume it meant the same to the original speakers and writers as it means to us today. I'm just publicly questioning that, here.

ZNPaaneah · 10-14-2016, 01:52 PM

Matt 18:15 And if thy brother sin against thee, go, show him his fault between thee and him alone: if he hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16 But if he hear thee not, take with thee one or two more, that at the mouth of two witnesses or three every word may be established. 17 And if he refuse to hear them, tell it unto the church: and if he refuse to hear the church also, let him be unto thee as the Gentile and the publican. 18 Verily I say unto you, What things soever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and what things soever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say unto you, that if two of you shall agree on earth as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father who is in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

The context here is similar to Martin Luther nailing his paper to the door of the Catholic Church. It is David vs Goliath. Jesus is making it clear that two or three plus Jesus out weigh any monster or mega lithic church.

This thread was started in response to a post that said that 2 or 3 cannot be considered a church. As the person was questioned on this they did walk back their full assurance a little. But the context is very clear that 2 or 3 can take on a much larger group and they will succeed because Jesus is in the midst of them. At the very least it undermines the argument that there is some kind of minimum number of saints required to be classified as a church. If this verse were pictured as a seesaw you would have 2 or 3 with Jesus on one end outweighing the entire Catholic Church on the other.

Evangelical · 10-15-2016, 12:57 AM

I question the view that says when two or three are gathered, Jesus is automatically present, because with the Laodicean church in Revelation, they were a gathering of 2 or 3 or more believers, but Jesus was not in their midst but outside knocking on the door wanting to get in. (Revelation 3:20).

So I don't think it's correct that just because some believers get together they can claim to have the Lord's presence and be a genuine church.

I am not talking about Jesus's presence with each individual believer or Jesus's omnipresence (which all believers and even non believers have) , but His manifest presence in the church.

Many of you are thinking about church in terms of the outward, administrative or practical things. But this does not define a true church.
A true church is also not merely about two or three gathering in Christ's name. That is, just because two or three gather in some place, does not mean they can hold the Lord's table there or claim to be the true church in the city.

Merely copying the forms and patterns of the early church does not make it a genuine church. A church without the presence of the Holy Spirit is not the true church.

The local churches in the Lord's recovery were established not as a decision to copy a first century church model, but because Watchman Nee and Witness Lee had the presence of the Holy Spirit.

To get to the heart of the matter, the true local church in each city is the one that has the lampstand. The lampstand's purpose is to express spiritual light. The lampstand is the Spirit (Rev 4:5).

The true church in each city is the church that Jesus Himself has chosen to express spiritual light and have His manifest presence in that city.

In this sense, ZNPaaneah is correct that a two or three sized genuine church (with a lampstand) outweighs an entire false church (or self-proclaimed church). But to say that just any two or three believers can gather together somewhere and consider themselves the true church, I question that.

aron · 10-15-2016, 05:36 AM

1. We established that 'ekklesia' didn't mean, specifically Christian gathering. It could be a civic gathering, or political, or religious. See Acts 19:41 "And with these words he dismissed the 'ekklesia'.

2. We established that the word had usage predating Christ by centuries. "In the midst of the 'ekklesia' I will sing hymns of praise to You" (Psa 22:22)''

So when Jesus said, "Tell it to the church" what did He mean? To me, He meant, Tell it to a group larger than two or three. It didn't have to be specifically a Christian organization. In Matthew 16 Jesus said, "I will build My church", meaning there were 'ekklesia' not of Him (see points one and two). In Matthew 18 we shouldn't be too quick to assume meaning.

For confirmation, look at the next sentence. "Let this one be like the pagan or tax collector" (NIV) If they don't repent in the larger setting, the public assembly (religious or otherwise), let them be ignored. They are gone.

Remember that the Jews were what we today would call racist, or xenophobic. They wouldn't acknowledge foreigners. If a gentile went up to a couple of Jews and asked for directions, one Jew would look at the other and say, "Why should I talk to a gentile dog?" They wouldn't even acknowledge their existence. They were a special, separated people. Jesus is saying that if your brother sins against you, and refuses to repent, when given chances, including private opportunity, then they are gone.

Eventually "your brother" included the gentiles, after Jesus was gone. But we shouldn't read too much of "[gentile] church organization" into a Jewish teacher's sayings. In fact, the only universal points, "wherever two or three gather I am there" and "whatever you bind or loose on earth is bound or loosed in heaven" are specifically set to the two or three.

So to say, "Oh, but that's not the church" doesn't hold much water with me. But I acknowledge that I may be in the minority position here. And since I don't want to be like the publican or sinner, I happily go to the established, Christian organizations. But I don't see it as a requirement, per Matthew 18.

ZNPaaneah · 10-15-2016, 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Many of you are thinking about church in terms of the outward, administrative or practical things. But this does not define a true church.

Wow you are funny! "Many of us" refers to you and Witness Lee.

ZNPaaneah · 10-15-2016, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

1. We established that 'ekklesia' didn't mean, specifically Christian gathering. It could be a civic gathering, or political, or religious. See Acts 19:41 "And with these words he dismissed the 'ekklesia'.

2. We established that the word had usage predating Christ by centuries. "In the midst of the 'ekklesia' I will sing hymns of praise to You" (Psa 22:22)''

So when Jesus said, "Tell it to the church" what did He mean? To me, He meant, Tell it to a group larger than two or three. It didn't have to be specifically a Christian organization. In Matthew 16 Jesus said, "I will build My church", meaning there were 'ekklesia' not of Him (see points one and two). In Matthew 18 we shouldn't be too quick to assume meaning.

To me, this understanding of the meaning of ekklesia is the strongest evidence for the idea of "locality" as the ground of the church. In Greek society the "ekklesia" was the gathering of all the citizens in that town. This was the earliest form of democracy.

Also, when you view this concept of the ekklesia, here is a town, or village or city, the gathering of all the believers in that locality is the ekklesia of that locality, then it also suggest that 2-3 is really a rarity for a "true ekklesia".

All of that said, you have to understand you are pulling all of that meaning out of the history of Greek democracy and not directly from the NT. Also Jesus makes a contrast with this history when He says "my" ekklesia. That history of the word refers to the Greek's ekklesia, not Jesus'. But, when you also look at the New Jerusalem as a type of the true church there is a very clear NT link between this concept of ekklesia and the NT church.

But here is the thing, anyone who describes the Greek ekklesia will include the fact that it was a city council. No NT apostle did that. Why? An oversight on such an important topic as this? Or, which is far more likely in my opinion, did they forsee that these ekklesias might not be limited by time and space (i.e. this forum).

aron · 10-15-2016, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

All of that said, you have to understand you are pulling all of that meaning out of the history of Greek democracy and not directly from the NT.

Acts 19 says, "He dismissed the ekklesia" and the meaning was clear to Luke and his readers that it was a civic assembly. Acts, obviously, is a NT book written after Jesus had resurrected. But centuries latter, when the text was translated into English, they had to translate it into something else because it couldn't mean 'church'. I'm simply pointing out that the way out is to translate the word in all cases as 'meeting' or 'assembly'.

Now, eventually the word took on strong association as usage changed. But don't be to quick to read that later meaning back onto a gospel passage.

ZNPaaneah · 10-15-2016, 07:15 AM

I'm not disagreeing with you. My point is that Witness Lee's strongest argument for his doctrine of dirt is to take the Greek usage of this word. I agree that if you limit this term to the Greek usage you can conclude a doctrine of dirt, but the apostles do not do this. And, that lack is, to my mind, very telling.

Ohio · 10-15-2016, 07:19 AM

Yes, but, there are many other Greek words which initially had secular meanings, yet were understood by the believers and the writers of the N.T. to have a Biblical or spiritual connotation. The context would determine the actual meaning. For example, the logos was the message, the discourse, and Greeks understood its meaning in the course of life, but for believers fellowshiping about their Savior, the Logos was something different, and had new meanings and implications.

Likewise "assembly" is a general phrase, but in Christian circles it refers to a gathering of believers. I think it was much later that the German word "church" took over this meaning for clarification.

aron · 10-15-2016, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Yes, but, there are many other Greek words which initially had secular meanings, yet were understood by the believers and the writers of the N.T. to have a Biblical or spiritual connotation. The context would determine the actual meaning.

And I am saying that Evangelical and many others assume a meaning that I here question, in Matthew 18: "Concerning a brother who sins in church" is the typical contextual understanding. But Jesus pointed to a larger idea, which ZNP is considering as well (so I surmise), which Evangelical dismisses with, "It's not the church".

So my way of entering the discussion was to say, "When 2 or 3 have the Name, and the Presence (Gk: parousia), have the authority to bind and loose, to testify (to the 'church', or other, larger, [public] assembly(s)", and it is dismissed with "That's not the church", which 'church' we're promptly told needs "proper elders" and "proper administration" (appointed by the head of a non-profit publishing company), ad nausea, how quickly we've gone back on the road to Rome!

Of course this is just my reaction. Hopefully it's not too disrespectful of others who don't think as I do, and hopefully it includes the caveat that my thinking changes over time.

So I provisionally put forth the notion that the 'ekklesia' as it was understood in the gospels was temporal in not only space, ('local'), but in time as well. An 'ekklesia' was assembled and dismissed. The 'ekklesia' of Jesus, per Matthew 16, was to testify that Jesus was the Christ, the promised Messiah, or Son of Man, who was expected by Jews of all types and stripes. The Messiah, who it turns out, was not only the Savior of Israel but Savior of the world.

Let me give two examples. First is the assembly in Acts 2, attended by 120 believers and several thousand unbelievers. Peter stood with the eleven, testified, and thousands were converted. Second is Philip and the Ethiopian in Acts 8. The first meeting, or assembly, was thousands, the second was merely two people! In one many were converted, in the second only one. But both had a convening, a testifying, a result (repentance, confession and salvation) and a dismissal.

If someone says to me, "That's not the church", I'm going to be careful to move on too quickly, especially when I see what they're moving on to. And when Evangelical tries to bring the 'context' of Matthew 18 as in, the "Sinning brother in the church" motif, I want to also bring in the context of how the word 'ekklesia' would be understood when Jesus was speaking to the crowds. I'm saying we shouldn't be too quick to read 20th century meanings, and perceived needs, onto 1st century words in the NT gospels. Especially when it results in the downplaying of Jesus' words as conditional and provisional, when I see no such thing. "Verily, verily, I say to you, whenever you do 'x'" doesn't seem so constrained as we might wish; it rather seems an invitation. Why dismiss it with, "Oh, that's not my ontological construct"?

MW "ontological" - "relating to or based upon being or existence". When the thing you create into existence pushes away the thing Jesus placed into existence - His presence, His name, His authority, His testimony - then I say not so fast. But this is a discussion, a mutual learning exercise, and I don't presume to push anything away; I'm rather saying there's more in the text than merely "a brother sinning in church"; there's a principle and an invitation - and if we need elders appointed by Witness Lee to bring our principle into reality, then I really question our understanding, here. Of "church" or anything else. I was there, I saw it.

Ohio · 10-15-2016, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

And I am saying that Evangelical and many others assume a meaning that I here question, in Matthew 18: "Concerning a brother who sins in church" is the typical contextual understanding. But Jesus pointed to a larger idea, which ZNP is considering as well (so I surmise), which Evangelical dismisses with, "It's not the church".

So my way of entering the discussion was to say, "When 2 or 3 have the Name, and the Presence (Gk: parousia), have the authority to bind and loose, to testify (to the 'church', or other, larger, [public] assembly(s)", and it is dismissed with "That's not the church", which 'church' we're promptly told needs "proper elders" and "proper administration" (appointed by the head of a non-profit publishing company), ad nausea, how quickly we've gone back on the road to Rome!

Most references to the ekklesia describe a collection of believers gathered in some location, either city, or home, or region. Some other references to the ekklesia refer to the so-called universal church, "which is His body," as in "I will build My church." Some other references to the ekklesia refer to a specific gathering, which also may include secular references.

I did voice a little protest (post #5) when you said to "tell the church," was to "publish it abroad and shout from the rooftops." (post #6) I do feel the Lord was saying, "take it public, go to thers for help, but keep it in house, preferably by going to some mature brothers, possibly the elders or other wise brothers," as in I Cor 6.5.

But as far as "two or three meeting in His name," who's to say that is not the church? The Bible is NOT definitive here. Did not Paul "appoint elders in every church" (Acts 14.23) which implies those congregations of untold numbers of believers were churches BEFORE elders were appointed.

aron · 10-15-2016, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

I did voice a little protest (post #5) when you said to "tell the church," was to "publish it abroad and shout from the rooftops." (post #6) I do feel the Lord was saying, "take it public, go to others for help, but keep it in house, preferably by going to some mature brothers, possibly the elders or other wise brothers," as in I Cor 6.5..

I do overstate to make my point, and I see your point, here, as well. Certainly the 'ekklesia' of Matthew 18 and 1 Cor 6 are not mutually exclusive. But I didn't like what seemed to be cavalier dismissal of the Lord's words with, "It's not the church". Context shrinking meaning, and spiritual value, nearly to the vanishing point.

But I protest too much. . I usually do.

ZNPaaneah · 10-15-2016, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

But as far as "two or three meeting in His name," who's to say that is not the church? The Bible is NOT definitive here. Did not Paul "appoint elders in every church" (Acts 14.23) which implies those congregations of untold numbers of believers were churches BEFORE elders were appointed.

Very nice. I thought the "appointed elders" criteria that Evangelical made would be completely unworkable.

It seems appointing elders is merely on the continuum of the church's growth and development.

aron · 10-15-2016, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

It seems appointing elders is merely on the continuum of the church's growth and development.

Though you may think so from my posts, I don't long for some magical re-creation of Acts 2, or Acts 8, or Peter and James and John on the mountaintop with Jesus and Elijah and Moses, or want to forbid any assembly of more than 2 or 3. I understand there's such a thing as history and I'm placed in time, space, and culture. Organization is okay. I go to a building on Sunday morning and open a hymn-book, like the rest. It's okay.

No, really.

But I also like to place the emergence of Nee's Little Flock, and Lee's infiltration of the USA Jesus Movement in history as well. The "God raised up Watchman Nee on the virgin soil" of China narrative doesn't produce a one-size-fits-all Christian church. We can and should be critical when folks presume to find clear and necessary organizational patterns in the NT text. Which (I think) is what I've been doing.

Ohio · 10-15-2016, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Very nice. I thought the "appointed elders" criteria that Evangelical made would be completely unworkable.

It seems appointing elders is merely on the continuum of the church's growth and development.

I agree.

Also I completely reject LSM's claims that ONLY the apostles can appoint elders. That did occur, and was recorded, but never prescribed by the N.T. If that were true, then there could not be any elders beyond the first century.

This is why Paul delineates healthy requirements for elders and deacons in both I Timothy and Titus. Along with these requirements, leaders should be "well-attested" by the saints, and confirmed by the Spirit. (Acts 16.2, 20.28)

ZNPaaneah · 10-15-2016, 03:35 PM

OK, another very good point. So, if we look at the prescription by Paul for choosing an elder and follow it, then although the elder wasn't ordained by the apostle, the elder was ordained according to the fellowship of the apostle.

Ohio · 10-15-2016, 04:37 PM

How much better than some lackey getting appointed elder due to his loyalty to headquarters.

aron · 10-15-2016, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

How much better than some lackey getting appointed elder due to his loyalty to headquarters.

Guanxi. Look it up. That's all it is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanxi

Fallen human beings arranging social structures according to their culture. The biblical and/or spiritual veneer is thin, even non-existent in some places.

ZNPaaneah · 10-18-2016, 05:57 AM

To Summarize:

Evangelical said that the NT qualification for a gathering of Christians to be a "church" is for them to have two male elders.

However, as Ohio pointed out the verse Evangelical uses to make this claim says that "they appointed elders in every church". So, the NT already considered the gathering a church prior to the elders being appointed.

We can assume from Evangelical's silence that he does not disagree.

Witness Lee said that a church is the corporate expression of the son's of God. I agreed with this and noted that 2 or 3 would fulfill that requirement.

The word ekklesia is defined as "gathering of the called out ones" and again I pointed out that 2 or 3 would fulfill that requirement.

A common teaching in the Local church is that a to be a church you have to have a Lord's table. The practice of "taking the ground" (apparently one of the secret practices of this group that they don't discuss in their written ministry) involves a group of Christians having a "Lord's table" meeting for the first time (for that group in that city). However, there is no reason why 2 or 3 could not have a Lord's table meeting.

So we did not reject this as being descriptive of a church, but saw no reason why it would eliminate a church meeting of 2 or 3.

Evangelical stated plainly that 2 or 3 could not be a church. But when asked what the NT minimum number of believers was required for a church he walked this statement back. No one has provided any NT minimum number other than a "gathering" and "corporate expression".

The really important expression, the one that is the most provocative and which elicits the strongest feelings is Witness Lee's expression of "the true Church". He never defines what makes a "true church" but rather works off the assumption that you have accepted everything he has taught about the ground of the church and then used that doctrine to claim that any gathering that does not subscribe to his doctrine is not a "true church". When we looked at his doctrine and criteria carefully the only point that would cause many groups an issue was the point about "elders appointed by the apostle". He uses the term "administration". But when you boil down his teaching and carefully dissect it to determine what is and is not a "true church" according to his teaching, the only churches that qualify are those in which he has appointed the elders.

So I would dispute this term "true church". Instead, I would argue that the church is the expression of Jesus. As long as the church is expressing the "true Jesus" then no one should have any issue with that gathering. According to the Lord's word about 2 or 3, saying that "He would be in their midst". To me this says that this gathering is expressing the true Jesus, hence anyone who is judging this gathering falls under the Lord's word about judging another man's servant.

OBW · 10-18-2016, 02:05 PM

Starting back in the opening post, I realize that this is a bit of a challenge for those who claim that a church must meet some formula. And it was started by quoting some of Lee's material.

But the questions at the end seem to be in terms that those of the LCM would use.

Was this intentional? Trying to draw out a clear definition from those of the house of Lee?

Quote:

So then the question is this What is the "true local church in your city"?

I will assume that my reading is right because, as posited, it is worded in a manner that seems to assume that there are true churches and other churches (untrue churches? not so true churches? false churches?)

And the constant insistence by the LCM of including the word "local" almost every time that "church" is used is peculiar. They clearly are not referring to proximity — unless they disregard so many other groups as being churches. It is not a benign term because it is too clearly associated with their group no matter how un-local it is for some people, and not for other groups no matter how local they are to those around them.

It is not a term with special definition provided by scripture. So whatever they think they have found in scripture that is so important, it is not that the church is "local." But they have attached it to that word anyway.

The title of the thread is "What is the New Testament Definition of a Church." Oddly, I believe that most of what we think of as definitions are more like attributes. I don't find much that defines the church. I heard some discussion among some theologians and while what they said made sense, it was still somewhat a kind of imposition of opinions about things.

And yet, it is somewhat the same kind of partial opinions that leads me on this subject.

Especially when you get to things like trying to define a minimum number. Could it be 2 or 3? Possibly. But is it sufficient for all that a church needs to be? When you consider the multitude of "gifts" that operate within a practical "body" (not just the 1 Cor 12 gifts, but also those listed elsewhere) is 3 sufficient in the long run for a healthy body?

I am not suggesting that God cannot multifariously gift 3 people to be all that they need as a church. But then it is hardly a church of anything like normal people, but of super-elders.

I would agree that 2 or 3 can function as a church for a purpose, or for a period of time. But as a regular, ongoing thing, I believe that its lack of the breadth of experience and ability will leave it seriously lacking. Or wandering into dangerous territory. Consider that when the issue of the Judaizers came before the Jerusalem elders, it took more than three of them to talk, listen, pray, and decide. And yet we think that any 3 of us could simply be a church.

Maybe on paper. In a theoretical discussion. But in practice a church of three is like an ant farm with only 3 ants. They are really diligent ants, doing whatever it is that those particular 3 ants do. Bit it takes more than 3 ants to really be an ant farm.

How many believers for it to really be a church? I don't know. There is no rule. 50 may fail while 10 succeed. But from an expectation standpoint, I would have had more expectation for the 50 than the 10. And I would have more expectation from 10 than from 3. But there is no magic number. There is no way to parse together anything that says "this is the minimum." For every declaration that a certain small number can't be, it could be. And for every insistence that a certain larger number is clearly sufficient, it just may not be for a particular group of that many.

The church is not a number. It is a gathering which requires more than one. Probably more than two because "gathering" is difficult to layer over 2.

And saying that having the Lord's table is a defining thing, what's to keep a gathering of Christians who are not otherwise intending to regularly meet as a church from having the Lord's table. Jesus' command made no reference to "as oft as you do it" being strictly a church thing. A proper remembrance is a proper remembrance.

And what if some do not do the Lord's table in "your" way? I do not find enough in the scripture to create a "proper church squad" to go around defining who is and who is not a church. It is for sure that the LCM version of who is and who is not cannot stand scrutiny from the Bible. Way too sectarian to get the Good Churchkeeping seal of approval.

Nell · 10-18-2016, 10:38 PM

I don't believe there is such a thing as "the" New Testament definition of "a church" or "the church." As Ephesians 5 says, the church is a "great mystery." The NT has many references to the church but there is no clear definition. I believe this is by design. Jesus said He will build His church. Men can only speculate about what He will build as they interpret various scripture passages and game plan their buildout based on speculation.

I think that any definition of the NT church arrived at by men we can pretty much guarantee not to be "it". Why? How "great" is a "great mystery"? When I say "great mystery" it is limited by my "poor reach of mind." But when God says "great" compounded by "mystery", I think we are way in over our heads attempting a definition of that which God has not clearly defined.

The best men can do is to define structure, organization, hierarchy of the membership, etc. No mystery there. How does this compare to "a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church."

There is plenty of structure, organization, hierarchy, etc., but I doubt that the Lord has committed Himself to this mound of spots and wrinkles. Perhaps we would do well to gather for fellowship with Him and other believers and trust Him to take care of the rest.

Nell

Evangelical · 10-18-2016, 11:50 PM

If a church is merely one's family group at home or a group of friends gathering together for a prayer time, the verses in the Bible about excommunication would not make sense.

For example, suppose my church is my mom, my dad, my brother, my sister, and I. We have home fellowship every week, have bread and wine, sing a song, pray and read the Bible.

Suppose my sister sinned in some way deserving of excommunication, am I supposed to apply this verse?:

1 Cor 5:1-6 :
It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father's wife. You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst.

Obviously a church cannot be a gathering of family or friends of this verse to "remove from our midst" could not apply.

It seems like church as defined in the Bible is something more than just a gathering of believers.

ZNPaaneah · 10-19-2016, 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

I don't believe there is such a thing as "the" New Testament definition of "a church" or "the church."...

Wouldn't you agree that the church is the corporate expression of Jesus and therefore indicates a corporate experience as well?

ZNPaaneah · 10-19-2016, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If a church is merely one's family group at home or a group of friends gathering together for a prayer time, the verses in the Bible about excommunication would not make sense.

Why?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

For example, suppose my church is my mom, my dad, my brother, my sister, and I. We have home fellowship every week, have bread and wine, sing a song, pray and read the Bible.

You do understand that a "home meeting" does not indicate that everyone in the meeting is in the same family? The church in Odessa met in a home until they got too large, about 25 adults from a number of different families.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Suppose my sister sinned in some way deserving of excommunication, am I supposed to apply this verse?:

1 Cor 5:1-6 :
It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father's wife. You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst.

Obviously a church cannot be a gathering of family or friends of this verse to "remove from our midst" could not apply.

Are you familiar with Merriam and Moses in the book of Exodus?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It seems like church as defined in the Bible is something more than just a gathering of believers.

It seems this is very vague and impractical a definition.

ZNPaaneah · 10-19-2016, 06:57 AM

I have found that 3 is an ideal number for evangelism, and for being sent out to a church. I cannot see any gift that cannot be exercised by 3 saints.

Also, it has been my experience that when the church size is small, less than 100, the participation and service is very high on a per member basis. But once you get over 1,000 the participation and service on a per member basis is much lower.

But I don't think anyone would disagree that a "church" of 3 would be a very sparse meeting indeed. It is doubtful you would meet the same way, probably no "message" rather just fellowship, often around the table as you might eat at the same time. Also, the burden for evangelism would be much greater.

So then, how about looking at it the other way around. Is there a number too large to be a church?

My father used to say that meetings that have more than 12 people are doomed to failure, hence the Lord's choice of 12 disciples, and even then He had Judas.

According to Paul when you are in a meeting (gathering, ekklesia) and something is revealed to one they should stand up and the one speaking stop, while everything is being done in "good order".

That seems to be impossible once a meeting reaches a certain size. We have seen in some of these "mega churches" that breaking the big meeting into much smaller groups (as they did in Taipei) is one effective way to shepherd and care for the entire flock.

There has been a lot of discussion among Christians on the necessity of having home meetings to keep a church healthy, regardless of the overall size of membership.

Nell · 10-19-2016, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Wouldn't you agree that the church is the corporate expression of Jesus and therefore indicates a corporate experience as well?

Maybe. Though I doubt that I would ever, under any circumstaces, use the ruined term "corporate expression" to define anything.

When the Lord sends me to a group of Christias to fellowship, I don't bring a checklist with me to make sure they fit my preconceived definition of "church". I just obey and trust that I'm there for a reason.

Nell

ZNPaaneah · 10-19-2016, 08:13 AM

The Local Church used their definition as a way to disqualify Christian gatherings. I think that as we look closer and closer at this we will see that the Apostle's view was inclusive, not exclusive.

OBW · 10-19-2016, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

Maybe. Though I doubt that I would ever, under any circumstaces, use the ruined term "corporate expression" to define anything.

And that gets back to what you said about there being no definition (and I agree).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

When the Lord sends me to a group of Christias to fellowship, I don't bring a checklist with me to make sure they fit my preconceived definition of "church". I just obey and trust that I'm there for a reason.

I agree on not bringing a checklist.

But I don't generally feel called or sent to any particular group. Instead I feel compelled to meet. And to be fairly consistent with it in terms of both regularity of meeting and regularity of who I meet with.

OBW · 10-19-2016, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I have found that 3 is an ideal number for evangelism, and for being sent out to a church. I cannot see any gift that cannot be exercised by 3 saints.

Also, it has been my experience that when the church size is small, less than 100, the participation and service is very high on a per member basis. But once you get over 1,000 the participation and service on a per member basis is much lower.

But I don't think anyone would disagree that a "church" of 3 would be a very sparse meeting indeed. It is doubtful you would meet the same way, probably no "message" rather just fellowship, often around the table as you might eat at the same time. Also, the burden for evangelism would be much greater.

So then, how about looking at it the other way around. Is there a number too large to be a church?

I have already stated that I can agree with 3, but have a problem with it being regularly viable.

But the question about are there too many is a question that has no simple answer.

The problem is with the potential lack of community. There is a sense in which church is also a community or family. Too many and you don't know anyone.

(As an aside, I read some time back that most people are unable to actually keep up with more than about 150 friends, and that most of that 150 will be somewhat distant friends. It says a lot for people with 500+ "friends" on facebook.)

But when you consider the pattern provided in Jerusalem immediately after Pentecost, there was getting the apostle's teaching in the temple and breaking bread, prayer, and fellowship from house to house. So a large church for purposes of the teaching of the word that also has a structure of smaller groups for all kinds of purposes, whether "official" or impromptu can be an effective and complete church in every sense.

Does that mean that any large church is completely successful at this? Or that there are not always people who will primarily be involved for the "ministry" or teaching? Even if you are a small enough group to meet in a house?

In other words, the potential for failing within a large church can easily be no better or worse than for a small church. It is ultimately all about the commitment, involvement, etc., of each member. (Member used loosely, not in some organizational or official sense.)

ZNPaaneah · 10-19-2016, 11:32 AM

Also, large churches are tempted to get involved in politics and are tempting targets for marketers and others with less than pure motives. They will also get caught up in large building projects since they will need a hall (or glass cathedral) and they will be targeted by the Jezebel's and Balaam's looking for a congregation big enough to give them the Benz.

Likewise, one way to become bigger and more influential is by "franchising" or creating an alliance of churches (denominations).

In my experience 200 is a number that will support several elders and a meeting hall without being so large as to attract those with an impure motive. That is also in line with your "150 friends". So this is certainly a large enough fellowship to keep you fully involved and links will exist with other churches since everyone has friends and family outside of this congregation.

I don't mean to suggest there is anything in the definition that would say a church is too big, but the NT does describe a setting where each one has, and a certain level of impromptu sharing, as well as a number of different gifts along with elders and deacons. You can get all of this with 200.

If you look at Taipei most of the halls in Taipei can only seat 100 or less. A couple of the bigger halls can seat upwards of 3 or 400. But even hall 1 is packed out at 400.

ZNPaaneah · 10-19-2016, 04:08 PM

Finally, what about time and space?

When Witness Lee makes "locality" a key criteria in defining a church he limits it by time and space and actually makes it clear that a church is limited and defined by time and space.

But today our meetings do not need to be limited by locality. We can meet and fellowship with people all over the world through the phone, internet, video conference, etc.

Also, we don't need to be limited by time. These forums are an example of how a meeting and fellowship can take place irrespective of time.

So then is there anything in the NT that says a church must be limited by time and space?

Was Witness Lee teaching from his poor human concept or was it actually based on the apostle's fellowship?

OBW · 10-19-2016, 05:21 PM

While I agree that we can meet with anyone anywhere, anything besides a one-way meeting (live streaming of a sermon, for example) is fairly problematic once you have multiple points of access. At some level it may be worse than meeting in a huge room with 4,000 people at the same time. At least everything going on is visible to all.

But I think that this whole location thing is missing Lee's point. And maybe even the points that the Bible actually make on the subject (few though they be). Lee is not concerned about how easy it is to meet. Despite the many "halls" that seat only 100 or so in Taipei, he restricts how people would physically meet by a series of criteria that he claims is only one item, and that is "locality." As high-sounding as it may seem before you actually try to vet it for scriptural significance, it is not the basis upon which the LCM has ever met. It is just a formulaic overlay that clearly no one else would use (or at least few would use) behind which they can hide a series of other "musts" to really be the true church.

Moving back to online meetings, for all the possibilities of real connection in an online environment in limited circumstances, I believe that for the most part trying to make church as simple as joining a chat room or streaming a sermon, or other technological method is a way to fool ourselves into thinking that we met when all we did was observe. I fear that suggesting such things as viable is just providing an excuse for those who really don't want to connect to fool themselves into thinking they did. I don't really have a lot of problems with the idea of a mass video of a live sermon to difference locations where many people actual engage with each other, join in singing and other aspects of corporate worship, and are only "online" relative to the sermon.

Once the whole thing becomes remote, then the idea of meeting has been short-changed. No matter what kind of technological marvels we can come up with, there is something to be said for real, flesh-and-blood gatherings of people. I cannot declare that the Bible would forbid such a thing. But you have to consider whether even a lot of such meetings might fool us into thinking that we have not forsaken the assembling of ourselves together when we really have become little more than people who sing karaoke with the computer and listen to YouTube videos of faux worship as some computer graphics show us a "room" full of personal avatars who are animated by the computer as if actually engaging with others when there are no real others to see or engage with.

Nell · 10-20-2016, 03:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

And that gets back to what you said about there being no definition (and I agree).
I agree on not bringing a checklist.
But I don't generally feel called or sent to any particular group. Instead I feel compelled to meet. And to be fairly consistent with it in terms of both regularity of meeting and regularity of who I meet with.

I agree with you. Here's another way to look at it. When are Christians, regardless of size (3 plus?), NOT the church?

Much of this topic focuses on the church meetings--the where and how. When you consider verses like "Christ loved the church and gave himself for her," there has got to be more to it than meetings, structure, heirarchy, etc. Verses like this one should make us realize that the church is much more personal than can be covered by a mutually accepted definition. "Personal" is not the best word, but it will have to do for now.

What did Christ die for? Maybe that is the better question. And again, when and how are Christians NOT the church? Who can make that call?

Nell

ZNPaaneah · 10-20-2016, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Moving back to online meetings, for all the possibilities of real connection in an online environment in limited circumstances, I believe that for the most part trying to make church as simple as joining a chat room or streaming a sermon, or other technological method is a way to fool ourselves into thinking that we met when all we did was observe. I fear that suggesting such things as viable is just providing an excuse for those who really don't want to connect to fool themselves into thinking they did. I don't really have a lot of problems with the idea of a mass video of a live sermon to difference locations where many people actual engage with each other, join in singing and other aspects of corporate worship, and are only "online" relative to the sermon.

But I am viewing this differently. I am thinking that the New Testament reveals that there is one church. It is not as simple as just "Christians gathering". There are 7 ones in Ephesians that are criteria and must be met. But these are inclusive criteria, not exclusive. It seems relatively straight forward for a group of genuine Christian believers to meet those criteria.

So imagine that the NT church in practicality is all of those Christians who are currently alive on Earth. That is the "Body of Christ". That is the "Bride of Christ".

But, the ekklesia, the gathering of the called out ones, includes any gathering (as few as 2-3) of these members who are gathering together into the name of Jesus.

If you take this view you can explain "church in Ephesus", "church in their home", and "the church". It also opens up other possible gatherings that are much more akin to what Paul said when he said 1Cor 5:3 "For I verily, being absent in body but present in spirit,".

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Once the whole thing becomes remote, then the idea of meeting has been short-changed. No matter what kind of technological marvels we can come up with, there is something to be said for real, flesh-and-blood gatherings of people. I cannot declare that the Bible would forbid such a thing. But you have to consider whether even a lot of such meetings might fool us into thinking that we have not forsaken the assembling of ourselves together when we really have become little more than people who sing karaoke with the computer and listen to YouTube videos of faux worship as some computer graphics show us a "room" full of personal avatars who are animated by the computer as if actually engaging with others when there are no real others to see or engage with.

That is if you take the "either or" approach, but if you take the "both" approach they each have something to offer. It is easier to have full participation, full accountability and a written record of the meetings that take place on line. It is simpler to participate and to do it "in good order".

If one of the issues with a large congregation is that it is difficult for all the members to function, then technology does facilitate this.

If one of the issues is time and space then technology can facilitate this.

What happens today when someone is sick or ill and cannot attend the meeting. Technology can help in that situation as well.

Yes there are a lot of things to be said for the flesh and blood meetings, but one of the extreme limitations is that once the meeting is over 200 people it is highly likely that members will begin to become spectators.

The fact that not all uses of the technology are examples of genuine worship and fellowship is no different than complaining about having music in the meetings because some music is worldly.

I have fully embraced technology in my classrooms, it increases accountability and participation 10 fold. As a result the students are able to learn quicker, less frustration and less boredom. Used correctly it enables more people to participate, more people to function.

In my opinion there is a limited value in having meetings for more than 200 people, yet this is the main staple in the Christian gatherings that I have observed in my lifetime.

I have also observed that it is difficult for people to participate in the smaller gatherings. For example, it takes me 45 minutes to drive to our meeting hall. So to have a small fellowship for an hour and a half is doubled in time when I take into account driving. I would expect that eliminating the need for driving and thereby cutting the total time required for this meeting in half would greatly increase participation and function.

Also, for those who miss a meeting they would have access to all of the "notes", "minutes" and "fellowship". So although there are a lot of things to be said for the flesh and blood meetings, there are also a lot of things to be said for the online meetings. In fact the only real thing that you can do in a flesh and blood meeting which you can't do online is to eat together. So by adopting more online meetings it would probably lead to a more regular gatherings that involve eating together at the hall. After all, why call a meeting at the hall unless it is so that you can eat as well as fellowship?

OBW · 10-20-2016, 04:07 PM

Going with more recent posts by both Nell and ZNP, the fact of Christians is the fact of church. And I agree that Christians together are church. But that is in the sense that the verse about loving the church and giving himself for "her." In this sense the church is not the meeting, but the members.

(I would add here that while I understand the popularity of the "personal" aspects of the Christian life, church, etc., there is little that makes even this particular verse really about "me" with respect to the church, but more about the church without borders. It is really about the whole of it, not the "personal" of it. The context in which the meeting is not relevant does not appear to make it about the components as much as it makes it about the whole without reference to the meeting.)

This is the universal sense of the church. And in this sense, whether or how we meet is not the issue. But when we get back to brass tacks of continuing in our faith over a long period of time, it is the meeting of the members (that is also isolated from the whole by reference to the church in places, cities, houses, regions). And when it referred to regions, it used the plural "churches." So in that use it was not the same at the one where Christ "gave himself for her" because that one was about the whole, not the meetings.

I do not dismiss the partial use of online meetings of one kind or another as being anything about the church. But if that is simply what you call "church" then I think that there is something missing that is important. If, as ZNP has since indicated, that online is "part of a balanced diet" or physical and online meetings, then they can clearly have their place.

But at the same time I feel that the lack of real contact will result in a tendency to take such meetings less seriously. If it requires no personal commitment to be other than online, only those who are (at least at the time) "sold out" zealots for Jesus will continue with it in a serious way for very long. They will instead wear a decent shirt (if their web cam is on) and otherwise mute their microphone because they don't want anyone to hear the sound of the fingernail clippers. Or whatever.

When I refer to sold out zealots, I am not demeaning them. But the Christian life is not only for sold out zealots. Full salvation and sanctification is for those who simply believe, obey, and grow. Anyone who thinks that being a believer is about "extreme Christianity" or whatever the latest buzzword is for being one of the disciples (the few) rather than the many that Jesus taught about their living. Told them to go home and live right. Not everyone was told to follow as a disciple. Even the rich young ruler was not denied the ability to believe. Just to follow. He didn't have it.

Christianity (the collection of believers in Christ, not some negative overlay like the LCM throws around) is about believing and obeying. And for some, there is an additional call to follow like the disciples/apostles. If Christianity is only about disciples/apostles, then it isn't much because there never were many. But if it is about all who believe and obey, then it has been growing and multiplying from the beginning until this day. Even in the Dark Ages. They may have lost sight of assurance. But they did not lose sight of believing and obeying.

ZNPaaneah · 10-21-2016, 06:05 PM

Witness Lee got us to focus on what may have been a fully contrived goal, "the true church".

When you read the Bible this is not the issue. The very concept of "wherever two or three are gathered into My name, there I am in their midst" completely changes the focus. The issue isn't the "true church" but rather the "true Jesus".

If "the true church" is the focus, then you give Jezebel and Balaam power. You can't "walk out of the true church" and you literally become imprisoned. This appears to be what is keeping those in Laodicea from heeding the Lord's call to come out.

On the other hand if the focus is on "having Jesus in your midst" Jezebel and Balaam cannot imprison you, and you will not find yourself stuck in Laodicea when the Lord is outside.

Ohio · 10-21-2016, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Witness Lee got us to focus on what may have been a fully contrived goal, "the true church".

Lee often presented Ephesus as a "normal" or model church, while Corinth was a "typical" church. In Revelations, Philadelphia was the model church, Smyrna was acceptable, while all the others were deficient to varying degrees. Most Bible students would agree with these assessments.

Lee would then take the "lampstand" paradigm to extremes. If Ephesus could have their lampstand removed, then obviously all of Christianity denominations have suffered the same consequences.

Similarly, any differences between LC's were considered negatively. But if homogeneity was to be lauded, then the Recovery could never compete with the Orthodox and Catholic brands.

ZNPaaneah · 10-22-2016, 05:57 AM

Suppose instead that a major promise indicating the true power and importance of the church is that Jesus will be in the midst of a genuine meeting of believers in His name. Something along the lines of one will put a thousand to flight, two ten thousand.

What Lee did was go through and say "that meeting is no good, and that one and that one and that one..." It was such a big deal about how to qualify as a "proper meeting", ultimately it was only the meetings he controlled, and he condemned all meetings that he didn't control. Since he didn't control the internet the entire "cyberspace" was off limits. Telephones were vehicles of gossip.

"We also need to consider the matters of gossiping, reasoning, and murmuring. Each day how much time do we spend gossiping? Some saints are very free in passing on information about others. Too much time has been wasted and too many dollars have been spent in talking vainly on the telephone. In such activities we have been outside of Christ." (Witness Lee, The Organic Union in God's Relationship with Man, Chapter 5, Section 4)

Letters, emails were also somewhat suspect.

We also need to check with ourselves about the way we write letters. Do you write letters in the spirit or in your natural man? It is very possible that much of our correspondence is done in the natural man, not in our regenerated being. There may be nothing wrong in a letter you write. Nevertheless, it may be written by the natural man, not by the spirit. The same may be true concerning our talk on the telephone. Much of the saints’ talking on the telephone is done by their natural being, not by their reborn being. (Witness Lee, The Fulfillment of the Tabernacle and the Offerings in the Writings of John, Chapter 10, Section 5)

Instead of having the "true church" what his teaching really accomplished was to distract you from the true Jesus.

Ohio · 10-22-2016, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Suppose instead that a major promise indicating the true power and importance of the church is that Jesus will be in the midst of a genuine meeting of believers in His name. Something along the lines of one will put a thousand to flight, two ten thousand.

What Lee did was go through and say "that meeting is no good, and that one and that one and that one..." It was such a big deal about how to qualify as a "proper meeting", ultimately it was only the meetings he controlled, and he condemned all meetings that he didn't control. Since he didn't control the internet the entire "cyberspace" was off limits. Telephones were vehicles of gossip.

"We also need to consider the matters of gossiping, reasoning, and murmuring. Each day how much time do we spend gossiping? Some saints are very free in passing on information about others. Too much time has been wasted and too many dollars have been spent in talking vainly on the telephone. In such activities we have been outside of Christ." (Witness Lee, The Organic Union in God's Relationship with Man, Chapter 5, Section 4)

Letters, emails were also somewhat suspect.

We also need to check with ourselves about the way we write letters. Do you write letters in the spirit or in your natural man? It is very possible that much of our correspondence is done in the natural man, not in our regenerated being. There may be nothing wrong in a letter you write. Nevertheless, it may be written by the natural man, not by the spirit. The same may be true concerning our talk on the telephone. Much of the saints’ talking on the telephone is done by their natural being, not by their reborn being. (Witness Lee, The Fulfillment of the Tabernacle and the Offerings in the Writings of John, Chapter 10, Section 5)

Instead of having the "true church" what his teaching really accomplished was to distract you from the true Jesus.

Why did Lee never warn us about how much time we spent sitting in meetings, "being hearers, and not doers?" Why did Lee never warn us about how much time we spent reading books (especially his) and not God's word?

I have said this before. If you listen and read Lee long enough, being warned of every danger under the sun, you will be convinced that he, and only he, should be trusted. Everything else in life has a huge warning sign in front of it.

10-22-2016, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

There are 7 ones in Ephesians that are criteria and must be met. But these are inclusive criteria, not exclusive. It seems relatively straight forward for a group of genuine Christian believers to meet those criteria....But, the ekklesia, the gathering of the called out ones, includes any gathering (as few as 2-3) of these members who are gathering together into the name of Jesus.

Wouldn't such an important subject deserve a more comprehensive definition using all the available biblical references to form the most accurate and complte view?

For instance, by your criteria a single household of 8 people could be 4 separate churches and that according to you would be just fine. Mom and Dad in the kitchen, cousins Melba and Dalton in the living room, the twins in the basement, and gramps and gram gram in the garage. 4 churches, four elders, meeting according to the 7 ones in Ephesians, and gathering in the names of Jesus all under one single family roof!

Sorry ZNP, there is more to the biblical definition of a church than what you have included else the situation above would be legitimate.

Ohio · 10-22-2016, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

For instance, by your criteria a single household of 8 people could be 4 separate churches and that according to you would be just fine. Mom and Dad in the kitchen, cousins Melba and Dalton in the living room, the twins in the basement, and gramps and gram gram in the garage. 4 churches, four elders, meeting according to the 7 ones in Ephesians, and gathering in the names of Jesus all under one single family roof!

Sounds like the glorious church life!

UntoHim · 10-22-2016, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

For instance, by your criteria a single household of 8 people could be 4 separate churches and that according to you would be just fine. Mom and Dad in the kitchen, cousins Melba and Dalton in the living room, the twins in the basement, and gramps and gram gram in the garage. 4 churches, four elders, meeting according to the 7 ones in Ephesians, and gathering in the names of Jesus all under one single family roof!

Good to hear from you again Drake. So glad that our little pond is one of your stops on your way South for the winter.

Let's bring your hypothetical example down to real-life, brass tacks, shall we?

Mom and Dad in the kitchen believe that all believers in their city are part of "the church in their city". But, they follow the person and work of Witness Lee, and will only meet with those who solely and fully accept "the Ministry" AS INTERPRETED by a select few "Blended Brothers." All others are persona non grata.

Now Melba and Dalton in the living room also believe that all believers in their city are part of "the church in their city". And they also follow the person and work of Witness Lee....AS INTERPRETED by one Titus Chu. They will not accept many of the interpretations of the Blended Brothers. So? What to do? What to do? Well, they will simply meet in the living room as another "church in their city". It's all good! Right?

Now we come to The Twins in the basement. They have been taking a closer look at the ministry of Watchman Nee. Opps! It seems that few of the teachings and practices established by Witness Lee, or the ones tweaked by Titus Chu, seem to match up with those of Watchman. What to do? What to do? Easy! Just continue to meet as "the church in their city", but with Nee materials instead of Lee or Chu! How cool is that! Am I right?

Finally we come to dear ole gramps and gram gram in the garage. Now these old birds have been around the pond a time or two, you see. They are sick and very tired of being forced to follow the person and work of any of these men - Nee, Lee, Chu, the Blendeds. They've seen the movie and they know exactly how it ends. It ends the same exact way with the whole lot of em - division, back biting, double-crosses, personal attacks and character assignations, wanna-be apostles who claim they are more blended then the other guys....etc. etc..etc.

But, since the garage is relatively clean and the rent is cheap....they decide to just leave Mom and Dad, Melba and Dalton and the twins to fight among themselves, wasting their time, and more importantly, wasting God's time. They will simply follow the Person and work of Jesus Christ. All the others call them "the church in the garage". Oh well. No biggie. It's just a name, right?

-

10-22-2016, 02:32 PM

Thanks for the welcome back Untohim. Just waddling through. ;-)

Pick your favorite example. Any of them will demonstrate the fallacy of ZNP's selective criteria for the definition of a church.

A city of 1 million could have as many as 500,000 churches!

Of course that would be ridiculous too.

The majority of the New Testament is to, about, and for the churches. To take a few slices and call it the complete definition is at best careless interpretation of the Bible.

least · 10-22-2016, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

For instance, by your criteria a single household of 8 people could be 4 separate churches and that according to you would be just fine. Mom and Dad in the kitchen, cousins Melba and Dalton in the living room, the twins in the basement, and gramps and gram gram in the garage. 4 churches, four elders, meeting according to the 7 ones in Ephesians, and gathering in the names of Jesus all under one single family roof!

That's where your divisive mind works- a single household of 8 people could be 4 separate churches.
4 separate churches? you said it.
The Lord Jesus who is building His church hears you.

These 8 people in a household, are one in the body of Christ, one in the church. One with all Jesus believers throughout time and geography. One with all Jesus believers at the same time in the same city.

Is the body of Christ divided? Christ's own body, can be divided? He is God, know you not? Who, and/or What, can divide God's body?
Even as you've decided that the household of 8 is divided into 4 separate churches, they are not divided.
Piece of advice: gods are NOT God. (you know it and admit it, you who proclaim yourself god.)

Four "elders"? Your mindset of 'our place and positions'. That's the mindset of the pharisees and priests who would have Jesus killed.

Shepard (s)- feed the lambs, feed the sheep.
Members one to another, building up in love.

in Ephesians chapter 4:
There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

NOTE: NO 'one publication'. !!!
You divide yourselves into the 'one publication' prison, yet the body of Christ is not divided. If you are a member of the body of Christ, you are one with all members of the body of Christ.
And the greatest is LOVE. Agape love. Not NLW blending love.

ZNPaaneah · 10-22-2016, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

Wouldn't such an important subject deserve a more comprehensive definition using all the available biblical references to form the most accurate and complte view?

For instance, by your criteria a single household of 8 people could be 4 separate churches and that according to you would be just fine. Mom and Dad in the kitchen, cousins Melba and Dalton in the living room, the twins in the basement, and gramps and gram gram in the garage. 4 churches, four elders, meeting according to the 7 ones in Ephesians, and gathering in the names of Jesus all under one single family roof!

Sorry ZNP, there is more to the biblical definition of a church than what you have included else the situation above would be legitimate.

This is an open forum, educate us.

ZNPaaneah · 10-22-2016, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

Thanks for the welcome back Untohim. Just waddling through. ;-)

Pick your favorite example. Any of them will demonstrate the fallacy of ZNP's selective criteria for the definition of a church.

A city of 1 million could have as many as 500,000 churches!

Of course that would be ridiculous too.

The majority of the New Testament is to, about, and for the churches. To take a few slices and call it the complete definition is at best careless interpretation of the Bible.

But if there are 500,000 cities (towns, villages, cities, hamlets, etc) then you would have 500,000 churches worldwide, even though there is only one church. So you haven't eliminated this conundrum. How can 1 church be divided into 500,000 smaller gatherings and still be "one".

Well, if they all have one God, one Father, one Lord, one Spirit, one baptism, one faith -- then every meeting regardless of how big or small is still part of the one worldwide gathering of believers.

More importantly, suppose you do have a church, according to whatever definition you will give us (why are you keeping us in suspense?) and this church is perfect in every single point except one, they don't have the presence of Jesus. The Lord of Lords is not in their midst. Does it really matter that they fit your definition?

On the other hand if a gathering has too few members to meet your definition (whatever it is) but they are meeting into the name of Jesus and He is in their midst, then who cares that they don't have Witness Lee's good housekeeping seal of approval? If Jesus, the Lord of Lords is in their midst who cares what Witness Lee has to say? He did not die for our sins. We are not servants of WL. To our own master we will stand or fall. Who is WL or anyone else to judge the servants of Jesus Christ?

10-23-2016, 12:30 AM

Least》"That's where your divisive mind works- a single household of 8 people could be 4 separate churches. "

I know, it's absurd!

Evangelical · 10-23-2016, 04:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Why?

You do understand that a "home meeting" does not indicate that everyone in the meeting is in the same family? The church in Odessa met in a home until they got too large, about 25 adults from a number of different families.

Are you familiar with Merriam and Moses in the book of Exodus?

It seems this is very vague and impractical a definition.

That is true but the family is the base group for the home meeting. That is, even if no one else came, the family itself would probably hold a meeting.

Excommunication would not make sense if the home meeting is just the family as it would involve disassociation (1 Cor 5:11). How can a husband "excommunicate" his wife? or his children? He cannot.

Therefore a church must be at least larger than a single family.

ZNPaaneah · 10-23-2016, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That is true but the family is the base group for the home meeting. That is, even if no one else came, the family itself would probably hold a meeting.

Excommunication would not make sense if the home meeting is just the family as it would involve disassociation (1 Cor 5:11). How can a husband "excommunicate" his wife? or his children? He cannot.

Therefore a church must be at least larger than a single family.

So then, according to your definition of a church, you cannot be a church unless excommunication is practical?

Am I understanding this correctly. A husband and wife, having a meeting in their home, cannot view this as the "church" because how could the husband excommunicate his wife?

I don't want to put words in your mouth, is this what you are saying?

Evangelical · 10-23-2016, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So then, according to your definition of a church, you cannot be a church unless excommunication is practical?

Am I understanding this correctly. A husband and wife, having a meeting in their home, cannot view this as the "church" because how could the husband excommunicate his wife?

I don't want to put words in your mouth, is this what you are saying?

That's right, excommunication is a function of the church, not a family. Therefore a family cannot be a church. This ties in with the eldership, authority etc. A husband or wife cannot be the "elder" in their church if the church is just their family. Similarly, as someone was claiming them and a sister meeting together are a church. Can they excommunicate each other? Can one of them be an elder? No, so they are not a church.

ZNPaaneah · 10-23-2016, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That's right, excommunication is a function of the church, not a family. Therefore a family cannot be a church. This ties in with the eldership, authority etc. A husband or wife cannot be the "elder" in their church if the church is just their family. Similarly, as someone was claiming them and a sister meeting together are a church. Can they excommunicate each other? Can one of them be an elder? No, so they are not a church.

What about Moses and Miriam?

What happens if the son of "the Apostle" needs to be excommunicated?

What happens if an elder has a wife, and one of them gets excommunicated?

Jesus compares divorce with amputation. Saying that a husband cannot excommunicate a wife is like saying a doctor cannot amputate a damaged limb.

This is the most inane example of grasping at straws.

Not to mention "Aquila and Priscilla and the church in their house".

Ohio · 10-23-2016, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That's right, excommunication is a function of the church, not a family. Therefore a family cannot be a church. This ties in with the eldership, authority etc. A husband or wife cannot be the "elder" in their church if the church is just their family. Similarly, as someone was claiming them and a sister meeting together are a church. Can they excommunicate each other? Can one of them be an elder? No, so they are not a church.

That's right! What about excommunications? Prerequisite for any LC.

According to LSM's definition of a "true" LC, they must have the power to excommunicate undesirables.

But wait, no LC ever does that. Only LSM excommunicates members of the body! But they won't call it that. No, it's called quarantines.

ZNPaaneah · 10-23-2016, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's right! What about excommunications? Prerequisite for any LC.

According to LSM's definition of a "true" LC, they must have the power to excommunicate undesirables.

But wait, no LC ever does that. Only LSM excommunicates members of the body! But they won't call it that. No, it's called quarantines.

So here is a paradox. You have 2 or 3 gathering together into the name of Jesus, and Jesus is in their midst. However, these 2-3 were excommunicated by Witness Lee and LSM. Now if Jesus is in the midst of the 2-3, then who got amputated from the Body of Christ?

Reminds me of the church in Laodicea. They thought they were rich, they thought they had need of nothing. Except for one tiny little problem, Jesus was outside knocking for them to come out. They didn't have Jesus.

I wonder, when Jesus left was it due to the church in Laodicea "excommunicating" Him?

Evangelical · 10-23-2016, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

What about Moses and Miriam?

What happens if the son of "the Apostle" needs to be excommunicated?

What happens if an elder has a wife, and one of them gets excommunicated?

Jesus compares divorce with amputation. Saying that a husband cannot excommunicate a wife is like saying a doctor cannot amputate a damaged limb.

This is the most inane example of grasping at straws.

Not to mention "Aquila and Priscilla and the church in their house".

I'd like to know how you think a husband could excommunicate his wife. It would amount to divorce. This verse could not apply between husband and wife:

1 Corinthians 5:11, “But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one.”

A husband is supposed to not eat with his wife if she is a drunkard.

ZNPaaneah · 10-24-2016, 05:14 AM

That is certainly a question that could be discussed, but this thread is trying to ascertain the New Testament definition of a church.

In particular we have become hung up on the minimum number of members in the church before it can be called a church.

You have argued that it cannot be three members where two are husband and wife because the husband could not excommunicate his wife.

I have resisted the urge to mock this definition rather I would like to examine the implications.

Since an "elder" is supposed to be "the husband of one wife" this issue would arise in every single "church". Your previous definition of a church is that they would have to have two male elders. However, it was pointed out that the NT says "appoint elders in every church" so then they were a church prior to the elders being appointed.

So now you say that 3 members meeting in a home could not be a church because how could two of them excommunicate the third if they were related by marriage which would be likely. I'll refer to this doctrine as the doctrine of "primo excommunicado" meaning that before you can be a church you must be able to excommunicate.

This reminds me of the church in Ephesus who examined those who claimed to be apostles and were not. Jesus commended them on this work, but if I recall there was some issue with that church, if I remember correctly there was something that Jesus was not happy about, He had something against the church in Ephesus, something they needed to repent of. And you know, if I remember correctly, Jesus told them that they could lose their lamp stand over that issue. Some issue that determines whether or not a church is a lamp stand, now that seems to me to be something that should go into our definition. Was it "primo excommunicado", nope, but there was something that took the first place.

Evangelical · 10-24-2016, 06:08 AM

Yes they were a church of Martha's not of Mary's.

Ohio · 10-24-2016, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I'd like to know how you think a husband could excommunicate his wife. It would amount to divorce. This verse could not apply between husband and wife:

1 Corinthians 5:11, “But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one.”

A husband is supposed to not eat with his wife if she is a drunkard.

This happens often in exclusive circles.

Think Amish.

The true Darby lineage Exclusive Brethren have such rules. They can not eat with unsaved family members over age twelve.

The Recovery is headed down the same path. Just wait and see.

Ohio · 10-24-2016, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Yes they were a church of Martha's not of Mary's.

They were unwilling to sit thru one more training meeting?

ZNPaaneah · 10-24-2016, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Yes they were a church of Martha's not of Mary's.

Great point, Martha was worried about a lot of things but Jesus told her that Mary had chosen something more important that would not be taken away from her.

Which makes me think of a perfectly useless and impractical definition, but one that evokes warm memories of my LC experience.

A church needs to have those that love Jesus, serve Jesus and have experienced Jesus in His resurrection power (Mary, Martha and Lazarus).

OBW · 10-24-2016, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's right! What about excommunications? Prerequisite for any LC.

According to LSM's definition of a "true" LC, they must have the power to excommunicate undesirables.

But wait, no LC ever does that. Only LSM excommunicates members of the body! But they won't call it that. No, it's called quarantines.

Very good point.

I do know of an example of someone who had been in Dallas, then moved up to OKC but still have relatives back in Dallas. The one in OCK began to entice some young sisters into compromising situations (we'll leave it at that). When it was discovered and there was not repentance, he was cast out in OKC. And because of the connections back in Dallas, we were advised of the situation and the status.

Was everything about this one done right? I don't know. But it does stand as one (and maybe the only) situation in which external forces were not behind any such situation whether or not otherwise warranted.

OBW · 10-24-2016, 10:28 AM

This seemed more appropriate here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Quote:

The LC has no name.
The others have names.

That is not correct. The LC has the name of Christ, others have names other than Christ.

"To deviate from the Lord's word is apostasy, and to denominate the church by taking any name other than the Lord's is spiritual fornication.""

Quote:

The LC consider other churches as false and heretical.
The others generally believe other churches to be true churches.

Yes, because of the previous point, they are not real churches because they commit spiritual fornication. The other churches have no issue taking a name other than the Lord and approve of others who do likewise. In other words, the one who has the name of Christ is the genuine wife.

Quote:

The LC has a unique Bible.
The others do not have a unique Bible.

It depends. A church will often tend to use one version over another. Others have unique prayer books and service books. During my 30 years in denominations, I have been in many situations where everyone chose to use a common bible version for convenience, or the pastor recommended one over another.

Quote:

The LC will not cooperate with other denominations.
The others will generally cooperate with other denominations.

Cooperation but no genuine unity.

There is a lot in this one.

First, the LC has a significant name other than Christ. In fact, their name is so important that, if possible, they will join with another group already bearing that name, try to convince them to follow Lee and use the RecV, and if they fail, either try to make things miserable for them, or separate from them and declare themselves to be a variation on the name they really wanted.

(And consider this one in conjunction with the last internal quote, below.)

Quote:

To deviate from the Lord's word is apostasy, and to denominate the church by taking any name other than the Lord's is spiritual fornication.

This one is the real whack job. Make a statement that is not actually supported by the scripture (even those passages in 1 Cor) and thereby call everyone but yourselves apostate and heretical.

And you want to lay claim to any kind of unity? What a joke!!

And you are proud of your claim that you are the one true church.

I find it funny that Corinth, the scene of the problems that you are so adamant cause apostasy and heresy were not called that by Paul when writing to the church in Corinth. And they were happening within the church. Not outside of the church by heretical, apostate wannabes. And you are so certain that the church in Corinth was simply this singular thing that was named in a way that supports your claim to not have a name.

You will need to deal with how the problems that you call "not true church" were happening within the one that you claim was the only true church in the city.

As for the common bible usage, it is clear that there is nothing particularly wrong with such a practice. It makes reading together much more coherent.

But that is not what goes on in certain kinds of "churches." It is quite common that groups that want to be "THE church" with "THE truth" will often go to great lengths to create a translation that brings all the things they like best together into one place. But more than that, they want to retranslate certain things in ways that create emphasis or even new meaning to certain things so that their peculiar teachings now can be claimed to be "from the Bible" rather than just from the teaching of their favorite minister. For the LCM, that version is the RecV and that leader is(was) Lee.

Even benign things like retranslating so many instances of "truth" into "reality" has no real value other than to provide a way to elevate your version of truth to the status of "reality" and thereby denigrating all other "truth" to heresy and apostasy.

No need to prove that your interpretation of what is the truth is, in fact, the truth because you have already given it the superior title of "reality" and it can no longer be questioned.

And last, you want to claim genuine unity when you won't even cooperate. You have no idea what genuine unity is. Cooperation is part of it. It means that people with differing ideas about things that are not central to the Full Gospel of Christ are willing to cooperate with each other. But you are not. That undermines even cooperation. If you can't cooperate, you can't claim to be in unity with anyone except those who absolutely agree with you 100% on all things. So rather than strive to keep the unity of the faith, you are casting off all those who do not keep maintain unity of the minutia.

Way beyond faith.

DistantStar · 10-24-2016, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

It is quite common that groups that want to be "THE church" with "THE truth" will often go to great lengths to create a translation that brings all the things they like best together into one place.

This always makes me think of a quote by G. K. Chesterton which I find fitting:

Quote:

The heretic (who is also the fanatic) is not a man who loves the truth too much; no man can love truth too much. The heretic is a man who loves his truth more than truth itself. He prefers the half-truth that he has found to the whole truth which humanity has found. He does not like to see his own precious little paradox merely bound up with twenty truisms into the bundle of the wisdom of the world.

I don't quite think the LC heretics (not quite), but I thought this quote fitting.

By the way, is it perhaps better to move my and evangelical's discussion of the definition of "denomination" (under my testimony) to this thread?

UntoHim · 10-24-2016, 03:51 PM

Distant Star,

When you get a chance, could you please point me to the posts you want to move. Please include the post #s, or if applicable, a series of post #s. Thanks.

***To All.

I think this is an extremely important subject to discuss on this forum. Accordingly, let's all try to keep from introducing side issues, such as excommunication, heretical teachings, details regarding the functions of elders, etc, etc.

-

ZNPaaneah · 10-25-2016, 05:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

According to Witness Lee

Suppose that you and others in the city where you live are fed up with Christianity, so you start to meet together separately in the Lord's name. You say, “We give up Christianity; we have had enough of the old system of religion; now we are just meeting by ourselves in the name of the Lord Jesus, assured according to Matthew 18:20 that we have His presence.” We would simply ask you, Is your meeting taking the stand with the true local church in your city? Or is your meeting some isolated thing, something without the church as a standing? If so, your meeting is divisive and not a proper meeting. Do not isolate Matthew 18:20—it must be understood by the context. Read the context, and you will see the right meaning of meeting in the name of the Lord. (How to Meet, Chapter 1, Section 2)

So then the question is this What is the "true local church in your city"?

How do you know what it is?

What does it mean to have a meeting that is "some isolated thing", "something without the church as a standing"?

We have taken issue with this term "the true local church" because it is not in the New Testament. It appears to be exclusive, elitist, and bring in a basis for condemning all other Christian gatherings other than Witness Lee's.

However, to be fair to Witness Lee the term "sect" as a work of the flesh is used in the New Testament. This word is sometimes translated as "heresy" and "damnable heresy". So although the term "true church" isn't used, there is quite a lot of evidence of "counterfeit" gatherings referred to in the New Testament.

"Many Christians know that heresy refers to something negative, but not many know the real meaning of heresy. In these days, I have been burdened to put out a tract on the subject of the true meaning of heresy. If you consult a dictionary, you will discover that heresy is an anglicized Greek word—a Greek word brought over into the English language. Do you know what heresy is? To know what heresy is, we must go to the New Testament and understand the meaning and usage of this word in the Greek language. We cannot derive the meaning of the word heresy simply by studying a lexicon. We must know both the meaning of the Greek word and its usage in the New Testament. The Greek word hairesis is used nine times in the New Testament (Acts 5:17; 15:5; 24:5, 14; 26:5; 28:22; 1 Cor. 11:19; Gal. 5:20; 2 Pet. 2:1). The adjective form, hairetikos, is found in Titus 3:10. In most of the occurrences of the word hairesis the meaning is “sect.” For example, Acts 5:17 speaks of “the sect (hairesis) of the Sadducees.” In Acts 24:5 Paul was accused of being “a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.” Here, a small number from the Jewish religion followed Jesus to form another group which was considered by others as a sect. Paul uses the word hairesis strongly in Galatians 5:20, ranking heresy with works of the flesh, such as adultery, fornication, and witchcraft. Immediately before speaking of heresies, Paul mentions “hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions.” Hence, wrath, strife, seditions, and heresies are related to each other. First we have wrath, then strife, and after strife we have seditions. Following these are heresies. This means that if we strive and fight with others, the result will be divisions that issue in sects. Thus, in this verse, Darby translates hairesis as “schools of opinion.” To have a school of opinion means to hold an opinion that causes you to be separated and divided from others and to form into a sect." (Witness Lee, Young People's Training, Chapter 8, Section 4)

So this is a very, very high standard. Every single gathering of Christians has opinions and has a certain level of agreement on those opinions otherwise the gathering is completely unstable and will explode.

If that group develops enough their opinions will become a "school of opinions". They will publish, they will write, they will defend their ideas, etc. Some claim that they are exempt from this, but I have yet to see that in my life. I don't think the NT condemns this as it could fall under the "study to show yourself approved".

But when your teaching, your opinions, that your sect holds "causes you to be separated and divided from others" that is when it becomes a "damnable heresy".

Therefore I think the definition of the church in the NT is very clear that there is "one" church. This is because there is one Lord. There is one kingdom. There is one family of God. No teacher, no teaching, no person has a monopoly on this. The prerequisite to entering into this kingdom is to receive Jesus Christ by faith. You are not required to subscribe to any particular teaching, ministry or minister. There is one baptism that is our entrance into this kingdom.

The question therefore becomes whether Witness Lee was right in identifying all other Christian gatherings as being "heretical" (i.e. sectarian) and therefore "not the true church". Or was his teaching about the "true church" actually sectarian and divisive. I think it is undeniable that the Local Church is a "school of opinion" with their own publications, trainings, terminology, etc.

Ohio · 10-25-2016, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

We have taken issue with this term "the true local church" because it is not in the New Testament. It appears to be exclusive, elitist, and bring in a basis for condemning all other Christian gatherings other than Witness Lee's.

In Rev. 2-3 there are quite a diversity of churches. Contrary to LC teachings, their differences were both positive and negative. Yet the Son of Man walked in all of their midst, knowing each intimately, and speaking to all of their needs. He also acknowledged that there were individuals in each of the churches that were not included in the general character of the church.

Philadelphia, and to an extent Smyrna, stand out as exemplary, yet these were never heralded as "the true local church," rather they were all "true" local churches, i.e. lamp stands, with varying degrees of concerns and spiritual needs. Perhaps, since each letter was addressed to "the messenger of the church," these instructions were given to them firstly in order for them to have heavenly guidance to shepherd their own church.

ZNPaaneah · 10-25-2016, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

In Rev. 2-3 there are quite a diversity of churches. Contrary to LC teachings, their differences were both positive and negative. Yet the Son of Man walked in all of their midst, knowing each intimately, and speaking to all of their needs. He also acknowledged that there were individuals in each of the churches that were not included in the general character of the church.

Philadelphia, and to an extent Smyrna, stand out as exemplary, yet these were never heralded as "the true local church," rather they were all "true" local churches, i.e. lamp stands, with varying degrees of concerns and spiritual needs. Perhaps, since each letter was addressed to "the messenger of the church," these instructions were given to them firstly in order for them to have heavenly guidance to shepherd their own church.

Along those lines one of the most shocking quotes of Witness Lee, to my mind, is that he references Revelation 2 as proof that women should not teachers in the church and that a woman taking the lead is evidence of a heresy.

First Timothy 2, 1 Corinthians 14, and Revelation 2 all show that God forbids a woman from teaching. Any sect that is started by a woman or headed up by one, or any group in which the woman occupies the same place as the man is highly suspicious. More than half of the heresies in the world have been started by women. For example, the founder of the Christian Scientists was Mary Baker Eddy, and the founder of the Seventh-day Adventists was Mrs. White. When the Bible speaks about Roman Catholicism, it also refers to the teaching of the woman Jezebel. (Witness Lee, (Messages for Building Up New Believers, Vol. 3, Chapter 20, Section 5)

Ohio · 10-25-2016, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Along those lines one of the most shocking quotes of Witness Lee, to my mind, is that he references Revelation 2 as proof that women should not teachers in the church and that a woman taking the lead is evidence of a heresy.

I don't see the connection here, but doubtful that rises to the level of "most shocking quotes" category.

Evangelical · 10-25-2016, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

In Rev. 2-3 there are quite a diversity of churches. Contrary to LC teachings, their differences were both positive and negative. Yet the Son of Man walked in all of their midst, knowing each intimately, and speaking to all of their needs. He also acknowledged that there were individuals in each of the churches that were not included in the general character of the church.

Philadelphia, and to an extent Smyrna, stand out as exemplary, yet these were never heralded as "the true local church," rather they were all "true" local churches, i.e. lamp stands, with varying degrees of concerns and spiritual needs. Perhaps, since each letter was addressed to "the messenger of the church," these instructions were given to them firstly in order for them to have heavenly guidance to shepherd their own church.

There was no need to call them "true local churches" because the false ones (denominations) did not exist yet.

The fact that Jesus calls them churches, with a lampstand, in a certain locality, proves that to Jesus, a genuine church is a church in each locality.

Ohio · 10-25-2016, 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There was no need to call them "true local churches" because the false ones (denominations) did not exist yet.

The fact that Jesus calls them churches in a certain locality, proves that to Jesus, a genuine church is a church in each locality.

Thyatira, by any standard, could be considered a "false one."

ZNPaaneah · 10-26-2016, 04:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There was no need to call them "true local churches" because the false ones (denominations) did not exist yet.

The fact that Jesus calls them churches, with a lampstand, in a certain locality, proves that to Jesus, a genuine church is a church in each locality.

Not at all. "A genuine church in each locality" indicates more than one church. The New Testament is very clear, not with inference but black and white words that there is only one church.

Jesus also is very clear in the Gospels that there is only one church that He is building.

Since all believers worldwide are members of this one church it is more reasonable and logical to conclude that any gathering of these believers has the potential to represent this one church.

ZNPaaneah · 10-26-2016, 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

I don't see the connection here, but doubtful that rises to the level of "most shocking quotes" category.

Witness Lee uses Revelation 2 to conclude that "the New Testament forbids women to teach". Why? Revelation 2 refers to Jezebel, a "prophetess".

Revelation 2 also refers to Balaam, a false prophet, yet Witness Lee doesn't use that reference to conclude that the New Testament forbids men to teach.

Using this reference to say that it "shows that God forbids women to teach" is very much in line with his use of these references to say that the New Testament teaches there is one church in one city.

This reference also refers to Evangelical's claim that the New Testament definition of a church includes "two male elders".

The connection to me is it undermines Witness Lee's credibility in defining what is and is not a church.

ZNPaaneah · 10-26-2016, 05:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Thyatira, by any standard, could be considered a "false one."

If we agree that a church is a gathering of the called out ones into the name of Jesus and that they are regulated by the 7 ones in Ephesians, and use that as our standard for what is and is not a church. Then the only church of the 7 that I see as being a potentially "false one" is Laodicea. I say this because where 2 or 3 are gathered together into the name of Jesus there He is in their midst. I am equating "gathering together into the name of Jesus" as being regulated by the 7 ones in Ephesians.

Since Jesus is not in the midst of the church in Laodicea it is reasonable to say that they don't meet that standard.

But according to the record you could certainly have 2 or 3 genuine believers fulfilling this requirement in Thyatira, and there is no suggestion that Jesus is not in their midst.

Evangelical · 10-26-2016, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Not at all. "A genuine church in each locality" indicates more than one church. The New Testament is very clear, not with inference but black and white words that there is only one church.

Jesus also is very clear in the Gospels that there is only one church that He is building.

Since all believers worldwide are members of this one church it is more reasonable and logical to conclude that any gathering of these believers has the potential to represent this one church.

I can easily disprove this. Revelation 1:4 says "To the seven churches in the province of Asia:"

Yes, it is one church (the universal church), but also 7 churches (7 local churches), one in each of the 7 cities. It's not that hard, is it?

Ohio · 10-26-2016, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Since Jesus is not in the midst of the church in Laodicea it is reasonable to say that they don't meet that standard.

Rev 1.12-13 indicate that the Son of Man is in the midst of all the lampstands, including Laodicea.

Frankly, I don't think there is justification to say any church that confesses Jesus having come in the flesh (I John 4) is not a church. My definition would exclude only JW's and the like. Perhaps I have swung the pendulum too far the other way, but exclusivism will do that to you. Individuals, however, such as heretics and false prophets and teachers, can and should be excluded.

Evangelical and LSM would like us to believe that the actual condition of a church is insignificant, as long as it has the "proper name" and the "proper standing." The proper name, of course, is their franchise label "the church in ______." The proper standing is a "right" relationship with LSM.

Evangelical · 10-26-2016, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Rev 1.12-13 indicate that the Son of Man is in the midst of all the lampstands, including Laodicea.

Frankly, I don't think there is justification to say any church that confesses Jesus having come in the flesh (I John 4) is not a church. My definition would exclude only JW's and the like. Perhaps I have swung the pendulum too far the other way, but exclusivism will do that to you. Individuals, however, such as heretics and false prophets and teachers, can and should be excluded.

Evangelical and LSM would like us to believe that the actual condition of a church is insignificant, as long as it has the "proper name" and the "proper standing." The proper name, of course, is their franchise label "the church in ______." The proper standing is a "right" relationship with LSM.

So if any church, confesses Jesus having come in the flesh, it is a true church according to you.

So theoretically a church of demons who confess that Jesus came in the flesh (and demons do believe and know that, according to the bible), would be a true church according to you.

And if any number of women confessed to be a man's wife, you would believe those women can all be true wives of the one man. So Jesus is effectively a polygamist, according to you.

Ohio · 10-26-2016, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

So if any church, confesses Jesus having come in the flesh, it is a true church according to you.

So theoretically a church of demons who confess that Jesus came in the flesh (and demons do believe and know that, according to the bible), would be a true church according to you.

And if any number of women confessed to be a man's wife, you would believe those women can all be true wives of the one man. So Jesus is effectively a polygamist, according to you.

It was John the Apostle, in his last days on earth, who gave that definition.

Listen to yourself! "A church of demons confessing Jesus came in the flesh."

And to respond to your absurd speculations -- yes, I think I would prefer an upright polygamist (Jacob basically had 4 wives remember) to the ungodly, degenerate, molesting, abusive, money hungry adulterer who headed up LSM for years -- the late Phillip Lee.

ZNPaaneah · 10-26-2016, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I can easily disprove this. Revelation 1:4 says "To the seven churches in the province of Asia:"

Yes, it is one church (the universal church), but also 7 churches (7 local churches), one in each of the 7 cities. It's not that hard, is it?

How does this disprove that "any gathering of these believers has the potential to be a church"?

John wrote to 7 gatherings, 7 churches, in a province. Each of these churches was identified by the town they lived in.

But that is not proof. When God wants to give us a commandment it is very clear that there is a commandment.

ZNPaaneah · 10-26-2016, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Rev 1.12-13 indicate that the Son of Man is in the midst of all the lampstands, including Laodicea.

Frankly, I don't think there is justification to say any church that confesses Jesus having come in the flesh (I John 4) is not a church. My definition would exclude only JW's and the like. Perhaps I have swung the pendulum too far the other way, but exclusivism will do that to you. Individuals, however, such as heretics and false prophets and teachers, can and should be excluded.

Evangelical and LSM would like us to believe that the actual condition of a church is insignificant, as long as it has the "proper name" and the "proper standing." The proper name, of course, is their franchise label "the church in ______." The proper standing is a "right" relationship with LSM.

I also agree that using the presence of the Lord is not realistic or practical as a definition.

I think that the 7 ones are the only NT requirements for a "genuine", "proper" or "true" christian gathering.

ZNPaaneah · 10-26-2016, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

So if any church, confesses Jesus having come in the flesh, it is a true church according to you.

So theoretically a church of demons who confess that Jesus came in the flesh (and demons do believe and know that, according to the bible), would be a true church according to you.

And if any number of women confessed to be a man's wife, you would believe those women can all be true wives of the one man. So Jesus is effectively a polygamist, according to you.

Why are you getting so slimy? Just point us to the verses in the NT that define the church, what it is, what constitutes a church, etc. Surely, something as important as this will have plenty of verses defining, describing, and qualifying it.

It is quite a turnoff to hear such ridiculous accusations. Do you really think that Ohio was claiming that "a church of demons would be a true church"? This type of rhetoric is offensive and unbecoming.

Has Ohio ever given anyone reason to say that he claimed Jesus was a polygamist? This is vile rhetoric. Please stop.

Ohio · 10-26-2016, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I also agree that using the presence of the Lord is not realistic or practical as a definition.

I think that the 7 ones are the only NT requirements for a "genuine", "proper" or "true" christian gathering.

The "presence of the Lord" is too subjective of a test for churches, but admittedly, many seeking Christians will use that "test" when visiting churches.

I have many Catholic friends and family who feel the "presence of the Lord" at mass. Who am I to argue? After I was saved, I went to a marriage mass, received communion, and I was filled with the Spirit and the "presence of the Lord." I know some who have been saved at Mass.

Ohio · 10-26-2016, 01:28 PM

This was posted anonymously a few years back, and has some points pertinent to our discussion ... (Bolding is mine.)

When approaching Christian unity, the higher principles which are talked about by the Lord Jesus directly are "loving one another" (Mark 12:31-33) and "oneness" (John 17:21) among the believers. These two principles are the most directly taught and therefore, the most important. Any attempt to practically implement these higher principles must always be examined to ensure that these higher principles are not being undermined by the practical implementation itself. Two paradigms have emerged on this thread as ways to view the teaching of the church, and these two paradigms correspond to two very different ways of obtaining practical oneness among believers. The two paradigms are:

1) The "one city, one church" paradigm. The way to achieve oneness according to this paradigm is by bringing all Christians in a city to meet together under one administration.

2) Where 2 or 3 gather there I am in the midst" = the church. One practical way (not necessarily the only way) to achieve oneness in this paradigm is in having separate assemblies with separate administrations holding to unity of "the faith" (Eph 4:13)

The topic of this thread is to examine paradigm #1, “one city, one church”. I would like to challenge every local churcher to go back to the Bible and re-evaluate this teaching and ask some hard questions about why you have come to believe this. Have you ever done a personal study apart from the training and conferences given by others? Trainings and conferences are good, but many times the presentation of truth has been filtered so that only one side of an argument is presented. Without seeing evidence for both sides you are impotent to decide for yourself what the merits of a teaching are and whether it should be accepted as a teaching which binds all Christians.

Ephesians 4:14 warns us “that we may no longer be little children tossed by waves and carried about by every wind of teaching...” Ultimately we are responsible for what we believe and it is not enough to stand before God and say “Brother so-and-so said so” even though we love the brothers very much. You need to determine individually what you will believe about the “ground of the church”. As a fellow local churcher I had never got to hear the arguments which refuted this teaching, so naturally I believed it. Now, after studying this matter myself I have personally concluded that this teaching is not supported by the Bible. I would just like to share the reasons I feel this is not a teaching that carries the weight of Biblical authority. My main point is that this teaching is not binding upon a believer nor is it necessary to practice to keep the oneness.

Below I will address reasons that are cited as support for the “one city, one church” or “local ground” teaching and I will follow that by a response for your consideration:

(1) In the Old Testament, the temple had to be built upon the proper ground. This is a type of the New Testament church being built upon the proper ground. While the foundation is Christ in the New Testament, the ground and the foundation are not the same. The foundation must lie upon the ground and the ground of the church is the city - one city, one church.

Only a few verses in the New Testament talk about the building of God upon the ground. One such verse is Colossians 2:7-8 and contrary to proving that the ground is the city, it actually proves that the ground is not the city but the GROUND is CHRIST. It says, "being rooted and builded up in Him (the ground), and established in your faith, even as ye were taught, abounding in thanksgiving. Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ"

The New Testament precedent for the ground is Christ. We are ROOTED in Him. These verses even strongly warn us not to build upon any other ground than that of Christ. The other place which the Bible speaks of the foundation resting upon something is in Luke 6:47-49, “Everyone who comes to Me and hears My words and does them, I will show you whom he is like. He is like a man building a house, who dug and went deep and laid a foundation on the rock. And when a flood came, the river broke out against that house, yet it was not strong enough to shake it, because it had been built well.” This verse speaks of building the foundation upon the rock. The Rock also represents Christ (1 Cor 10:4, Deut. 32:4, 1 Samuel 2:2). Therefore, no matter where you want to put the foundation of God’s building, you can't get around putting it on Christ (unless you put it on the sand). These verses prove that the ground is Christ and NOT the city.

At this point, some do concede that the ground is Christ – but then quickly add that there is an earthly ground and a heavenly ground. The claim is that the earthly ground is the city, but the heavenly ground is Christ. What must be recognized, however, is that we are not given permission to make very fundamental points like this without verses to establish them. Does the New Testament teach us that there is an "earthly ground of locality" and a "heavenly ground of Christ"? To say this would be akin to claiming that there is an earthly foundation and a heavenly foundation. Surely you would demand Biblical proof for this to prevent the pure foundation of Christ from being marred and something being added to it. The same is true for the ground. The New Testament does not teach of an “earthly” and “heavenly” ground and neither are we permitted to. The ground is recognized as only one thing in the New Testament, and that is Christ. The church is built on Christ and we should not add “locality” to it.

(2) Because the New Testament mentions a spiritual city to come (the New Jerusalem) that means Christians everywhere should gather around city boundaries as a miniature of this future city to come...and if a Christian does not gather around the ground of city boundaries then they are not practicing the real oneness.

This statement mixes up some wonderful truth with some very wrong assumptions. The part that echoes inside of the Christian as truth is the fact that today we can have experiences that give us a foretaste of the New Jerusalem. This is consistent with what Peter says in 1 Peter 2:5 - “You yourselves also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house...” This verse shows us that today, in this age we are being together as a spiritual house. The experience of this spiritual house is not only reserved for a coming age, it can even be experience by us today. Therefore, it seems likely that when we have real experiences of being built together as a spiritual house in this age, we are getting a foretaste (even if only a small one) of the spiritual house that is to come, the New Jerusalem.

The error in this statement is in connecting physical cities with a spiritual city in a way that tries to support an argument for “one city, one church”. The logic says that because what is coming is a city, therefore we should practice oneness today by keeping the city boundary. This is a mixture of the physical and the spiritual. A symbolic spiritual city that will be fully realized in the future makes no implication that we should try to keep physical city boundaries as our oneness today. This would be like saying that because the book of Revelation says there are streets of gold in the New Jerusalem we should all pave our streets with gold today. This is a mixture of the physical and the spiritual that the apostles of the time never taught (and for good reason!). If you want to establish a doctrine you must have verses to back it up and there are no biblical support for this rather odd teaching.

Not many Christians who know their Bible will accept this kind of logic as truth that should bind them. A spiritual city in the future does not obligate people to keep physical city boundaries today. This would mean that everybody who lives out in the country would be missing out on some "mystical experience" that you can only get in cities. Even common sense proves this to be ridiculous.

(3) In Revelation 1:11 & 1:20 there are 7 letters sent to 7 cities delivered by 7 messengers to 7 lampstands which are the 7 churches. This proves at that time there was "one city, one church" because we see no more or less than 7 churches in 7 cities and this disproves that there were multiple assemblies in any of those cities, one of which was the disputed Laodicea (Col 4:15).

Recall the two different paradigms for practical oneness being discussed:

1) The "one city, one church" paradigm. The way to achieve oneness according to this paradigm is by bringing all Christians in a city to meet together under one administration.

2) Where 2 or 3 gather there I am in the midst" = the church. One practical way (not necessarily the only way) to achieve oneness in this paradigm is in having separate assemblies with separate administrations holding to unity of "the faith" (Eph 4:13)

This statement is an attempt to disprove paradigm #2 in favor of paradigm #1. If you look at things through the paradigm of "where two or three gather" = the church, you will see there is no problem with these verses. You can refer to believers as a house together and that is "the church". You can combine two houses together if you like and that is "the church" and as in these verses you can refer to all the believers at the city level as “the church”.

In these verses there is no doubt that He is addressing 7 collections of believers at the city level, but where you begin to assume things is when you begin to say He is addressing 7 "city churches" as if this were his only unit of measurement. If Jesus had an official unit of measurement, it would have been stated with a verse

On the contrary, Acts 9:31 states “So then the church throughout the whole of Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace, being built up; and going on in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it was multiplied.” This verse gives us the freedom to group whole regions containing cities together and refer to that as "the church". Would you then make the claim that because the regions of Judea, Samaria, and Galilee are referred to as "the church" in this verse, then that means there are no individual churches in their respective cities? Of course not. In the same way, just because the Lord Jesus has chosen to group an entire city together and refer to it as "the church" that does not mean there were not its respective house churches. He is simply addressing his called out ones at the city level versus the regional level or the house level. Whether I choose to group the believers together as "the church" at the neighborhood level, community level, city level, etc. they are still "the church". Having one does not exclude having the other. It is merely a different form of grouping.

Neither paradigm can be disproved based on these verses alone. However, from other places in the New Testament we know that the “one city, one church” pattern IS disputable in some places and IS NOT binding upon all believers. This will be the subject of the next point.

(4) In Revelation chapter 2 & 3 notice the churches are addressed according to the city, i.e. “the church in Ephesus”, “the church in Smyrna”, “the church in Pergamos”, etc. Also notice in the salutation of Paul’s epistles in books such as Thessalonians where Paul addresses his letter to the "church of the Thessalonians". In the New Testament, believers practiced “one city, one church”. This proves that we should also practice the same "one city, one church" pattern.

This has been well-traveled topic of discussion on this forum. The argument comes down to "pattern theology". In considering the above point, two questions must be considered:
A) Is there a consistent, clear pattern in the New Testament for "one city, one church"?
B) If there is a clear pattern, should it be binding upon all believers today?

A) Is there a clear, consistent pattern?

In many cases, believers are addressed at the city level in the New Testament. However, if we wish to say something is a New Testament pattern, it must always hold true. There are some sections of verses where discerning such a pattern is indeed disputable. Take, for example, Philemon 2, Romans 16:3-5 and Colossians 4:15. These three verse sets all speak of “house churches”. The local churches generally teach that in the cases where you find verses such as these that refer to churches located in homes that these “house churches” include all the believers in the city. It is my main point in this section not to disprove this point by saying that all the believers in that certain city were definitely not all gathering in that house, which would be equally disputable, but to simply point out the fact that you can only argue that “one city, one church” is a New Testament pattern based on ASSUMPTIONS.

Philemon 2 states, “And to Apphia the sister and to Archippus our fellow soldier and to the church, which is in your house.” Philemon most likely lived in Colossae because the book of Colossians links Philemon’s slave Onesimus to the city of Colossae (Col 4:9). Proof can neither be found in Philemon nor in Colossians that all the believers in the city of Colossae met in the house of Philemon. It is possible that Philemon simply had some believers in Colossae meet in his home, yet Paul refers to them as “the church”. Of course, you can also assume that all the believers in Colossae were meeting in the home of Philemon. Neither argument is definite nor carries scriptural authority. Therefore, a “one city, one church” pattern in Philemon is based on an assumption.

Romans 16:3-5 says, “Greet Prisca and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, who risked their own necks for my life ... and greet the church, which is in their house.” It is also possible that the church in the house of Aquilla & Priscilla does not include all the believers in that city and instead it is a house church with some of the believers in Rome. In fact, if you estimate the number of believers that Paul greets in Rome in this section it comes out to somewhere around 40 saints! It is a big house that is able to fit all 40 believers in it. Of course, you can argue the other way as well. You could argue that Aquilla & Priscilla had a huge heart for the Lord and as a service to Christ and the church they built a very large room to contain all the saints. This is an equally valid argument. What can’t be denied is that whichever way you choose to see it, you are making an assumption.

This also holds true with the end of Colossians, though in a much stronger way. Colossians 4:15 says, “Greet the brothers in Laodicea, as well as Nymphas and the church, which is in his house.” You can argue that all the believers that are in Laodicea are in the house of Nymphas. Here, however it is much more disputable because of the phrase "as well as". If I were to say to “greet my family as well as Mike” you probably would not assume that Mike were a member of my family. This does not concretely prove that Mike is not a member of my family but it certainly does imply the fact. The Greek word here is “kai” which is normally translated as “and” or “also”. The New American Standard version translates this verse as “Greet the brethren who are in Laodicea and also Nympha and the church that is in her house.” This is an even stronger argument that the house of Nympha was considered a “church” even though it did not include all the brothers in Laodicea. As in the case with Aquilla & Priscilla, I would not go so far the other way to say that this definitely proves that there were separate assemblies in Laodicea. You could make arguments the other way as well but no matter which way you argue, you are making an assumption.

As proven in these three examples, in order to establish that there is a pattern for "one city, one church" in the New Testament, you must make ASSUMPTIONS in no minor way. Since assumptions must be made the pattern is not clear and all believers may not see it the same. In fact, house church networks use these verses as a Biblical basis for the way they practice the church life. They obviously have seen these verses differently than we were taught. Is their interpretation right and our interpretation wrong? No one knows. The fact that assumptions are involved makes it difficult to say that it should be binding on all believers since now they must agree with YOUR personal assumption. Therefore, if we insist on the “one city, one church” pattern we run the risk of becoming divisive as it relates to the rest of the Body of Christ, basically telling them they must agree and order their church life with our assumptions or they are not practicing real oneness.

B) If so, should it binding upon all believers?

Now suppose for a second that someone is gracious enough to grant you that “one city, one church" is indeed an established New Testament pattern. Now the question becomes should that pattern be binding on us today? Were the apostles in practicing this pattern trying to set up a "blueprint" which would be binding for all time, or is this instead how the Spirit worked at that time? Firstly, you would expect that if this blueprint was to be kept and to be binding there would be direct apostolic statement related to keeping this pattern, or rebukes in cases where believers were not keeping the pattern. However, there are no direct teachings by the apostles about the “ground of locality”. Furthermore, you would expect many of the details related to the "one city, one church" pattern to be either explained or described in detail so that Christians wouldn't mess it up. After all, God knows that a created men often see things differently and would need something spelled out or at least "patternized" point by point. Do we see this in the scriptures? A resounding no! Instead, we see something a little more like what happened in Acts when the believers practiced communal living. Why did they do this? Was God trying to tell every believer today that they must pool together their possessions? If you say no, then you are arguing against our stated truth of the "ground of locality". These items are a historical account of how the Spirit operated with those particular believers at that particular time. It would seem indeed cruel of God to make such an obscure picture, then expect all Christians to agree upon it, and then charge them that this is the only way to keep the practical oneness.

Other Christian groups have followed this same “pattern” logic as well over slightly different New Testament practices. One such pattern is that on the first day (Sunday) of the believers gathered together in Troas (Acts 20:7). Some say based on this New Testament pattern that if you break bread on any day other than Sunday (the first day of the week) then you are lost! In Acts 20:7 we have a limited peek into what happened in one town among one group of disciples on one weekend. Was this characteristic of their normal custom? Was this the ONLY day they "broke bread" together? Do we know? Was this the custom in other cities in the Empire? Do we know? The fact is we don’t know...and never will. There are Christians out there insisting that you are lost if you break bread on a weekday. The potential patterns are endless...someone infers that a first century disciple observed the Lord's Supper with only one cup, then you and I had better do the same or face a thousand years of you know what. All this leads to is unnecessary division in the Body of Christ – I can’t fellowship with you because you don’t use only one cup. Among us, holding onto the “ground of locality” teaching/pattern has led us down a road of exclusiveness towards other Christians. If we insist that all believers should be practicing the church life in this way we are divisive.

(5) Keeping “one city, one church” helps us to be "one" in practicality because it causes us to take the cross.

Geography is powerless to produce true oneness. Gal 5:19-20 says, “And the works of the flesh are manifest, which are such things as fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, factions, divisions, sects.” Factions, divisions, and sects are the result of the flesh, not because believers failed to gather in the principle of geographical boundaries. Geography cannot force someone to be spiritual and take the cross. This is why in many localities there are currently factions, divisions, and sects despite the "local ground" teaching. The cross is spiritual and must be applied spiritually.

The real test for oneness and the one that bears apostolic authority is found in Ephesians 4:13. This verse refers to the unity of "the faith". It is the faith that unites us. It has nothing to do with a physical boundary. This is why John 4:20-24 state:"Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, and you Jews say that in Jerusalem is the place to worship. Jesus said to her, Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem worship the Father."

We like to emphasize the geography like the Samaritan did, "You must do it here and if not then you are off". Jesus had a much deeper view and got to the root of it. You must worship in "spirit" and in "truth". If you do this, no other burden is laid upon you...not even the city boundary.

(6) Practical oneness can only be expressed when all believers in a city meet together under one roof and one administration.

The Bible never says that all believers in a certain city must meet under the same roof. It doesn't say that all believers in a city must be "blended" together. Just because I don't live under the same roof as my Mom and Dad, even though we are in the same city, does not mean that we are divided. There are families of believers under different roofs, and as long as a family is only holding onto the "unity of the faith" (Eph 4:13) then practical oneness is expressed.

That said, many of the denominations and church splits are indeed due to the works of the flesh which have caused division. This is not being denied, nor is it being celebrated. But if you think about this, these things have happened right among us as well.

The Bible also lacks many details about how administation (eldership) should be carried out. It is the local churches assumption that all the elders in a local area should be in coordination. However, the Bible never talks in detail about the need to have this specific form of administration.

=================

SOME FINAL POINTS

One final point is just to look at our history. Anybody remotely honest among us will agree that we have tended towards exclusiveness. We have set ourselves apart from other Christians and elevated ourselves as being "unique". Your conscience knows that this is wrong. This is the fruit that has been produced. The Bible says to look at the fruit. Examine yourself. How do you feel about other Christians? Do you automatically assume that they are off? I know I am guilty of this. But as the "ground" truth gets dismantled piece by piece I am experiencing a freedom related to my other brothers and sisters in Christ. It is wonderful when you don't have to assume every other Christian you meet is somehow "off". The Bible says that the truth sets us free, and I am experiencing an unbelievable freedom. Hallelujah!

Even the most pure forms of the “local ground” teaching are inherently exclusive. Even if your view is that all the believers in the city are the church in that city and you simply say you are taking a “stand” as the church in the city. In its very nicest form, we would say that others just have not yet seen who they are and they are living according to what they see. However we try to avoid it, the implication is that the proper boundary is the city and others should come into the vision of “one church, one city”. Even the purest form has its basis in the “ground of locality” teaching. I believe the six points above have effectively dismantled this teaching to show that it has no scriptural authority. We should neither bind ourselves nor others to a teaching that is based on many assumptions, or at best a pattern without apostolic mandate. To insist on a non-authoritative practical implementation would undermine the higher principles of love and oneness taught directly by the Lord.

Evangelical · 10-26-2016, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Why are you getting so slimy? Just point us to the verses in the NT that define the church, what it is, what constitutes a church, etc. Surely, something as important as this will have plenty of verses defining, describing, and qualifying it.

It is quite a turnoff to hear such ridiculous accusations. Do you really think that Ohio was claiming that "a church of demons would be a true church"? This type of rhetoric is offensive and unbecoming.

Has Ohio ever given anyone reason to say that he claimed Jesus was a polygamist? This is vile rhetoric. Please stop.

I am not accusing anyone, and no I don't believe or say Ohio was claiming that. I was just taking these wrong ideas to their logical conclusions, and stressing the implications of this incorrect view. Demons must know and believe Jesus is the Son of God and that He came in the flesh. Therefore a church of demons would be a true church. There is something more to a church than just a group of people who believe these things.

Ohio · 10-27-2016, 12:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I am not accusing anyone, and no I don't believe or say Ohio was claiming that. I was just taking these wrong ideas to their logical conclusions, and stressing the implications of this incorrect view. Demons must know and believe Jesus is the Son of God and that He came in the flesh. Therefore a church of demons would be a true church. There is something more to a church than just a group of people who believe these things.

A church of demons would be a true church?

Only if they called themselves "the church in _____" and bought all their books from LSM.

ZNPaaneah · 10-27-2016, 05:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I am not accusing anyone, and no I don't believe or say Ohio was claiming that. I was just taking these wrong ideas to their logical conclusions, and stressing the implications of this incorrect view. Demons must know and believe Jesus is the Son of God and that He came in the flesh. Therefore a church of demons would be a true church. There is something more to a church than just a group of people who believe these things.

So then, if you think it is a fair and right to "take someone's views to their logical conclusion" and then ascribe that meaning to what the person said then you must agree that if a church of demons is "on the proper ground" that is, if they call themselves "the church in ______".

I just can't believe you would say that! It is shocking! Since this is what the Local church of Witness Lee does, and it is reasonable to equate certain individuals and their behavior to "demonic" then, oh my! You just equated the Local church to a church of demons!

Please note, this post is simply stressing the incorrect view that you can take something to its logical extreme and then ascribe that meaning to the person who said it.

ZNPaaneah · 10-27-2016, 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

This was posted anonymously a few years back, and has some points pertinent to our discussion ...

When approaching Christian unity, the higher principles which are talked about by the Lord Jesus directly are "loving one another" (Mark 12:31-33) and "oneness" (John 17:21) among the believers. These two principles are the most directly taught and therefore, the most important. Any attempt to practically implement these higher principles must always be examined to ensure that these higher principles are not being undermined by the practical implementation itself.

Wow, that was a very long quote for you. Great quote for this thread.

But I wanted to just hit on these two points, I think they are huge. For the sake of this thread I would ask how can these become part of a definition of the church, because I do agree with the premise. "by this shall all men know that you are my disciples if you have love for one another". Since we have already defined the church as a gathering of the Lord's disciples, and since the definition is so that we could know what the church is, this seems the critical component. [Think how different this is from "excommunication" and "two male elders" the two previous suggestions.]

I would argue, based on my study, that the answer is in Matthew 18.

Most Christians will immediately associate Matt 18 with excommunication rather than love, but lets look at a few verses.

6 “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

Think about this, Balaam taught Balak to cause the children of Israel to stumble. This is a crucial component of a false prophet. It is this lack of love for one another that should be sending out the major warning.

12 “What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off? 13 And if he finds it, truly I tell you, he is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not wander off. 14 In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should perish

This is the key indicator that they have love for one another. They are not willing that any one would perish. This is the context where two or three are going to the offending party to get them to repent. These ones are trying to rescue the lost sheep. This is where we get the promise that "I will be in their midst". The indication is that this is going to be like David vs Goliath.

The point of dealing with sin in Matt 18 is that someone has stumbled the babes in Christ, they have brought the worldly ruler into the church, and some are standing against the destruction that is being wrought.

Instead of this, in the phony churches you will see "purges". You will learn of "sister's rebellions". It will be very obvious to all who observe carefully that it is the will of Witness Lee or whoever the leader is that "Some perish". That is the mark of a Jezebel. Cry blasphemy and then try and stone the person to death, all so that you can seize control of their vineyard.

Ohio · 10-27-2016, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

But I wanted to just hit on these two points, I think they are huge. For the sake of this thread I would ask how can these become part of a definition of the church, because I do agree with the premise. "by this shall all men know that you are my disciples if you have love for one another". Since we have already defined the church as a gathering of the Lord's disciples, and since the definition is so that we could know what the church is, this seems the critical component. [Think how different this is from "excommunication" and "two male elders" the two previous suggestions.]

This is the key indicator that they have love for one another. They are not willing that any one would perish. This is the context where two or three are going to the offending party to get them to repent. These ones are trying to rescue the lost sheep. This is where we get the promise that "I will be in their midst". The indication is that this is going to be like David vs Goliath.

The point of dealing with sin in Matt 18 is that someone has stumbled the babes in Christ, they have brought the worldly ruler into the church, and some are standing against the destruction that is being wrought.

Instead of this, in the phony churches you will see "purges". You will learn of "sister's rebellions". It will be very obvious to all who observe carefully that it is the will of Witness Lee or whoever the leader is that "Some perish". That is the mark of a Jezebel. Cry blasphemy and then try and stone the person to death, all so that you can seize control of their vineyard.

Great points!

The so-called "love for the truth" and the desire to be a "pure bride" for the Lord often gets twisted in the minds of leaders. It results in an obsession for proper doctrine and justification for the elimination of undesirables.

I agree they have their verses. For example, the Blendeds longed to dump Titus Chu, but needed to do it "properly," so they wrote him two long letters, sent them certified mail, and sent copies to all the other LC's, just so they could declare to all that they followed Titus 3.10, "A sectarian man after the 1st and 2nd admonition reject." Forget about love, love for the hundreds of brothers and sisters in the region. LSM was compelled by Lee's authoritative doctrines, both verbal and written instructions, to keep the Recovery "pure" for the Lord. So what if we have a few casualties along the way. There will always be the collateral of war, and "are not we the warrior to defeat Satan?"

"By this shall all men know that you are my disciples if you have love for one another?" Where was this instruction from the Lord? Who could see the love of God in those excommunications? Who even knew what TC was being excommunicated for? Oh yeah, the first item was his obsession with "clean sheets."

JJ · 10-27-2016, 01:39 PM

I love where ZNPaaneah and Ohio are going with this thread.

The church is where Paul's exhortation in Galations 6:1 applies, that is:

"Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted."

Freedom · 10-27-2016, 02:27 PM

The LC is certainly a close-knit group of Christians, however, that can give members a false sense of security when it comes to the obligation to love one another. If love is a presumption, then it is easy to assume there is no additional effort needed. It's easy for members to view things just like that, because after all, they can travel almost anywhere and receive hospitality with complete strangers. I know that I have some good memories of this aspect of the LC. Members often make reference to these things, saying "where else can you find this."

So it seems that all is fine and dandy until a 'situation' arises. Then when love is put to the test, it all too often fails. And I don't claim for a second that other groups fail in this way too, but there are so many indicators that the LC is full of malice, deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander. It seemingly comes out of nowhere. The group members once believed to be so special always finds a way to rear its ugly head.

ZNPaaneah · 10-28-2016, 08:49 AM

7 “To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write:

These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. 8 I know your deeds. See, I have placed before you an open door that no one can shut. I know that you have little strength, yet you have kept my word and have not denied my name. 9 I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars—I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you. 10 Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come on the whole world to test the inhabitants of the earth.

11 I am coming soon. Hold on to what you have, so that no one will take your crown. 12 The one who is victorious I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will they leave it. I will write on them the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on them my new name. 13 Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches.

Let's see how our definition compares with the church in Philadelphia.

1. The words of He that is Holy and true. This is in contrast to those of the synagogue of Satan who claim to be Jews and are not. Their words are a lie. This is also in contrast to those who are trying to shut the door on this church.

2. A doer of the word -- I know your deeds. The Lord makes it very clear to this church that "talk is cheap". Anyone can claim to be the church standing on the proper ground, etc. But He knows "your deeds". Do your deeds reflect your talk. If you are standing on the ground as the church in the entire city, one with all the genuine believers in that city, are your deeds consistent with that?

3. Inclusive, not exclusive -- A genuine church is going to have "an open door that no one can shut". This is not an exclusive club, it is inclusive. Many of the doctrines of various cults are exclusive and shut the door on large groups of genuine believers.

4. Keep the Lord's word, Don't deny His name -- There are two requirements -- Keep the Lord's word and don't deny His name. I think this has to refer directly to the Lord's commandment to "love your neighbor as yourself". However, I think this point is so big it will need to be covered separately.

5. Can be small -- They have a little strength. This suggests to me that they don't have to be a huge organization like the Catholic Church or some great denomination. Small groups could easily be seen as those who have kept the Lord's word, not denied His name and "have a little strength".

Freedom · 10-28-2016, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

5. Can be small -- They have a little strength. This suggests to me that they don't have to be a huge organization like the Catholic Church or some great denomination. Small groups could easily be seen as those who have kept the Lord's word, not denied His name and "have a little strength".

I wanted to comment on the last point because I think there is the potential for this to be misunderstood. The key words here are "can be." In other words, a small size does not invalidate a church. With regards to large groups, it's not uncommon to automatically validate large groups based on their size. Speaking for myself, I know that I'm inclined to do just that, thinking that if a group is growing and large, it must be doing something right. There's always that possibility, but there are plenty of examples of large groups that have been dysfunctional.

Probably, the issue is that it's easier to be suspect of small groups, thinking that if they're small or 'invisible', they must be doing something wrong. Of course, both of those things can be indicators of something being wrong, but they don't automatically mean that. And this is what I think is the main point, is that size alone does not invalidate a group.

I don't assess the LC on the mere fact that it's small or stagnant. Those factors are considerations, but they don't mean anything alone. The real issue is that when you look at the LC, a lot of what they attempt to use for validation is just an excuse mechanism. When they fail increase in size, they claim that they only need to be small. The LC likes to point to the fact that they are small, that they are 'weak' or that they have been under 'attack' (criticism), as if those things provide an automatic validation the LC.

The hypocrisy is that the LC has no problem making projections about exponential growth, or "churchizing" the U.S. So really, the mindset is about excusing their failure. When they can't get the growth they think they can, they can easily write it off, saying that they only need to be small.

Regarding being small, it's really a two sized coin. Yes, it does provide benefit as it's hard for a group to be impersonal when they're small, and that might better suite people's needs. But what I saw in the LC was the willingness to be small and remain small, because it provided the best "comfort level." By that I mean nobody honestly wanted to get new members because these people would inevitably ask the 'wrong' questions or express reservations about LC teachings and practices. Sure they talking about "getting an increase," but it was just talk. It was easier to get together and "play church" every week in the comfort of an environment where everyone was 100% with the program. And it is hard for a controlled environment like that to exist as the group gets larger and larger.

Everything about the LC seems to indicate they want a layer of 'protection' from the outside world. Where I'm from, people were particularly interested in home meetings. Home meetings are all fine and good, except, there was never much effort made to contact the outside world. It was a mere social club of members who had known each other sometimes 30 or more years. If there had been an influx of new members, it is questionable as to whether or not anyone would have wanted to or been willing to care for them.

OBW · 10-28-2016, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

1. The words of He that is Holy and true. This is in contrast to those of the synagogue of Satan who claim to be Jews and are not. Their words are a lie. This is also in contrast to those who are trying to shut the door on this church.
2. A doer of the word -- I know your deeds. The Lord makes it very clear to this church that "talk is cheap". Anyone can claim to be the church standing on the proper ground, etc. But He knows "your deeds". Do your deeds reflect your talk. If you are standing on the ground as the church in the entire city, one with all the genuine believers in that city, are your deeds consistent with that?
3. Inclusive, not exclusive -- A genuine church is going to have "an open door that no one can shut". This is not an exclusive club, it is inclusive. Many of the doctrines of various cults are exclusive and shut the door on large groups of genuine believers.
4. Keep the Lord's word, Don't deny His name -- There are two requirements -- Keep the Lord's word and don't deny His name. I think this has to refer directly to the Lord's commandment to "love your neighbor as yourself". However, I think this point is so big it will need to be covered separately.
5. Can be small -- They have a little strength. This suggests to me that they don't have to be a huge organization like the Catholic Church or some great denomination. Small groups could easily be seen as those who have kept the Lord's word, not denied His name and "have a little strength".

Overall, not bad.

But item 3 is not created by the reference to an open door. It does not say that they have an open door of fellowship with others and are therefore not exclusive. It says that God has put before them an open door. But if it was talking about whether they were exclusive or inclusive, that would not be something that they were incapable of changing.

Besides, a door in front of you is generally not referring to your own door of "protection." God did not put a door of inclusiveness in front of Philadelphia that could not be shut so that they would be inclusive. If that were a correct meaning of the words found in this passage, it would indicate that your ability to be inclusive or exclusive is not your own to determine. God has either made you inclusive or exclusive.

Stick to what actually has meaning to the discussion. Don't try to make everything say something in your favor on the topic. It tends to weaken your other points.

OBW · 10-28-2016, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom

. . . .The real issue is that when you look at the LC, a lot of what they attempt to use for validation is just an excuse mechanism. When they fail increase in size, they claim that they only need to be small. The LC likes to point to the fact that they are small, that they are 'weak' or that they have been under 'attack' (criticism), as if those things provide an automatic validation the LC.

That kind of thinking reminds me of the people who are certain that [enter the name of your favorite conspiracy theory here] is really true because the fact that the government denies that it is true is evidence of its truth. Or the fact that there is evidence against it is evidence that it is true.

Or, as Charlie Brown puts it, "How can we lose when we're so sincere?"

ZNPaaneah · 10-28-2016, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Overall, not bad.

But item 3 is not created by the reference to an open door. It does not say that they have an open door of fellowship with others and are therefore not exclusive. It says that God has put before them an open door. But if it was talking about whether they were exclusive or inclusive, that would not be something that they were incapable of changing.

Besides, a door in front of you is generally not referring to your own door of "protection." God did not put a door of inclusiveness in front of Philadelphia that could not be shut so that they would be inclusive. If that were a correct meaning of the words found in this passage, it would indicate that your ability to be inclusive or exclusive is not your own to determine. God has either made you inclusive or exclusive.

Stick to what actually has meaning to the discussion. Don't try to make everything say something in your favor on the topic. It tends to weaken your other points.

Yes, I think you are right.

But let me ask you who is the one that shuts the door on genuine believers?

In our experience in the LRC wasn't it the doctrine of "one trumpet" and "one publisher"? Didn't TC get excommunicated, get the door shut on him, over this issue of one publication?

OBW · 10-28-2016, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes, I think you are right.

But let me ask you who is the one that shuts the door on genuine believers?

In our experience in the LRC wasn't it the doctrine of "one trumpet" and "one publisher"? Didn't TC get excommunicated, get the door shut on him, over this issue of one publication?

I do not deny that the LRC shuts the door on believers all the time. It is part of their MO.

It just isn't mentioned in that passage.

As for the one trumpet and one publisher, the whole idea is simply ludicrous. But it was only known of by me through this forum. I did not experience those items or hear them directly in meetings. I had exited just before so many of those things began or became mainstream in the LRC.

I think that a recent post (maybe one of yours) talked about the whole Matthew 18 thing from the standpoint of the desire to keep everyone "in" even when not agreeing in every way while the LRC hierarchy is busy using it to weed out any hint of variation. The one trumpet and one publisher edicts are simply evidence of how far from the desire for unity they will go to keep their doctrine "pure" at the cost of any real unity.

Freedom · 10-28-2016, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

That kind of thinking reminds me of the people who are certain that [enter the name of your favorite conspiracy theory here] is really true because the fact that the government denies that it is true is evidence of its truth. Or the fact that there is evidence against it is evidence that it is true.

Or, as Charlie Brown puts it, "How can we lose when we're so sincere?"

To WL, truth existed in and was defined by his own perception. In the following excerpt, WL attempts to define 'abnormal' and 'normal' growth:

Quote:

A Great Tree
The mustard herb, however, grew into a great tree...This represents Christendom... But this herb grew out of proportion and became a great tree with many evil birds lodging in its branches. As such, it was no longer good for food. Earlier in the same chapter, the Lord Jesus told us the interpretation of the birds, saying that they were the devil and his angels. Many evil spirits lodge in Christendom today. The branches have become the lodging place of demons...

Growing out of Proportion
We thank the Lord that the move of His recovery in this country has been growing gradually throughout the years. When we conducted the training on the Psalms in 1969, we had seven hundred attendants. In 1972 we had close to twenty-two hundred, more than three times the number in 1969. This has been the proper growth...
Witness Lee, The Kingdom, Ch 12

Here WL completely contradicts himself. He criticizes Christianity for being big and visible, yet he characterizes the rapid growth rate of the early LC as being proper. An increase of 700 to 2200 in a matter of 3 years is not bad at all. What if that growth rate had been sustained? The LC would be much different than it is today. So it WL's mind, that kind of growth within the LC would be proper, but outside, it would be "mushroom growth."

In that context, it's just ridiculous that the LC teaches members that because the LC is 'small' that it's the Lord's 'remnant' or whatever else they think it is. WL would have been perfectly happy with the growth or visibility that he criticized, in fact he was the one who like to make absurd claims of exponential growth.

ZNPaaneah · 10-28-2016, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

I do not deny that the LRC shuts the door on believers all the time. It is part of their MO.
It just isn't mentioned in that passage.
As for the one trumpet and one publisher, the whole idea is simply ludicrous. But it was only known of by me through this forum. I did not experience those items or hear them directly in meetings. I had exited just before so many of those things began or became mainstream in the LRC.
I think that a recent post (maybe one of yours) talked about the whole Matthew 18 thing from the standpoint of the desire to keep everyone "in" even when not agreeing in every way while the LRC hierarchy is busy using it to weed out any hint of variation. The one trumpet and one publisher edicts are simply evidence of how far from the desire for unity they will go to keep their doctrine "pure" at the cost of any real unity.

See, I have placed before you an open door that no one can shut. I know that you have little strength, yet you have kept my word and have not denied my name. 9 I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars—I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you. 10 Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come on the whole world to test the inhabitants of the earth.

11 I am coming soon. Hold on to what you have, so that no one will take your crown. 12 The one who is victorious I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will they leave it.

It may not be stated plainly, but it is not unreasonable to put the pieces together and come to this conclusion:

1. Never again will they leave it => reasonable to conclude this is referring to those who had to leave previously, especially since those in Laodicea appear to have not left even though the Lord is outside knocking and telling them to come out to Him.

2. Since you have kept my command to endure patiently => clearly the ones in this church have had to endure some form of persecution. Based on the context it is reasonable to say that this persecution was an attempt to "shut the door on them"

3. I will make them of the synagogue of Satan => This is the only mention of any group that could be involved in the persecution, involved in the attempt to "shut the door" and the group that these ones were forced to leave. I don't think this is an unreasonable interpretation based on the account.

4. See I have placed before you an open door => I think this refers to the context of others having tried to shut the door on them. The context of the synagogue of Satan claiming to be Jews but are liars. This is a comforting promise to those who were previously forced to leave and had the door shut on them.

5. What is the contrast of a group of Christians with "a little strength". Would it be a large Christian ministry with a legal defense team that bullies others? This is not some obscure reference, this is essentially what Jezebel did. Jezebel used false accusations in a 'civil court' to accuse people of "blasphemy" for the purpose of stealing their property. You cannot do this and still be faithful to the Lord's word and name. These ones who have a "little strength" obviously didn't do that because they were faithful to the Lord's name and held onto His word.

When the Catholic church sold indulgences this was a denial of the Lord's word and His name. If you stand up to them and do not deny the Lord's name and His word you are forced to leave, as Martin Luther was.

The experience in the LRC is not much different. The word is twisted to justify Witness Lee having a monopoly and making merchandise of the saints. you have to design a doctrine to explain why only his ministry is used, why everyone needs to have a complete Bible published by His ministry with His footnotes, why you need to pay this hidden tax of a standing order, etc. The doctrines that are created deny the Lord's name and His word. If you want to be faithful to the Lord's name and word you will be kicked out.

Look at my experience. I was in a small fellowship in NYC on a monday night. We are eating dinner together, about 20 of us. Ed Marks is there. I talk to him privately about his role in the apology letter to Phillip Lee. I feel I was being faithful to the Lord's name and His word in Matthew 18. Very quickly I am escorted out and the door is shut on me.

That group is "exclusive" because they cannot deal with their sins. If you refuse to deal with sins you will have to become exclusive. The Catholic church would claim that they represent all believers, yet those who do not deny the Lord's word and his name, like Martin Luther, are forced out and the door is shut on them. You can claim to be inclusive, but it is a lie. Likewise, the LRC claims to represent all genuine believers in a city, yet when a believer, like myself, living in this city wants to fellowship I am shown the door. That is, by definition, exclusive.

The promise to the ones in Philadelphia is that you can be faithful to the Lord's name and to His word, and the door will be open to you, a door that no one, not the Pope, not "The apostle", can shut. If any self proclaimed apostle can shut the door on a Christian, that by definition is exclusive.

Evangelical · 10-29-2016, 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

1. The words of He that is Holy and true. This is in contrast to those of the synagogue of Satan who claim to be Jews and are not. Their words are a lie. This is also in contrast to those who are trying to shut the door on this church.
2. A doer of the word -- I know your deeds. The Lord makes it very clear to this church that "talk is cheap". Anyone can claim to be the church standing on the proper ground, etc. But He knows "your deeds". Do your deeds reflect your talk. If you are standing on the ground as the church in the entire city, one with all the genuine believers in that city, are your deeds consistent with that?
3. Inclusive, not exclusive -- A genuine church is going to have "an open door that no one can shut". This is not an exclusive club, it is inclusive. Many of the doctrines of various cults are exclusive and shut the door on large groups of genuine believers.
4. Keep the Lord's word, Don't deny His name -- There are two requirements -- Keep the Lord's word and don't deny His name. I think this has to refer directly to the Lord's commandment to "love your neighbor as yourself". However, I think this point is so big it will need to be covered separately.
5. Can be small -- They have a little strength. This suggests to me that they don't have to be a huge organization like the Catholic Church or some great denomination. Small groups could easily be seen as those who have kept the Lord's word, not denied His name and "have a little strength".

I think all of these things are true, yet you are ignoring the fact that it is written to the church (singular), in Philadelphia (a city). On this basis, we cannot say that any group of people satisfying those 5 things is a church. That is, you cannot define a new testament church by the bible, as long as you ignore that one church per city is a consistent theme of what constitutes a true church.

ZNPaaneah · 10-29-2016, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think all of these things are true, yet you are ignoring the fact that it is written to the church (singular), in Philadelphia (a city). On this basis, we cannot say that any group of people satisfying those 5 things is a church. That is, you cannot define a new testament church by the bible, as long as you ignore that one church per city is a consistent theme of what constitutes a true church.

That is fine, explain to me how you could have a group of believers whose word is holy and true. We aren't talking about liars, cheats or scam artists, just genuine believers. They are doers of the word. You know them by their deeds that they are Christians, not by their word. They are inclusive, they have an open door to all genuine believers. They keep the Lord's word. They don't deny His name. And perhaps their strength is small, they don't have some big ministry, don't require anything of anyone.

Explain to me how this group is not one with all the other genuine Christians in the city?

aron · 10-29-2016, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJ

I love where ZNPaaneah and Ohio are going with this thread.

The church is where Paul's exhortation in Galations 6:1 applies, that is:

"Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted."

Interesting question: when you have a sect that does everything "by the letter" and "by the book" but doesn't seem to exhibit much charity or gentleness, to judge by the broken and bleeding ex-members exiting its doors, then how can this be the church? How can "one church one city" cover that failure to love?

"Stupid is as stupid does" -so is love. Love isn't a word, it's an action, or rather a series of actions, actions which continue even in the face of non-encouraging results. Love suffers long. Love endures. Love never fails.

What we got was instead was, "training" and "perfecting". We got public shaming, and "know your place". That was how the "church was built up" - not in love. I recall a former leader who got called to the carpet, literally, in front of Lee, and forced to confess, "I am ashamed to admit" that things in his localities were not as "vital" as Lee proposed (that former leader is now ex-communicated because he wouldn't "lose face" to the current "blendeds").

I recall a current LC leader who stopped by, and took one of our faithful brothers to task before the whole conference, publicly querying him on his relations with his wife (unknown to the Maximum Brother, the man had just been left by this wife). The whole group shuddered, but we took it. "Know your place". No grace, no covering. Unless of course you are Top Dog, then you get covered, a la "Drunken Noah". But no one else.

Here is an article on Jewish culture, of not publicly shaming people:

Quote:

Arnold Jacob Wolf (Sh'ma 4/77, September 20, 1974)
Many important commandments have been abandoned by almost all Jews, including those who consider themselves observant. One of these laws, I believe, is the prohibition against shaming another in public. The rabbis say: "Whoever shames his fellow-person in public has no share in the world to come. He is one of those who will go down to Gehinnom and never come up again." On the other hand, it is clearly written in the Holiness chapter (Leviticus 19): "You must sharply reprove your neighbor and not bear sin because of him." There was and is a clear responsibility to take a stand against sin, but as Rashi interprets the verse, never by shaming the sinner, or else one would, indeed, carry away sin because of him. If one is obliged to reprove, even a child or a slave, but also one's husband or wife, reproof must not be made by shame.

"Shaming" is vividly described in the Hebrew phrase as "whitening the face." Under accusation in public, one's blood leaves one's cheeks. One almost, as it were, dies of embarrassment, indicating that the sin of shaming is like murder. Murder, in fact, can find atonement, if the murderer is truly sorry. But I may shame my neighbor without even knowing what I have done, in which case I will never repent for my sin. We are commanded rather to let ourselves be destroyed than to embarrass any other person in public.

Tamar, who had the goods on her father-in-law after he visited her sexually, never named him as the offender, but only indicated what pledge he left with her, so that he could identify himself without being made ashamed. Joseph cleared the room before he disclosed himself to his brothers so that they might not be put to shame in the presence of the Egyptian court. For many generations, Jews have taken pains not to embarrass even a guilty person, much less one simply inferior in station or in power.

We are commanded not to give offense by words, by deeds, by epithets, even by hints. We are not to insult the stupid who would not even know they were being put down, nor our intimates, with whom we sometimes tend to think anything goes. Freud, in his wonderful joke book, tells of two men who behaved toward each other with scrupulous courtesy until each realized the other was a Jew, at which time they both put their feet on the furniture and dropped cigar ashes on the floor.

Shaming in the Jewish tradition
We are not allowed to recall someone's past offenses, blemished ancestry or personal weaknesses. If someone owes us money, we must not go near him in public, lest our very presence put him to shame. If we are well dressed and affluent, we should avoid poor neighborhoods and needy people. If we are collecting for a cause, we must be certain in advance that anyone we approach is able to contribute. When we recite the verse from the blessings after meals, "I have grown old without ever seeing a good person in need or his children begging bread," we should lower our voices, in case there is a beggar at our table. The Maharam said: "One who shames those who sleep in the dust has also committed a grave sin." We are not allowed to embarrass even the dead.

There is a precise etiquette for Jewish study. A teacher must not ask a student questions he probably cannot answer, nor the student ask questions outside his teacher's field of competence. Neither should they be queried in the presence of critical colleagues, nor when they have something else on their minds nor when they first enter the school-room. Blessings over study are said together, in case someone doesn't know the text by heart. So too, the ritual of first fruits ordained in the Torah, is always prompted, even if one is fully competent to say "my father was a wandering Aramean......," because the next person might not be able to recite the formula without help.

We should not watch someone eat or drink or do anything incompetently. We should not ask our host for what we don't see, because he may be unable to provide it. Virgins go out to find husbands (on Yom Kippur, according to the Mishnah) in borrowed garments, so as not to shame any poor young woman. Invidiousness is itself shame, so all our dead are buried alike according to tradition, and thus no Jew need be ashamed. Rabba said: "one is allowed to shame himself, even though it is against Jewish law to do oneself harm." But one must never "whiten the face" of any other woman or man.

Yes I know this is culture and "not Christ", and yes I know culture in Judaism isn't superior to oriental or western culture. But Christ never denied His Jewish culture, and its attempt to obey the scripture on God's command. Jesus never denied the message of God's revelation, but rather as the incarnate Word obeyed continually, and expressed this fully. This is our faith, not in ourselves but in Him.

And Jesus said, "Don't stumble the little ones" -- what was the public intimidating and shaming of the smaller and weaker 'local church' saints to 'know their place' but a stumbling? Of course it was. It was merely well-refined human methodology for the acquisition and maintenance of temporal human power, which power must fade at last and give way to Christ.

The LC was built on "whitening the face" of the members. This should be rejected as not the church. This is not the assembly of the Firstborn, no matter how it presumes to be "by the book".

Evangelical · 10-29-2016, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

That is fine, explain to me how you could have a group of believers whose word is holy and true. We aren't talking about liars, cheats or scam artists, just genuine believers. They are doers of the word. You know them by their deeds that they are Christians, not by their word. They are inclusive, they have an open door to all genuine believers. They keep the Lord's word. They don't deny His name. And perhaps their strength is small, they don't have some big ministry, don't require anything of anyone.

Explain to me how this group is not one with all the other genuine Christians in the city?

How can they be one with all the other genuine Christians in the city if the other genuine Christians are not joining them?

OBW · 10-29-2016, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

How can they be one with all the other genuine Christians in the city if the other genuine Christians are not joining them?

Two problems with your question.

First, the qualifier "genuine." Christians are Christians. In this forum we are not discussing social Christians. There are many Christians in many places. They are all Christians so they are all genuine Christians.

The second is the idea that all of those Christians in whatever city you hail from must meet with you. As if your notion of what is the correct doctrine or practice on everything is clearly correct. Or that there is room enough anywhere for them to meet with you. Once you start to have enough "halls" of your choosing to include them all, you will find that they will not be identical unless there is an edict ordering how they will think on everything.

The point is that Christians meet. There is no edict that all Christians in any segment of geography must meet together in a single place, or in a collection of places under the direction of on set of leaders. This is a fabrication. There is no definition for it.

Evangelical · 10-29-2016, 04:21 PM

You said "The point is that Christians meet. There is no edict that all Christians in any segment of geography must meet together in a single place, or in a collection of places under the direction of on set of leaders."

The oneness is the "edict". If Christians want to meet in oneness then they must meet together in a single place, and the New Testament way of meeting is with the oversight of the elders (leaders). That is, a man and his wife for example cannot have a meeting together and claim to be in oneness with all believers in their city if they never meet with other believers.

I will change my question to a response to this then:
ZNPaaneah said:
"Explain to me how this group is not one with all the other genuine Christians in the city?"

My answer: Because they are not meeting together with all the other (genuine) Christians in the city. Suppose that group of genuine Christians was the most holy and pure group of all, yet don't meet with others, how can they claim to be in oneness? Similarly, suppose that group of genuine Christians had problems, they were only 20% the quality of the group ZNPaaneah described, yet met with all Christians in the city. How are they not the genuine church?

ZNPaaneah seems to say that church is about the quality of the meeting. However the Bible reveals it is more about the practical oneness, that is, the fact that a genuine believer would or should meet with other genuine Christians in the city.

It is a clear fact that church is about oneness on city-based locality, and not quality, based upon Jesus addressing all of the churches in Revelation as genuine churches, but most were poor in quality.

ZNPaaneah · 10-29-2016, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

How can they be one with all the other genuine Christians in the city if the other genuine Christians are not joining them?

Well lets think of a few ways.

Where I meet there is an 8 am service for those who work and cannot make the 10:30 service, and there is also a 3:30 service for those who work in the morning. So perhaps they don't meet together because they work at different hours.

Or the city I live in is very large. I have been to gatherings of a thousand believers in Manhattan and Brooklyn as well as Queens. Perhaps it is just not convenient based on the size of the city. Me, personally, I would like to meet within 30 minutes of my house. It can easily take 1 1/2 to 2 hours to drive from the one side of the Bronx to the far side of Queens. Not to mention you could have $8-10 in tolls for that trip.

Maybe the meeting hall can only hold 1,000 people, and for a city of 10 million with several million Christians there is no meeting hall that would be practical.

My point is that I don't have to meet with you in person to be one with you. Worldwide there are more than 1 billion Christians. Even if you met with a thousand different Christians each week, it would only be 50 thousand a year. Over 100 years it would only be 5 million, not even 1% of the total number of Christians. Just because I don't meet with them doesn't mean I'm not one with them. We have the same Lord. We have the same God. We have the same father. We have the same faith, the same baptism, the same Spirit. That is what makes us one.

We are not one according to the flesh. Meeting with Christians according to the flesh is not what makes us one. There is no such requirement that "unless you meet with a believer you aren't one with them".

Evangelical · 10-29-2016, 06:35 PM

You are confusing the difference between spiritual and practical oneness.

You described a group of (genuine) believers (their spiritual oneness is in relation to this aspect), and then described them in terms of practical aspects (being doers of the Word and having an open door policy etc). So I say to you that another practical aspect they must have is they must meet with others in their locality.

But you say they can be practically one without actually meeting other believers in the city. I think if we are talking about practical oneness, then there is a requirement to actually meet with a believer to be one with them.

It is true what you say about the spiritual oneness, and that does not change even if these believers are living on Mars or Jupiter. However there is no practical oneness unless these believers meet practically with other believers in their locality.

A question: is it possible to achieve God's will for the church on Earth by spiritual oneness or practical oneness? Obviously it is the latter. Christianity could not have achieved what it did without the practical oneness of the New Testament churches.

ZNPaaneah · 10-29-2016, 06:51 PM

If you are not one in spirit it doesn't matter if you are meeting together. That is a false oneness, a man made oneness, a contrived oneness.

On the other hand it is impossible to have a "practical oneness" with every Christian. Can't do it with the Christians in the world, can't do it with the Christians in the US. and can't do it with the Christians in NYC. I have already pointed out that there may be 5 million Christians in NYC. For me to have a practical oneness with them I would have to meet with 1,000 different believers each week, every week for 100 years. Even then many of the Christians that lived in the US would have died without me ever meeting with them, or they might have moved out.

Second, what an idiotic requirement. So how does this work, until I have met with each and every Christian in that city I am not "one with them"? So then, does this mean your requirement for a church is that it be a meeting of each and every Christian in that City? No, of course not.

So then what is your "practical" solution to your contrived issue? Declare that it isn't your problem, it is there problem. No longer are you accountable, the problem is with all the Christians that don't meet with you, rather than the other way around. What hypocrisy.

Evangelical · 10-30-2016, 01:00 AM

We are talking about genuine Christians here, so your first statement does not add anything to the discussion. Let's assume all Christians are genuine and have the Spirit.

In my post I never stated anything of the sort that practical oneness demands or requires an impossible demand on meeting with every single believer in your city week to week. That is a straw man argument you have put forward.

History speaks for itself on the practical possibility of one church per city.
Large Christian city-wide communities existed in Europe (for example) for hundreds of years. The life of many major cities revolved around the central church or Cathedral. That is why the church or cathedrals today stand at the centers of many European towns and cities.

Then there is the Jews worshiping in Jerusalem in practical oneness, which was the unique place God chose to maintain practical oneness among His people.

So practical city-wide oneness is achievable in one way or another.

For further consideration I post this wiki article which lists the largest peaceful gatherings in history:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ngs_in_history

It is possible for 1 million people or more to meet together for a common cause such as a demonstration or a rock concert or religious beliefs. Why is it not possible for Christians to do the same?

ZNPaaneah · 10-30-2016, 04:59 AM

Of course such a meeting is possible, but is that your requirement for a church? Is this the NT definition of a church?

The point of this thread is to define the church based on the NT fellowship of the apostles. The straw man argument you accuse me of making is merely a reasonable understanding of your posts. Please explain, using the NT, what the definition is.

Saying "one church in one city" does not define church.

I have provided a NT definition, church is a gathering of genuine believers. As long as these believers meet the seven ones in Ephesians they are "one with all believers". Hence their gathering would be inclusive of all genuine believers and therefore they are "one church". Since it is absolutely impossible to require that every meeting of the church include every single genuine believer in the city, that cannot be requirement or definition.

You have not provided a definition from the NT. You have provided Wikis on church history.

You don't explain why a gathering of Christians is not a church.

You don't explain why one Christian gets to disqualify a church because they don't meet with them.

There is nothing practical in your definition. Explain to me how I would know which gathering in my city is the church and which isn't. I have done that, if they don't have one Lord, if they don't have one God, if they don't have one faith, if they don't have one baptism. Any of these points would identify a group as not being the church.

ZNPaaneah · 10-30-2016, 06:13 AM

This thread was started because Witness Lee's doctrine of the ground of the Church has created an issue over what is and is not a "true church" (Witness Lee's words).

The problem with Witness Lee's doctrine based on Watchman Nee's teaching does not give us any NT definition.

What it does give us is an inferred understanding based on many, many NT references to a church indicating that in any locality (city, town, village) there is one church.

This is not a NT doctrine of the apostles, which is why I and others are taking issue with this. It seems to me that if you judge and condemn all other Christian gatherings as not being "the true church" then that is a very serious accusation. I am concerned that such a strong and offensive judgement is not based on a clear NT teaching.

For example, Paul has a very clear NT teaching that we don't sue other Christians in civil court. That is a clear, black and white teaching.

There is another very clear black and white teaching from the Apostle Paul that you should excommunicate a "brother" due to sexual immorality.

The hypocrisy of Witness Lee and his followers in ignoring the clear black and white teachings of the NT and then creating whole cloth teachings out of inferences is very disturbing. But you cannot deal with this without having a clear word from the Apostles on this issue. How do they define a church? At what point would they judge and condemn a gathering as not being a "true church"? How did the apostles respond to this very arrogant teaching of how this one very questionable group that plays very loose with the NT is supposedly the keepers of truth? Only they are the "true church".

This is not some esoteric doctrinal debate. In my case meeting with the "true church" based on Witness Lee's definition is not an option. They showed me the door. Why? Because I asked one of the men who apologized to Philip Lee. That seems to me to be a contradiction to Paul's black and white word on this. Asking this brother was according to Jesus word in Matt 18. I also have an issue with the use of lawsuits by the Local church and Living Stream Ministry. That is also something that is a direct contradiction of the Black and white words.

Jesus said to be at peace, believe in God believe also in Him. I am doing that, yet this doctrine that I am not meeting with the "true church" is an assault on that peace. This question is personal. It seems to me that the Local church is telling me that to "meet with the true church" I would have to deny the Lord's name and His word. I am not going to do that. So then, my question is are they really the "true church" like they say, or are they lying like the synagogue of Satan who says they are Jews and are not? Has Jesus really placed an open door before me, or have they shut the door on my Christian walk?

If you want to understand what the church is you have to look at the first mention of the word.

15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[b] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.”

The revelation that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God is the rock on which the church is built. It is not the Pope, it is not Jim Jones, it is not Witness Lee. You can claim to be the "true church" but if you are not faithful to the Lord, to His name and His word then you are a liar.

Therefore, when I was shown the door because I was being faithful to the Lord's word in Matthew 18 they were not being faithful to the Lord's word. They were not being faithful to the Lord's name. They have the right to kick me out of their meeting hall, they have the right to call themselves the church in NYC, but that doesn't make them a true church.

aron · 10-30-2016, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I asked one of the men who apologized to Philip Lee. . . Asking this brother was according to Jesus word in Matt 18. .

Recently (post #105) I brought up the Jewish idea of covering others' shame, and not exposing it needlessly. This is in accord of their view of the "OT" law and rabbinical commentaries, and later in the Christian principles of Jesus and the disciples, explicitly spelled out in Matt 18 and reinforced elsewhere, from "do unto others as you'd have them do to you" up to "and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty" (1 Cor 12:23 NIV).

By contrast the local church system repeatedly established the principle of "whitening the face" of the members, under the rubric of "perfecting". But this doesn't perfect one's soul but distorts it.

And the point I was getting to with the idea of public shaming is that by any objective, biblical measure which the local church uses to deem other assemblies as short of "true church" representation, they themselves fall, as well. I could name a dozen or twenty aspects where the local church judges the meetings of others as unredeemable, and deficient, when any objective scrutiny would place them under the exact same condemnation of illegitimacy.

So when the current president of LSM publicly shamed a "little" sister in Texas, he violated the principle of Matt 18 covering the members of the body, and showed that the teachings he fronted were a sham, and the fellowship that he deemed so superior was in fact not so, at all. Not so at all.

http://thethreadofgold.com/

Local church leadership maintained its hold on the lives of the saints by publicly embarrassing them, among other techniques, but if anyone else tried to critique the teachings or behavior of leadership it was called "rebellion", the most heinous of sins before God.

Yet this leadership style does not stand in the face of the Bible. Lording over the saints, however much one may paper over with "discipline" and "perfecting" and pseudo-spiritual hogwash, isn't of the assembly of Jesus. Period.

Evangelical · 10-31-2016, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Of course such a meeting is possible, but is that your requirement for a church? Is this the NT definition of a church?...

ZNPaaneah, you are asking for NT definitions of church but I cannot see why the bible mentioning only one church per city cannot be classed as a NT definition?

These practical considerations you put forward were not considerations when there was only one church per city, from the New Testament period to around 1100 AD (if I recall correctly). There was no such thing as going to whatever church (denomination) you liked. If a group of believers broke away they would be called a heretical sect.

These practical considerations you put forward were also not an issue for the Jews, who maintained worship at Jerusalem. I can imagine it would cause inconvenience but somehow they managed and was not justification for disobeying God's will.

How we can know what is the local church is the same as stated many times before, it must be the one that identifies itself as the church in the particular locality, and not some denominational name.

ZNPaaneah · 10-31-2016, 07:04 AM

Because the Bible also says that the synagogue of Satan lies, saying they are Jews when they are not.

"The slander of the Judaizers toward the suffering church was their evil criticism of her." (Witness Lee, Life-Study of Revelation, Chapter 11, Section 2)

According to your definition the best liar is the true church. All they have to do is claim that they are the true church according to your definition and they are. It doesn't matter to you if they deny the Lord's name and deny His word.

"First, almost every group has a name. We know that the moon is the moon; we do not need to add a special name to it. Similarly, the church is the church; she does not need another name. If people ask us what church we are from, we should tell them that we are in the church. If we reply, “I am from the Church Assembly Hall,” it will puzzle people and cause them to wonder exactly what the Church Assembly Hall is. We need to see that the church is one. The name of the church is simply the church; other than this, the church has no other name." (Witness Lee, Knowing Life and the Church, Chapter 9, Section 3)

From the NT what does matter is that these believers meet "in the name of Jesus". The very rock that the church is built on is the revelation that Jesus is Lord. What does matter is that they all have one God, one Lord, one Father, one Baptism, one Faith.

The church, first and foremost is "His" church. It is His meeting. That is the key point. Jesus is in charge.

Since there is only one Lord then by definition there is only one church. That is why there is one church in one city, because they have one Lord, one God, one Father, one Baptism, one faith. There is no suggestion anywhere in the NT that it is because they have one set of elders.

"The Lord has shown us that one locality should have only one church, and one locality should have only one administration." (Witness Lee, Further Talks on the Church Life, Chapter 4, Section 21)

You claim that "If a group of believers broke away they could be a heretical sect". But why did they break away? Was it because the Pope was selling indulgences? Then who is the heretical sect?

Or did they even break away. Was it because they were shown the door when they had legitimate questions about righteousness? Does calling yourself "the church in _____" trump the Lord's word and His name?

You make such a big deal over the name in the phone book and yet ignore the shame brought to the name of the person of Jesus.

aron · 10-31-2016, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

Lording over the saints, however much one may paper over with "discipline" and "perfecting" and pseudo-spiritual hogwash, isn't of the assembly of Jesus. Period.

A qualifying word is probably in order, here. I didn't mean to say that the local church fellowship affiliated with the ministry of Witnell Lee isn't of the assembly of Jesus. As OBW said, if they're genuine Christian believers, gathered together, then they are the church.

What I was trying to say was that by the same standards that they attempt to disqualify others as being "true", they also fail. So the Lee-ites have two sets of standards, one for their gathering, and one for the gatherings of "fallen Christianity."

But I don't want to fall in the same trap, so I don't judge them or their fitness to represent Christ. I'm rather pointing out that their parsing of the letter of Paul to cut off others, inevitably redounds against them, when they either violate the same letters of Scripture, or the Spirit of Jesus that it represents.

By that point, they hope that you don't notice the disconnect between what they've said and what they do. And I think that the disconnect is worth pointing out, as has been done on this forum repeatedly.

ZNPaaneah · 10-31-2016, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

ZNPaaneah, you are asking for NT definitions of church but I cannot see why the bible mentioning only one church per city cannot be classed as a NT definition?

It is relevant, it isn't a definition. The Bible only mentions cities in the Middle East and Mediterranean. You wouldn't infer from that these cities are particularly holy. It is relevant, it is the context, it is not the definition. I have made it clear in my posts that there are many references to churches in the NT and almost all refer to one city in one locality, or a group of cities in a district.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

These practical considerations you put forward were not considerations when there was only one church per city, from the New Testament period to around 1100 AD (if I recall correctly). There was no such thing as going to whatever church (denomination) you liked. If a group of believers broke away they would be called a heretical sect.

The practical considerations I have quoted are from the book of Ephesians, Gospel of Matthew and book of Revelation. I have also quoted James.

No one has said that you can "go to whatever denomination you like". I have always said that they must meet in the name of Jesus. Hence, Jesus is their denomination. They only have one name that they meet in, Jesus.

I agree that if a group of believers breaks away from the church they are a heretical sect. Where I disagree with you is over who is Lord. Jesus is Lord, hence He decides who "broke away". If His word says to deal with sin in a certain way and this group from the leader on down decide not to, yet some like Antipas stand up to them. Then who broke away? Was it the group led by Jezebel or Antipas?

Suppose the Apostle's fellowship is clear on not taking other believers to court in a lawsuit but that you should rather choose to suffer loss. If you wanted to take issue with the church pursuing these lawsuits and using your donations to do so, that seems to me to be appropriate. If they in turn show you the door, then who "broke away" from the fellowship of the Apostles?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

These practical considerations you put forward were also not an issue for the Jews, who maintained worship at Jerusalem. I can imagine it would cause inconvenience but somehow they managed and was not justification for disobeying God's will.

Are you talking about the set feasts? Are you now limiting church meetings to a couple of meetings per year?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

How we can know what is the local church is the same as stated many times before, it must be the one that identifies itself as the church in the particular locality, and not some denominational name.

They are identified by the name of Jesus, the person of Jesus and the word of Jesus. If they deny any of these then that would be an issue. You seem to think that a group can deny the name of Jesus, the word of Jesus, but because they call themselves a certain name that trumps the truth. It doesn't.

Yes when these two branches of the vine separate one has been cut off from the vine tree. But is it the twig, or is it the big branch that decided it did not need to heed the vine?

OBW · 10-31-2016, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You said

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

The point is that Christians meet. There is no edict that all Christians in any segment of geography must meet together in a single place, or in a collection of places under the direction of on set of leaders."

The oneness is the "edict". If Christians want to meet in oneness then they must meet together in a single place, and the New Testament way of meeting is with the oversight of the elders (leaders). That is, a man and his wife for example cannot have a meeting together and claim to be in oneness with all believers in their city if they never meet with other believers.

That is actually not true.

I would submit that if they never meet with any other Christians in any way, shape or form, there might be a question mark on their oneness with other Christians. But you dismiss all kinds of Christian interaction. You presume the meeting as so preeminent that it is the only means by which Christians can be one.

I submit instead the words from Christ as recorded in John 17. Starting in verse 20:

Quote:

My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.

I do not pretend that this is the end of the context. And in looking at the context, it is clear that there is more than just this.

But notice that in the second sentence that the oneness of the believers was likened to (made equal to??) the way that the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father.

There is a difficult thing to understand. Especially inside of a trinity theology that insists that they are not in any way truly three separate beings who also have a oneness and cannot be separated. Yet our oneness is said to be like theirs. And there is no way that I am in you or you are in me. At least not in the way that we like to think that statement means. And if their oneness is like what ours can be, are they simply One? Are they simply amorphous in one sense yet separate in another? Maybe that is not the correct analysis of what it means to be in trinity (or to be triune). Not simply One that can be as Three, but Three that are in some way so totally one that they can declare their Godhead to be one, not three. Something outside of our understanding in any case, and outside of the typical understanding of what it means that God is Three and One.

I dare not characterize it in that extreme a way. But it seems that Jesus at least kind of did. He said that we should be one just as the Father and the Son are one. But not just in thought or intent, but as being "in" each other. And since I can't get "into" you, then we really don't know what that means. Unless it is not as hard as we try to make it.

But no matter how you parse it and make it fit back into typical evangelical (not you) or orthodox theology, it is not talking about meetings. And not talking about labels or doctrines. It is talking about being one. And the kind of one that is being mentioned might be more about "shaking hands over the fence," and things like being of a like mind when it comes to the living in this world of the Christian than about agreeing on enough doctrines to have a nice peaceable meeting together.

Oneness is never stated in terms of where you meet, or who is there. That is an arbitrary formula predicated by those who want their meeting to be the only one that is "one" while all the others are divisive. Even if you want to declare that meeting together is important and that anything else is a "division," there is no talisman rule that would allow the latest division in centuries of divisions to be able to declare that theirs is "it" and the others are not.

You need more than grand, spiritual sounding rhetoric supported by nothing but the opinion of someone who doesn't even have reasonable training in the Bible (except maybe to refer to another with equally limited training in the Bible).

Evangelical · 10-31-2016, 05:43 PM

OBW,

There is two aspects to the church, the spiritual and the practical. There is a spiritual oneness that I believe Jesus's prayer was talking. I agree with you that the Scripture does not define (that is, state clearly in a prescribed format) what the practical oneness should look like, there is no rule etc. But it is a mistake to think that because Scripture does not state any rule, that there is no rule.

In one sense it is correct there is no rule. However that is not to say there is no structure, no meetings, no format. This is not to say believers can meet however they like. Because how believers meet should be constrained by the spiritual oneness. This (should) manifest in practical oneness.

The spiritual oneness defines who the church is, but the practical oneness is necessary to accomplish God's will for the church.

The view that church is just 2 or 3 believers meeting together is wrong from the point of view of God's purpose of the church. It is also wrong from the point of view of history, where we can find that the effectiveness of the church was because of the large united visible gatherings and not scatterings of two's and three's.

I found this sermon about the unity of the early church, it is fairly short so people can read it for themselves:

http://biblehub.com/sermons/auth/cur...rly_church.htm

In summarizing, practical unity requires:

one heart and one soul (Acts 4:32)
having all things in common
having faithful leaders and faithful people (this rules out groups without leaders, c.f. my past comments on a genuine church having elders).

And the results of this (from the sermon):

1. Great spirituality. Scatter the embers of a dying fire and it goes out. Rake them together and you have warmth and glow. So with a divided and a united Church.

2. Great power. "A city set on a hill," etc. Such a Church can make the powers of darkness tremble. Keep this ideal before us and we shall be a united, spiritual, and aggressive Church.

From this it should be clear that the early church was practically united as one large visible entity, and not a scattering of "embers of a fire".

The view that some here propose that church is just two or three, me and my sister, or me and my brother, having a prayer time together, is ignoring the weight of evidence showing that practical church unity was for a definitive purpose, that two or three cannot by themselves easily accomplish. God's purpose for the church rules out the idea that two or three can be a church. The fact that Jesus often spoke to crowds of people rules that out.

ZNPaaneah · 11-02-2016, 08:26 AM

Key takeaways:

1. Is there a NT definition? We received numerous responses: Evangelical requires 2 male elders and the ability to excommunicate to be a church. Ohio points out that neither is biblical. Since Paul says to “appoint elders in every church” we can deduce that they were a church prior to having elders appointed. Also, it is highly unlikely that some of these groups called “churches” by Paul where he was going to appoint elders had already excommunicated someone. Having the “potential” to excommunicate seems like a really fuzzy definition since they didn’t have elders. Nell says that the church is a mystery and hence does not have a definition. Surprisingly, this is well supported by the NT, since the NT does say the church is a mystery and also does not give us much of a definition. Drake takes great umbrage at the idea that we could refer to a group of 3 believers as a church, pointing out the absurdity of 100,000 churches in a small city of 300,000. But he (a drake is a male duck) does not give us a NT definition or any NT reference that would disqualify them. Once again pointing out how interesting the lack of definition is. Aron uses the Greek definition of the word Ekklesia to define church. He then distinguishes between “the church” and “my church”. Indicating that “tell it to the church” could refer to a wider gathering than just Christians. However, since the context is that if the person refuses to hear “the church” let them be to you as a publican and heathen. This suggests that this wider ekklesia cannot refer to a meeting of heathens and publicans. That wouldn’t make sense. You would also have to assume that they all recognize Jesus as the authority, otherwise how do you tell them your offense? But it does raise the point that “church” might merely mean a gathering, any gathering of believers into the name of Jesus. To that we suggested that the church is merely the “corporate experience” of Jesus. No one denied that as a definition and on this point we are also in agreement with Witness Lee. Aron qualified this saying that the church is the “expression of Jesus”. This may be true but is probably not a useful definition.

Although I agree that the church is a mystery, it still leaves us with the problem of “how do we tell it to the church” if we can’t identify the church? Since there are so many claims about who or what the church is, it seems you have to have a way to identify it.

Ohio pointed out that the context indicates that you should keep the offense and the dealing of the offense in house. Hence, “tell it to the church” would mean the particular gathering of believers. If someone offended me in the place I meet I do not need to publish this on an internet forum, I do not need to bring this to a council of churches, I merely need to bring this to my particular gathering. Of course, if it were a serious offense, perhaps a felony, I might need to consider a larger gathering, hence Aron’s point would be valid. So according to context you should be able to determine which gathering is the appropriate venue to tell.

One interesting point brought up by Aron concerning the definition is that an ekklessia exercised dominion in their locale. This point is echoed by Evangelical who argues for elders and the ability to excommunicate. This point is also supported by OBW who talks about the multitude of functions and gifts that should be present. This is also supported by the verses I began the discussion with, the context of 2 or 3 gathering together was in the exercise of dominion.

So then, what are we to make of all this?

My feeling is that we have been hoodwinked by Witness Lee into becoming self centered on the church. Yes, the church is the Body of Christ, yes it is the Bride of Christ. But a person consumed with their own body, or a bride consumed with herself, is generally concerned to be immature and narcissistic.

The key point is the exercise of the gifts, as OBW mentioned. It is Jesus Christ as Nell pointed out. The numbers are really not relevant, even 2-3 can have the presence of Jesus. The key point is the genuine worship to the Lord. After all, if you have the presence of Jesus, if you are truly exercising your gifts, if you have genuine worship to the Lord as a sweet savor rising to God, if you are a corporate expression of Jesus Christ, then what are you lacking?

"Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven"

OBW · 11-02-2016, 03:37 PM

I will start by saying that the constant need to have two sides to everything, in this case practical and spiritual, is a bit of a problem with Lee's teaching. But at the same time I can agree that there must be a practical oneness or there will be no value to any claimed spiritual oneness.

But the problem then comes with what is that practical oneness? So you provised the following from someone's sermon:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In summarizing, practical unity requires:

one heart and one soul (Acts 4:32)
having all things in common
having faithful leaders and faithful people (this rules out groups without leaders, c.f. my past comments on a genuine church having elders).

The first problem with this list is that even the parts that I am willing to allow to you are not stated as requirements for practical unity. They are observations of how things were at the time.

But when you say to have "one heart and one soul," that is not so narrowly defined that it would require the kind of agreement on things that you require to meet with your group. And if I speak up to question things at your group, I could be privately counseled to either keep quite or move along somewhere else. And if your version of one heart and one soul is that narrow, then it clearly requires more than the basics of the faith.

I would think that there are people of all kinds of affiliation, and of all kinds of differences of opinion on the nonessential items that would find themselves still of one heart and soul with other Christians.

I think it says more about the positions of the LRC (negatively) that they won't.

And when you look at #2, the evidence in the following chapters makes it clear that this was not a thing that is required for unity. That is proved when Ananias and Sapphira decide not to throw all of their receipts from a sale into the pot. They are not rejected from the assembly for failing to give it all. Neither is that the reason for their death. It was because they lied about what they had given to keep up appearances. They wanted to give less while saying they gave it all.

Peter was very clear. They were under no obligation to sell the property or to give the full value for it to the church.

As for having faithful leaders and faithful people, I see that in so many places. The question seems to come down to "faithful to what?" If you mean faithful to follow a particular leader no matter what, or faithful to nonessentials in such a way that you just can't be one with those of differing takes on those same nonessentials, then it is clear that we have a different thought as to what it means to be of one heart and soul.

And given the teachings and rules like the "one trumpet" and "one publisher" edicts, then it is easy to find that your group cannot even be internally in unity because it chastises even slight variations. And since it refuses to acknowledge any unity with those outside of its doors, then it is regularly refusing even its own members (or former members) over much less than the "unity of the Spirit."

But it would seem that the LRC is very proud of its narrow view of everything. Finding ways to ensure that they have the New J to themselves. I guess that old joke about the C of C will have to be retold about the LRC . . . "They think they're the only ones here."

Evangelical · 11-02-2016, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

I will start by saying that the constant need to have two sides to everything, in this case practical and spiritual, is a bit of a problem with Lee's teaching. But at the same time I can agree that there must be a practical oneness or there will be no value to any claimed spiritual oneness.

But the problem then comes with what is that practical oneness? So you provised the following from someone's sermon:
The first problem with this list is that even the parts that I am willing to allow to you are not stated as requirements for practical unity. They are observations of how things were at the time.

But when you say to have "one heart and one soul," that is not so narrowly defined that it would require the kind of agreement on things that you require to meet with your group. And if I speak up to question things at your group, I could be privately counseled to either keep quite or move along somewhere else. And if your version of one heart and one soul is that narrow, then it clearly requires more than the basics of the faith.

I would think that there are people of all kinds of affiliation, and of all kinds of differences of opinion on the nonessential items that would find themselves still of one heart and soul with other Christians.

I think it says more about the positions of the LRC (negatively) that they won't.

And when you look at #2, the evidence in the following chapters makes it clear that this was not a thing that is required for unity. That is proved when Ananias and Sapphira decide not to throw all of their receipts from a sale into the pot. They are not rejected from the assembly for failing to give it all. Neither is that the reason for their death. It was because they lied about what they had given to keep up appearances. They wanted to give less while saying they gave it all.

Peter was very clear. They were under no obligation to sell the property or to give the full value for it to the church.

As for having faithful leaders and faithful people, I see that in so many places. The question seems to come down to "faithful to what?" If you mean faithful to follow a particular leader no matter what, or faithful to nonessentials in such a way that you just can't be one with those of differing takes on those same nonessentials, then it is clear that we have a different thought as to what it means to be of one heart and soul.

And given the teachings and rules like the "one trumpet" and "one publisher" edicts, then it is easy to find that your group cannot even be internally in unity because it chastises even slight variations. And since it refuses to acknowledge any unity with those outside of its doors, then it is regularly refusing even its own members (or former members) over much less than the "unity of the Spirit."

But it would seem that the LRC is very proud of its narrow view of everything. Finding ways to ensure that they have the New J to themselves. I guess that old joke about the C of C will have to be retold about the LRC . . . "They think they're the only ones here."

How could the early church be salt and light to the world without practical oneness? How can the church be salt and light to the world without practical oneness?

This is what you and ZNPaaneah don't understand. The church is not about you, and not about you having a chit chat about the bible over coffee. It's actually meant to accomplish something and you cannot accomplish that by 1000 churches in one city, by scattered groups of two or three.

Ohio · 11-02-2016, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

How could the early church be salt and light to the world without practical oneness? How can the church be salt and light to the world without practical oneness?

Your "practical" oneness is not spiritual, it is manufactured with a few ingredients like fear, pride, and a false sense of geography. It is not a oneness of the heart, so it could never please God.

The Lord Jesus prayed for a oneness "as the Father and the Son are one." This kind of oneness is spiritual, requiring obedience to the Lord, experiencing His death and resurrection, allowing the Father's love to fill the hearts, and fellowshipping in the Spirit.

It has nothing to do with mandating the right name for your church, demanding all the churches to read the same books, requiring all the churches to be identical, keeping all the churches on the same schedule, etc.

Evangelical · 11-02-2016, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Your "practical" oneness is not spiritual, it is manufactured with a few ingredients like fear, pride, and a false sense of geography. It is not a oneness of the heart, so it could never please God.

The Lord Jesus prayed for a oneness "as the Father and the Son are one." This kind of oneness is spiritual, requiring obedience to the Lord, experiencing His death and resurrection, allowing the Father's love to fill the hearts, and fellowshipping in the Spirit.

It has nothing to do with mandating the right name for your church, demanding all the churches to read the same books, requiring all the churches to be identical, keeping all the churches on the same schedule, etc.

This:

1 Cor 1:10 "Now I beseech you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment."

Cannot be achieved practically by hundreds of denominations.

ZNPaaneah · 11-02-2016, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Your "practical" oneness is not spiritual, it is manufactured with a few ingredients like fear, pride, and a false sense of geography. It is not a oneness of the heart, so it could never please God.

The Lord Jesus prayed for a oneness "as the Father and the Son are one." This kind of oneness is spiritual, requiring obedience to the Lord, experiencing His death and resurrection, allowing the Father's love to fill the hearts, and fellowshipping in the Spirit.

It has nothing to do with mandating the right name for your church, demanding all the churches to read the same books, requiring all the churches to be identical, keeping all the churches on the same schedule, etc.

On the one hand I cannot deny the link between the New Jerusalem, which I understand to be a city, and the church.

On the other hand I don't understand why a worldly city council gets to decide the boundaries of the church. There does not seem to be any fellowship from the Apostles to justify that either.

Evangelical · 11-02-2016, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

On the one hand I cannot deny the link between the New Jerusalem, which I understand to be a city, and the church.

On the other hand I don't understand why a worldly city council gets to decide the boundaries of the church. There does not seem to be any fellowship from the Apostles to justify that either.

Why do you capitalize Apostles? They are God are they?

least · 11-02-2016, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Why do you capitalize Apostles? They are God are they?

Responding to "On the other hand I don't understand why a worldly city council gets to decide the boundaries of the church. There does not seem to be any fellowship from the Apostles to justify that either."

Evangelical equate 'A'postles to "G"od.
Capitalized Apostles are God are they?
Haha, if apostles in small letter 'a', then they are "g"od are they?

ZNPaaneah · 11-03-2016, 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Why do you capitalize Apostles? They are God are they?

I am referring to the specific apostles of the NT and not the broader and more controversial idea that we still have apostles today.

I don't dispute that the gift of apostleship exists, but the role of writing the NT has been completed.

ZNPaaneah · 11-03-2016, 08:39 AM

So there is another possible solution to this conundrum.

Perhaps, instead of looking for a definition in the NT for what constitutes the "true church" that Witness Lee refers to, why not look for a definition for what constitutes a false church.

The NT refers to heresy, sect, synagogue of Satan, fruit of a false prophet, false prophet, etc. There is quite a bit to discern what makes a false church.

It may be that the NT is very general when it comes to the gathering together of Christians, but is much more specific concerning the works of the flesh that can damage this fellowship.

OBW · 11-03-2016, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

How could the early church be salt and light to the world without practical oneness? How can the church be salt and light to the world without practical oneness?

This is what you and ZNPaaneah don't understand. The church is not about you, and not about you having a chit chat about the bible over coffee. It's actually meant to accomplish something and you cannot accomplish that by 1000 churches in one city, by scattered groups of two or three.

First, the fact that you ask how the church can be salt and light without practical oneness is to ask a question for which you have decided that the answer is to have your kind of oneness and to declare that anything else is not oneness no matter how truly "one" it is.

The world see us as one. They understand that there are differences of thought on things. But they treat Christians as Christians.

And what is it that the church is supposed to accomplish that 1,000 churches in a city cannot accomplish? Name one actual thing that requires lockstep unity with the errors of Lee just because he and Nee dreamed up a doctrine that allowed the world to define the church according to its political boundaries. What can those 1,000 churches not do?

And what it is meant to accomplish is quite significant. But

ZNPaaneah · 11-03-2016, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

First, the fact that you ask how the church can be salt and light without practical oneness is to ask a question for which you have decided that the answer is to have your kind of oneness and to declare that anything else is not oneness no matter how truly "one" it is.

OBW -- you are absolutely right. Jesus said "I am the light of the world". Therefore the logical conclusion is that the church is light because we are expressing Jesus.

If salt kills germs then you would associate "salt" with someone like Antipas. He wasn't one with Jezebel. He wasn't one with Balaam.

How can the church be the salt -- because they stand against the germs of sin. That is going to make some people very unhappy.

It doesn't make any sense to equate this with oneness. If anything we are the Light of the world and the salt if we are one with Jesus. Not if we are one with other men. We should measure and judge based on this foolish measure of "oneness" with other men, that is not true oneness, that is agreement.

Ohio · 11-03-2016, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

It doesn't make any sense to equate this with oneness. If anything we are the Light of the world and the salt if we are one with Jesus. Not if we are one with other men. We should measure and judge based on this foolish measure of "oneness" with other men, that is not true oneness, that is agreement.

Light and salt affect the inward parts of man, causing darkness and germs to flee. If anything, it is LSM's obsession with one publication, proper names, Lee-only-Lee, endless trainings, LC uniformities, lawsuits, exclusive marginal doctrines, etc. that has caused them to lose any semblance to light and salt.

ZNPaaneah · 11-03-2016, 05:48 PM

1 Timothy 4:1-2 Now the Holy Spirit tells us clearly that in the last times some will turn away from the true faith; they will follow deceptive spirits and teachings that come from demons.

So although the NT doesn't refer to the "true church" it does refer to the "true faith".

The teachings may be deceptive, but the outcome is the works of the flesh, and these are obvious:

19The acts of the flesh are obvious:

sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery — we have seen this with many cults like David Koresh, this is the world of rock and roll, sex and drugs.

20idolatry and witchcraft — Catholic church, various idols

hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, —lawsuits, sociopath leaders and narcissist. False prophets.

selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy — fruit of selfish ambition

drunkenness, orgies, and the like.

I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

So then, "true faith" and "works of the Spirit" are what the apostle's focus on, not "true church".

Yes, Thyatira had issues, but the issues were a result of deceptive teachings and doctrines of demons pushed by Balaam and Jezebel. They were still a church, still had overcomers, Jesus was still walking in their midst and they still had those who walked with the Lord in white.

HERn · 11-03-2016, 08:21 PM

In the NT age the church was kind of messy. You had a mix Jewish Christians and pagan Christians. The strict Jewish brothers wanted all the pagan converts to be circumcised (hah, like that would ever happen). The recently saved pagans were still visiting the pagan temple prostitutes and eating meat sacrificed to demons. Somehow the Holy Spirit fostered oneness and the gospel of Christ went forward along with the teaching of the apostles to avoid such things. If LSM had been in charge back then the teaching of the apostles (plural) would have become the teaching of their apostle.

Evangelical · 11-03-2016, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

First, the fact that you ask how the church can be salt and light without practical oneness is to ask a question for which you have decided that the answer is to have your kind of oneness and to declare that anything else is not oneness no matter how truly "one" it is.

The world see us as one. They understand that there are differences of thought on things. But they treat Christians as Christians.

And what is it that the church is supposed to accomplish that 1,000 churches in a city cannot accomplish? Name one actual thing that requires lockstep unity with the errors of Lee just because he and Nee dreamed up a doctrine that allowed the world to define the church according to its political boundaries. What can those 1,000 churches not do?

And what it is meant to accomplish is quite significant. But

It was a rhetorical question for sure.

It's more what they cannot do. 1000 different churches cannot preach one gospel, they preach 1000 variations of the one gospel. And without coordination it is terribly inefficient and unproductive, so they cannot coordinate easily.

ZNPaaneah · 11-04-2016, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It was a rhetorical question for sure.

It's more what they cannot do. 1000 different churches cannot preach one gospel, they preach 1000 variations of the one gospel. And without coordination it is terribly inefficient and unproductive, so they cannot coordinate easily.

So then, are you saying that the NT definition of a church is that they all preach one gospel?

If that is your definition then what happens if you have a church of 200, a new member joins the fellowship but this person is out on the street preaching a different gospel. Is this church of 200 now "disqualified"?

Does the different gospel have to be published by them and sealed with their seal as though this is the gospel that everyone in this fellowship embraces?

My point is that you are making oneness = agreement. You are also saying that what you preach or believe will disqualify my standing before the Lord.

Ohio · 11-04-2016, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So then, are you saying that the NT definition of a church is that they all preach one gospel?

Hey ZNP, have you never heard of the "Mystery of Human Life?"

Is that the "one" gospel?

I remember back in the late 80's, after LSM/FTTT proclaimed that they had perfected the techniques of preaching the gospel going door-knocking with the MOHL tract, and they announced that they could statistically measure your performance by adhering to their rules and guidelines. Later Titus Chu made the comment, "Why don't they just hire professionals to go door-to-door, they would have much better success."

So much for the verse, "the Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He has anointed Me to announce Good News to the poor."

OBW · 11-04-2016, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It was a rhetorical question for sure.
It's more what they cannot do. 1000 different churches cannot preach one gospel, they preach 1000 variations of the one gospel. And without coordination it is terribly inefficient and unproductive, so they cannot coordinate easily.

Actually, with some exceptions, they preach one gospel. And to the extent that you think that things about the way they preach the gospel is not "the gospel" that is only from your perspective of what is the gospel. So what is it that makes your version "the gospel" and an other's NOT "the gospel"? Your opinion?

What makes the gospel of the LRC "the gospel"? I know. It was the gospel according to Lee's teachings. And he declared all other gospels to be the "low gospel."

But like some other recent comments, I don't think there is a delineated "high gospel" and a "low gospel." There is a "high calling." But that is not the gospel. No, the "high gospel" is a man-made label designed to make its adherents believe that they are superior to all others. There is no substance to the claim of being "high" relative to the other gospels. (And that last sentence is predicated upon the notion that there actually are so many gospels. There is only one gospel and it is not simply what the LRC preaches as opposed to what anyone else preaches.

That is a lie from the pit of Hell. And it is perpetrated by some who would seduce you into a state of being puffed-up about your position with God relative to everyone else. If I were looking at Rev 2 – 3 churches to figure out where those people were, I would be stuck in a quandary wondering whether it should be Laodicea or Thyatira. Thinking you've got all the best teachings while accepting seducing doctrines of demons.

Nell · 11-04-2016, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It's more what they cannot do. 1000 different churches cannot preach one gospel, they preach 1000 variations of the one gospel. And without coordination it is terribly inefficient and unproductive, so they cannot coordinate easily.

Oh ye of little faith!

Who is doing the coordinating? The Holy Spirit? Anything "inefficient and uprodutive" would be a sure sign that this is the work of man and not of God. Or, "inefficient and unproductive" would be an "event" failed in the eyes of men. It's shortsighted to believe that God actually needs your coordination to demonstrate the power and/or outpouring of the Holy Spirit. God's ways are higher than our ways. God may be happy with something you deem to be "inefficient and unproductive."

Nell

Evangelical · 11-04-2016, 07:34 PM

In all the religious denominations of man, men are doing the coordinating, according to the wisdom and ability of men, just as men appoint church leaders based upon theological qualification and charisma.

Evangelical · 11-04-2016, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Actually, with some exceptions, they preach one gospel. And to the extent that you think that things about the way they preach the gospel is not "the gospel" that is only from your perspective of what is the gospel. So what is it that makes your version "the gospel" and an other's NOT "the gospel"? Your opinion?

The high gospel includes the low gospel. Low means elementary. Most denominations are preaching the elementary gospel and not going much further than that (Hebrews 6:1). They are preaching the gospel with no mention or reference to receiving the Holy Spirit. Many make converts with no concern about their baptismal status. Whether one has received the Spirit or not and has been baptized was a main concern of the apostles when new converts were made.

ZNPaaneah · 11-05-2016, 04:00 AM

So far we have been unable to come up with any NT definition of the church other than the simplest: gathering of the believers into the name of Jesus, and a corporate experience of Jesus.

But now we have to add an even more difficult definition, what does it mean for a church to preach one gospel? Does this mean that the message spoken by one person on the pulpit determines whether or not the experience of several hundred people is "true" or not?

Is it a "published" gospel, like a profession of their faith published by a denomination?

Suppose most members merely accept the faith once for all given by the Apostle's as their gospel. Is that acceptable? After all that is one of the 7 ones that has already been given as a possible definition and rejected by the person floating this "preach one gospel" definition.

So then the NT is inclusive -- if you receive the faith once for all delivered by the apostles then you are one with all other believers who do as well.

However, this definition of "preach one gospel" is either just another way to say this or is a very exclusive definition, requiring each group to get the good housekeeping seal of approval on any word that they speak. And who is it that does that?

Ohio · 11-05-2016, 05:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In all the religious denominations of man, men are doing the coordinating, according to the wisdom and ability of men, just as men appoint church leaders based upon theological qualification and charisma.

Sounds just like LSM, except they don't even appoint men based on theological qualifications and charisma, rather loyalty.

Evangelical · 11-05-2016, 06:06 AM

There are 5 gospels in the Bible. The gospel according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and Paul.

aron · 11-05-2016, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So far we have been unable to come up with any NT definition of the church other than the simplest: gathering of the believers into the name of Jesus, and a corporate experience of Jesus.

I increasingly feel that the premise of settling solidly on a real and meaningful identification of a "NT definition of the church" is a false one, leading to a proverbial rabbit trail. Because if you look in the NT for a definition of "church", I daresay you don't find one to your 21st century satisfaction. So you get your half-dozen or twenty six "key verses" and say, "There you have it". See, e.g. the "One church per city" idea, never stated as such but rather contrived in the early 20th century to run out the "foreign devils" from China. Watchman Nee claimed to find the new 'normal', but it was only normal for his perceived needs, and according to his ingrained biases.

And so forth. We all bring in our views, and our biases, and our present needs, and put these on the text, and then proudly wave our carefully selected "reality" before all the rest.

But what did the 1st Century believers think about "the church"? Remember at that time there was no New Testament to refer to. The NT was lived out, and written down, by people who never saw themselves as deviating from "the Book" (the law, the prophets, the writings [proverbs & psalms &c]). Never. They were good Jews who believed that Jesus was the Messiah promised before. The Son of David, the Savior and (Jewish) King of Israel.

See Peter in Acts 10: "Not so Lord! I have never eaten such foods!" Peter was a good Jew, until his death. Believing in Jesus didn't instantly divorce him from a thousand years of shared history and meaning. On the contrary, it pulled him deeper in, into the Source itself (the Father). The Logos, long hinted at, appeared and declared the Father. But this bright declaration doesn't mean that Peter and the rest simply discarded the long-held sacred texts and created meaning whole-cloth from a singular "NT experience".

It was only later, much later, that the gospel was so thoroughly divorced from its 1st century Jewish roots. And then new meanings had to be found.

If you look at 1st century identification with "church" they already had the term in the LXX. Look at Psalm 1, for instance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KJV

1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.

2 But his delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.

3 And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.

4 The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.

5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.

6 For the Lord knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.

What is the 'congregation of the righteous' in verse 6, you ask? Why, none other than the 'ekklesia'! But in the 20th century, the post-Protestant Witness Lee had given up on 'works' and thus decided that Psalm 1 was vain and natural (because v.2 mentions the law of the Lord) and Lee therefore could ignore the assembly of the righteous in verse 6, and find his "church" elsewhere.

But did the 1st century believers ignore the assembly of the righteous? Is there any discussion in the NT which allows us to cut off the text, and meaning, thusly? Rather, in the repeated citations of 'scripture' being fulfilled in the NT, I see believers who sensed that the gathering and assembly of Jesus was the fulfillment of God's plan to be glorified. In the midst of the assembly is none other than the eternally-blessed Son, leading praise to the Father of lights(Heb 2:12, cf Psa 22).

And yet most if not nearly all of that seems irrelevant to the 21st century attempt to find consensus on the meaning of church, to its entirely great loss. And thus the interminable rabbit trail.

ZNPaaneah · 11-05-2016, 12:02 PM

I would prefer the congregation of the redeemed to the congregation of the righteous.

Otherwise I agree with you. I think it was a misdirection by WL to have us focus on "the true church". The focus of the NT is "the true Jesus".

aron · 11-05-2016, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I would prefer the congregation of the redeemed to the congregation of the righteous.

Otherwise I agree with you. I think it was a misdirection by WL to have us focus on "the true church". The focus of the NT is "the true Jesus".

Jesus is the Righteous One. It is the Congregation/Assembly/Church of Jesus (see Jesus' "my ekklesia" of Matt. 16). Jesus is the One whose leaf never withers, who delights in the Law of the LORD. Our faith is in Him, not ourselves. He alone is our righteousness; and our faith in Him is imputed to us. Basic Christian faith, which can be shown by the installation of the King of Psalm 2. Do you think Psalms 1 and 2 were haphazardly chosen?

Look at the specification of the Jewish King in Deuteronomy 17:14-20. It is Jesus, pictured "a little lower than the angels" in Psalm 1, and "enthroned in glory" in Psalm 2.

And I agree with you: that should be the focus of the NT. Not "how to do church". What a distraction and stumbling! Of course Paul often writes of the orderly church. But the core of the orderly church is the revelation of Jesus as God's Chosen One. Not sussing out who should report to whom, and what constitutes a quorum, a la Roberts Rules of Order.

OBW · 11-05-2016, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In all the religious denominations of man, men are doing the coordinating, according to the wisdom and ability of men, just as men appoint church leaders based upon theological qualification and charisma.

You, oh wise one, are alone worthy to determine on what basis other men do things. You are worthy to remain. Where you are. Where the deeds of others are, by your own definition, human, while your deeds are, by your definition, of the spirit.

Evangelical · 11-06-2016, 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

Jesus is the Righteous One. It is the Congregation/Assembly/Church of Jesus (see Jesus' "my ekklesia" of Matt. 16). Jesus is the One whose leaf never withers, who delights in the Law of the LORD. Our faith is in Him, not ourselves. He alone is our righteousness; and our faith in Him is imputed to us. Basic Christian faith, which can be shown by the installation of the King of Psalm 2. Do you think Psalms 1 and 2 were haphazardly chosen?

Look at the specification of the Jewish King in Deuteronomy 17:14-20. It is Jesus, pictured "a little lower than the angels" in Psalm 1, and "enthroned in glory" in Psalm 2.

And I agree with you: that should be the focus of the NT. Not "how to do church". What a distraction and stumbling! Of course Paul often writes of the orderly church. But the core of the orderly church is the revelation of Jesus as God's Chosen One. Not sussing out who should report to whom, and what constitutes a quorum, a la Roberts Rules of Order.

"how to do church" refers to the practical side of the church. How should it be organized, who should take the lead, how are finances managed, should the church have a name or not, in which building or buildings should it occupy etc.

Evangelical · 11-06-2016, 01:14 AM

Church as an army point of view:

If the church is any "army", engaging in spiritual warfare (Ephesians 6). Everyone with a little military knowledge or common sense knows that a united army is more effective than a scattered and divided one.

Mark 3:24 "If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand."

aron · 11-06-2016, 03:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

"how to do church" refers to the practical side of the church. How should it be organized, who should take the lead, how are finances managed, should the church have a name or not, in which building or buildings should it occupy etc.

Why shouldn't those be local concerns? Whatever happened to the freedom of the Spirit? Lee wanted everyone to be "exactly identical ", which was stifling.

aron · 11-06-2016, 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Church as an army point of view:

If the church is any "army", engaging in spiritual warfare (Ephesians 6). Everyone with a little military knowledge or common sense knows that a united army is more effective than a scattered and divided one.

Mark 3:24 "If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand."

There's is a big difference between the Chinese army and the American one. Don't you see how much culture played a shaping role in local church organising principles?

11-06-2016, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

What is the 'congregation of the righteous' in verse 6, you ask? Why, none other than the 'ekklesia'! But in the 20th century, the post-Protestant Witness Lee had given up on 'works' and thus decided that Psalm 1 was vain and natural (because v.2 mentions the law of the Lord) and Lee therefore could ignore the assembly of the righteous in verse 6, and find his "church" elsewhere.

But did the 1st century believers ignore the assembly of the righteous? Is there any discussion in the NT which allows us to cut off the text, and meaning, thusly? Rather, in the repeated citations of 'scripture' being fulfilled in the NT, I see believers who sensed that the gathering and assembly of Jesus was the fulfillment of God's plan to be glorified. In the midst of the assembly is none other than the eternally-blessed Son, leading praise to the Father of lights(Heb 2:12, cf Psa 22).

And yet most if not nearly all of that seems irrelevant to the 21st century attempt to find consensus on the meaning of church, to its entirely great loss. And thus the interminable rabbit trail.

Aron,

While trying understand your point something occurred to me: You don't accept the facts that 1) the law has been ended by Christ and that 2) the believers are no longer under the law.

If you do not accept those facts you will conflate the law with God's economy and end up with tangled teachings which is what I think happened in your explanation above.

Drake

aron · 11-06-2016, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

Aron,

While trying understand your point something occurred to me: You don't accept the facts that 1) the law has been ended by Christ and that 2) the believers are no longer under the law.

If you do not accept those facts you will conflate the law with God's economy and end up with tangled teachings which is what I think happened in your explanation above.

Drake

Christ is the end of the law, but not the end of Righteousness. In fact, Christ is the very Righteousness of God, our Righteousness. The assembly of the redeemed is the assembly of the righteous, the assembly of Christ, i.e. the "my assembly" of Matt 16. This NT fact seems to have escaped Witness Lee.

My question is, How sure are you that this fact also escaped Peter and John and Paul? Where in the NT record is this suggested? Lee played fast and loose with the OT text. Where in the NT did he find precedent?

11-06-2016, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

Christ is the end of the law, but not the end of Righteousness. In fact, Christ is the very Righteousness of God, our Righteousness. The assembly of the redeemed is the assembly of the righteous, the assembly of Christ, i.e. the "my assembly" of Matt 16. This NT fact seems to have escaped Witness Lee.

My question is, How sure are you that this fact also escaped Peter and John and Paul? Where in the NT record is this suggested? Lee played fast and loose with the OT text. Where in the NT did he find precedent?

Aron,

I don't know whether you really do not understand what Witness Lee taught or you are purposely misrepresenting what he taught.

Of course Witness Lee taught that Christ is our Righteousness.

Drake

ZNPaaneah · 11-06-2016, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Church as an army point of view:

If the church is any "army", engaging in spiritual warfare (Ephesians 6). Everyone with a little military knowledge or common sense knows that a united army is more effective than a scattered and divided one.

Mark 3:24 "If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand."

Which Christian gatherings are "divided against themselves"? Are you referring to the LC being divided against other Christians? Or are you referring to LC affliated with the blendeds being divided against those affiliated with Titus Chu, and those in south America and those with John So in Europe?

ZNPaaneah · 11-06-2016, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

How could the early church be salt and light to the world without practical oneness? How can the church be salt and light to the world without practical oneness?

This is what you and ZNPaaneah don't understand. The church is not about you, and not about you having a chit chat about the bible over coffee. It's actually meant to accomplish something and you cannot accomplish that by 1000 churches in one city, by scattered groups of two or three.

OK, there is a lot I don't understand. But let's assume for a moment you are right. The church is something more than a few believers meeting over coffee.

So here is my question, what do we call a meeting of 3 saints over coffee?

Do we call it a gathering? Ekklesia is a gathering of the believers. That would be confusing.

So what would the NT call this little get together, with a couple of saints breaking bread together, meeting into the name of Jesus? (Also, I assume these saints are using our recipe in the alternate threads on how to make a good cup of coffee).

aron · 11-06-2016, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

Of course Witness Lee taught that Christ is our Righteousness.
Drake

Then why did Lee pan the righteous man in psalms? Jesus said, "These things were written concerning me"; Lee said, "No, they're the vain words of a fallen man's natural concepts."

And back to the thread, what happened to the assembly of the righteous, under Lee? It doesn't exist, right? "There are none righteous, not one." Um sorry, there is one. In fact that is the core of the gospel message. Yeah that gospel - the so-called low one. I'm arguing here that it's the foundation of our NT assembly. It's the same ekklesia the OT LXX talked about.

"Oh! What do we have to do with you, Jesus, Nazarene? We know who you are - the Holy One of God! Have you come go destroy us?" Even the demons could see the Righteous One. Why was Lee so veiled?

Evangelical · 11-06-2016, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

OK, there is a lot I don't understand. But let's assume for a moment you are right. The church is something more than a few believers meeting over coffee.
So here is my question, what do we call a meeting of 3 saints over coffee?
Do we call it a gathering? Ekklesia is a gathering of the believers. That would be confusing.
So what would the NT call this little get together, with a couple of saints breaking bread together, meeting into the name of Jesus? (Also, I assume these saints are using our recipe in the alternate threads on how to make a good cup of coffee).

If they have the Lord's table, it would be "church". If not, it is just fellowship. Consider Paul's fellowship with Peter for 15 days:

Gal 1:18 Three years after his conversion, Paul journeyed to Jerusalem to meet with Peter and stayed with him for fifteen days.

We cannot say that this verse implies that Paul and Peter were a church or that their fellowship was a church meeting.

ZNPaaneah · 11-06-2016, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If they have the Lord's table, it would be "church". If not, it is just fellowship. Consider Paul's fellowship with Peter for 15 days:
Gal 1:18 Three years after his conversion, Paul journeyed to Jerusalem to meet with Peter and stayed with him for fifteen days.
We cannot say that this verse implies that Paul and Peter were a church or that their fellowship was a church meeting.

Yes, they are having fellowship. What do you call their meeting?

BTW, the NT does not refer to a meeting as "a fellowship".

11-06-2016, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

Then why did Lee pan the righteous man in psalms? Jesus said, "These things were written concerning me"; Lee said, "No, they're the vain words of a fallen man's natural concepts."
And back to the thread, what happened to the assembly of the righteous, under Lee? It doesn't exist, right? "There are none righteous, not one." Um sorry, there is one. In fact that is the core of the gospel message. Yeah that gospel - the so-called low one. I'm arguing here that it's the foundation of our NT assembly. It's the same ekklesia the OT LXX talked about.
"Oh! What do we have to do with you, Jesus, Nazarene? We know who you are - the Holy One of God! Have you come go destroy us?" Even the demons could see the Righteous One. Why was Lee so veiled?

Aron,

I do not know what you are talking about when you say Brother Lee was veiled regarding Christ as our Righteousness. You lead us through a maze in psalms to derive that conclusion and yet your conclusion is so blatantly opposite about what Witness Lee taught on this topic.

Nevertheless, for the moment I will make an assumption that you really don't know or just forgot.

Philippians 3:9 describes two righteousnesses from two sources. One source of righteousness is from the law and the other source is out of God and based on faith.

The central thought of the Psalms is Christ (Luke 24:44) but not every thing in Psalms refers to Christ (i.e gods in 82, nations in 83, etc.).

Psalm 1 says blessed is the man whose delight is in the law of Jehovah. Psalm 19 says the law is perfect. Indeed, yet the man who penned Psalm 19 broke the law in several aspects. Paul positioned the law as a concubine inferior to Christ Himself (Galatians 4:24-25).

We must include all these aspects to derive a scriptural understanding of this divine truth.

The Psalms are the impressions and experiences of godly men expressed through praise, prayer, and song yet they did not have the benefit of the New Testament to define their impressions. On the other hand we do looking back. Yet in so doing we cannot disregard the psalmist point of view ( a limited forward view). So we see in psalms both the concept of human and divine thought. Psalm 1 shows a clear human appreciation for the law (v2) yet Psalm 2 shows the Divine concept of Christ the anointed one as the center of God's plan or if you prefer He is God's plan.

Brother Lee taught that Christ is our (the believers) Righteousness, that which is out of God based on faith, not the righteousness that is out of the law.

Drake

aron · 11-06-2016, 04:39 PM

Drake,

Psalm 1 is not about us, nor about the well-intentioned psalmist, but about Christ. I'm not sure how much more blunt I can be. How is that a "maze"?

Suppose Peter had stood with the eleven, gave a talk to the assembled throng and concluded, "This man, who hoped to avoid corruption, was a vain and fallen sinner, whose grave is with us to this day. Sorry. You can all go home now"? (Acts 2:29)

Instead, he went on, "But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. Seeing what was to come, he spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, that he was not abandoned to the realm of the dead, nor did his body see decay. God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it." (vv 30-32)

It's not about the "godly impressions" of a vain and natural man, nor about you or I striving (and failing) to keep the law. It's about Christ. How could Witness Lee, who could see "Christ" in type and shadow in the details of Noah's ark, not see Him clearly portrayed here? And where in the NT do we see precedent to wave off Christ? No, rather we see invitation after invitation to "see Jesus", made briefly lower than the angels, and then crowned with glory and honor. But Lee instead saw vanity.

And that goes for the ekklesia, as well. In the midst of the ekklesia I (Christ) will lead hymns of praise to Him (the Father). There it is, in plain words, but Lee was set on the "vanity" and "natural" theme, and on he went. I argue that it wasn't the word of scripture that was composed of natural concepts, but rather the word of the expositor. The revelation of Christ isn't lacking, but the expositor is lacking revelation.

Again I ask, where in the NT do we see the OT text called vain, natural, fallen concepts? On the contrary, it was pointed to again and again and again as indicative of the coming Messiah. And now He was come.

But Lee had his "God's economy" to tend to, and unhelpful scripture simply had to go. It wasn't "every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God" but rather only those words which were helpful to the metric at hand. There were books to sell, conferences to preside over. So Lee hurried past. No Christ to be found.

aron · 11-06-2016, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

And that goes for the ekklesia, as well. In the midst of the ekklesia I (Christ) will lead hymns of praise to Him (the Father). There it is, in plain words, but Lee was set on the "vanity" and "natural" theme, and on he went..

Drake,

I know you'll pull up some great and inspiring message Lee gave on Psalm 22 as "Christ and the church" or Hebrews 2 as some supposedly high gospel, which "not many Christians see". Yes, I know.

But why did this ekklesia in Psalm 22 have revelation of Christ, but the ekklesia in Psalm 1 was shallow and vain? Why cherry-pick the word for types that align with your (ahem) natural concepts, but discard the rest? And where oh where in the NT do we see precedent to treat our source text (the OT) thusly?

Evangelical · 11-06-2016, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes, they are having fellowship. What do you call their meeting?

BTW, the NT does not refer to a meeting as "a fellowship".

Getting to know each other better?

11-06-2016, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

And where oh where in the NT do we see precedent to treat our source text (the OT) thusly?

Hi aron,

The massive quantity of messages given by Brother Lee showing Christ as the fulfillment and reality of all the types, shadows, prophecies, etc. in the Old Testament speak to his great love, honor, labor, and devotion to the Old Testament. Your accusations to the contrary have no merit. If you didn't toss those Life Studies, which Stuttgart considered good inspired stuff up until a certain date, then dust them off, read them for yourself, and refresh your understanding about what he taught.

Then, I will be happy to discuss, engage, or debate any topic concerning what Witness Lee actually taught. It is pointless to discuss teachings he never taught! No one benefits from that no matter what side they are on.

Gott gebe euch Verständnis,

Drake

JJ · 11-07-2016, 12:09 AM

Is the New Testament's definition of a church in the following verses (1 Tim 3:14-15 Berian Literal Bible)?

"I am writing these things to you, hoping to come to you in a short time, but if I should delay, so that you may know how it behooves one to conduct oneself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and base of the truth."

So, if the church of the living God is the household of God and the pillar and base of the truth, what does that say about the way we should treat each other, and what we should be holding up?

How do the local churches stack up? How do the churches us non LCRs attend stack up?

ZNPaaneah · 11-07-2016, 04:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Getting to know each other better?

Are you trying to be cute?

This thread is about what the NT has to say concerning the matter of the church and the gathering of the saints together. A matter which is very important and which according to you, only you are fully aware of the importance.

You say that the church is the army of God. Agreed. But there are many military missions that are best suited for small groups of 3-6 people. Why couldn't a group of 3-6 be a fully integrated and functioning group within this army?

The requirement is they fulfill the 7 ones in Ephesians. But if they did they would be subject to the rule of the one Lord, Jesus. Like any army you need a strong, clear line of command.

This is where all of your fluff about how important the church is gets exposed as nothing but a fig leaf to cover the shame of the damn heresy you are pushing.

You cannot come up with a valid complaint or explanation why your denomination, named by Witness Lee as the best denomination, is somehow superior and therefore disqualifies all other Christian gatherings. This doctrine denies the Lord who bought all those other Christians. Since Jesus is the one who paid the price it is Jesus who gets to make these pronouncements. Hence the reason for this thread. You say that there is such a criteria, yet cannot show anywhere from the NT where this pronouncement was made.

11-07-2016, 06:42 AM

ZNP,

Why aren't you indignant about christians who refuse to meet together because they hold different views about baptisms, gifts of the Spirit, church goverment, etc? If you really belueve that the local churches are a denomination then a consistent position on your part either would be to live and let live or rail agaist them all equally. Baptist, pentecostal, Presbyterian, Lutheran, and local church are all the same if you hold the view they are all denominations.

If your argument is that the local churches think they are unique in their teaching and practices then I would remind you that every denomination has a unique doctrine, personality, experience, etc. that they consider unique and that is the very reason they exist as an independent entity and are divided from other members of the Body of Christ.

Your point about smaller military units still being part of the larger army is consistent with a similar viewpoint Brother Lee had concerning the vital groups. The vital groups were the small units that functioned in coordination together yet still part of the church in a city. The analogy breaks down when applied to denominations because practically speaking there is no coordination between denominations as there is in an army.

The enemy uses denominations to frustrate God's move knowing if christians do not come together they cannot be effective engaging him in spiritual warfare.

Drake

aron · 11-07-2016, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJ

Is the New Testament's definition of a church in the following verses (1 Tim 3:14-15 Berian Literal Bible)?

"I am writing these things to you, hoping to come to you in a short time, but if I should delay, so that you may know how it behooves one to conduct oneself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and base of the truth."

So, if the church of the living God is the household of God and the pillar and base of the truth, what does that say about the way we should treat each other, and what we should be holding up?

How do the local churches stack up? How do the churches us non LCRs attend stack up?

I would like to address the portion of "the pillar and base of the truth". (Good question btw).

To me, the pillar and base of the truth is akin to the highest commandment. "Love your neighbor". The paragon for me in the NT, Christ's saving love in dying for the sinful world aside, is Dorcas and the widows in Acts 9. No doctrinal truths are stated, but love is so obviously displayed, an overpouring, irrepressible love, that it is palpably evident.

But on an internet forum what can one say? The only "love" I can try to display on an internet chat room, is to respect those whose views differ from mine, and to remember that they have earned their views with the same price of experience that I've come to hold mine.

So I'll sidestep love, here, and get to, shall we say, doctrine. In that case, the pillar and base of the truth is the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Peter, in the first recorded gospel message, didn't (that I recall) go over the virgin birth, the Trinity, the transfiguration on the mountain, or any number of items, all arguably important. No, he and the eleven testified to the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. The resurrection of Jesus from the dead 1) validated God's sending, that He was in fact the Chosen One, the Messiah; 2) meant that death's sting was annulled; 3) meant that His blood now erased our sins and brought us all, the whole world, back to God. Probably more than that but I'll leave it there . . . the blood of the Lamb now opened wide the gateway of salvation to all who would enter. The resurrection made this clear. "God has now made Him both Lord and Christ" (Acts 2:36).

Now, back to our previous program. What happens when a NT expositor starts telling you that the OT scripture is not prophetic of Christ, but vain, fallen, natural man's concepts of himself? What happens to the pillar and base of the truth? And what happens to the testimony of the church?

Here's an example. "He (the Father) rescued Me (the Christ) because He delighted in Me". No, says the Bible expositor, God didn't love nor rescue the sinful psalmist (Psa 18:9; cf 34:4 &c). The sinful psalmist rather saved himself.

Now, the NT says, "This is My Beloved Son, in whom I delight": clearly the Father in Heaven speaking of the Son on earth. Here is the NT "amen" to God's delight in the prophetic utterance of Psalm 18. Yet the invitation to see a Christ's obedience and His Father's delight in the scripture is spurned by the Bible expositor. He doesn't even say, "No, this can't be Jesus, because, X, Y, and Z" He simply says it's a fallen, natural word and moves on. The Bible expositor is blinded to Christ, and his blinded followers go along behind. What happens to the church when the truth is simply dismissed out of hand? What happens to the pillar and base of the truth when scripture is held to be low, fallen concepts of sinful humanity? How do we access the Christ of God? I don't see it. The so-called Bible expositor has slammed the door shut.

ZNPaaneah · 11-07-2016, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP, Why aren't you indignant about christians who refuse to meet together because they hold different views about baptisms, gifts of the Spirit, church goverment, etc?

Why do you ignore what I have said? The seven ones in Ephesians includes "one baptism". "One Spirit" includes the concept of one spirit. One Lord includes the concept of one administration.

My point has been consistent from the first post. I think that the seven ones in Ephesians is the key fellowship from the apostles concerning the definition of the church. This corresponds with the Lord's expression "meet in His name" but just gives us some more details.

All genuine Christians can agree that Jesus is Lord. They do not agree that Witness Lee is Lord. We can all agree on one baptism, no one is going to agree that you have to be baptized in the Catholic church.

Evangelical and Drake claim that the church is a very important topic in the NT, so important that only they truly understand the importance (paraphrasing Evangelical, sorry to paint Drake with the same brush) yet when asked to give a simple NT definition of what the church is and to explain why the things they are certain are so are in fact so. They are unable to give the simplest definition.

Evangelical claims the definition of a church is that they have 2 male elders. This was proved false from the fellowship of the Apostles. He then claimed that they must be able to excommunicate members, a highly questionable requirement as there is no evidence that any apostle required some group to first excommunicate a member before recognizing them as a church.

But even so, Evangelical then used this criteria, you must be able to excommunicate, as evidence that a home meeting cannot be a church since it would likely have a husband and wife. Once again, this has been disproved by the fellowship of the apostles, as Paul refers to a husband and wife and "the church in their house".

How do you have any credibility when you claim that this is such a crucial, important topic, no one but you understands it, and everyone else but you is wrong. Yet when asked for a simple definition you are completely clueless. Is this the fruit of Witness Lee's teaching?

Once again I would say that he is a false prophet and that you will know them by their fruit.

11-07-2016, 02:11 PM

Hi ZNP,

As this discussion unfolded it went deeper into the weeds. Now that you are in the weeds you beg for a simple definition of the church as if it had not already been provided.

The simple, scriptural definition of the church is that all the believers in a city make up the church in that city. Period.

The believers are brought into the oneness of the Father and the Son and though that is deeply profound, yet it is simple. That they may be one even Father as you and I are one. What visible testimony speaks to this spiritual reality? One church, one city, of which every believer is a member of.

Yet, because you do not accept the simple and straightforward answer, and you seemed intent on justifying divisions/denominations, you kept introducing various scenarios, and "what about this and that?", and Evangelical gave as thorough an explanation as is available to your many what-if scenarios.

The absurdity peaked when a city of a million people could, under your definition, have 500K churches of two people each. That makes no sense but it is the logical conclusion of your proposal.

If its complex it is because you have made it so. It is really very simple from a biblical point of view.

Drake

aron · 11-07-2016, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

The simple, scriptural definition of the church is that all the believers in a city make up the church in that city. Period. . . It is really very simple from a biblical point of view.

You could say, "My simple definition of the church is that. . . " But how do you know that was Paul's definition? If you look at Paul's usage in Romans 16, "Greet the church that is in their house", how do you know all the believers in the city met inside that house? You just have to assume so, because it's convenient to your understanding.

Oh, they don't all have to meet together? Like, they can have Meeting Hall A and Meeting Hall B? That's okay? Again, where does Paul say that? Because the word for 'meeting' was the same as the one for church. Ekklesia. So maybe it's simpler than you realized. Because you can't have Church Hall A and B, that is too confusing.

And Paul's travelling companion, Luke: "And with those words he dismissed the church" - oops, sorry, we don't translate 'ekklesia' as 'church' there, because it doesn't fit our definition. . . sorry, fit our concepts. . . sorry. . .

You 'simply' are reading today's understanding, and simply your understanding, back onto the text, and where the text doesn't line up you can just ignore it. Hey, a lot of people have had long and distinguished careers doing that, so rock on.

And, back to the church as the pillar and base of the truth, a la 1 Timothy 3 -- you know what I recently found out? The brother of Jesus was named Jacob. Not James. Can you believe that? Look up the Greek interlinear. "I'acovos". Same as the patriarch in the LXX, translated in English as "Jacob". But they translated the patriarch as "Jacob" and the brother of the Lord as "James". Like the English king. Can you believe that?

If you get a Greek interlinear, and look up Galatians 2:12 "some came from James" and look up Romans 9:13 "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" and you'll see the word is the same. "I'acov"

I mean, how much truth do we really have? I think a little circumspection is in order, here. Love one another, believe into Jesus Christ, try to go along together. Receive one another. Not just those that meet your doctrinal specs. Don't be greedy for filthy lucre, don't lord over the saints, try not to quarrel over trifles, and please, don't dismiss the Word of God as fallen men's concepts!

Other than that, we shouldn't presume we know so much. It seems we didn't even know the name of Jesus' brother. I didn't, anyway. No one ever told me.

ZNPaaneah · 11-07-2016, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

Hi ZNP,

As this discussion unfolded it went deeper into the weeds. Now that you are in the weeds you beg for a simple definition of the church as if it had not already been provided.

The simple, scriptural definition of the church is that all the believers in a city make up the church in that city. Period.

This thread has been consistent from the first post. What is the New Testament teaching.

You and Evangelical have claimed that the city is a key component of the definition. Allegorically I agree, but no one, including you, has provided a black and white definition from the NT that says this. And that, to me is very interesting. How could something so important, as portrayed by you, Evangelical and Witness Lee, be left to an inferred teaching?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

The believers are brought into the oneness of the Father and the Son and though that is deeply profound, yet it is simple. That they may be one even Father as you and I are one. What visible testimony speaks to this spiritual reality? One church, one city, of which every believer is a member of.

Yet, because you do not accept the simple and straightforward answer, and you seemed intent on justifying divisions/denominations, you kept introducing various scenarios, and "what about this and that?", and Evangelical gave as thorough an explanation as is available to your many what-if scenarios.

Why do you say I don't accept this truth that the believers are brought into the oneness of the Father and the Son. Everything that I have spoken has affirmed this.

One church, one city of which every believer is a member of. I have no issue with this. My issue is with "one administration appointed by Witness Lee". I am not the one who has claimed that all the believers in a city are not in the church, that has been the sole domain of Evangelical.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

The absurdity peaked when a city of a million people could, under your definition, have 500K churches of two people each. That makes no sense but it is the logical conclusion of your proposal.

My proposal is that according to the NT, according to Jesus word in Matthew 16 and 18, and according to Paul's word in Ephesians the focus of the NT is not on "the true church" as described by Witness Lee but not defined. Rather it is on "the true Jesus".

The first mention of church is when Peter had the revelation of Jesus as the Christ. This is the purpose of the Church, this is when the church is truly revealed, when we have the revelation of Jesus.

Neither you nor Evangelical provided any other valid definition from the NT. You have not defined "church" from the NT other than the meaning of the word -- gathering of the called out ones.

I asked what the minimum number of members could be for a church based on the NT -- no valid answer other than the verse 2-3 from Jesus.

I asked what requirements a gathering of the believers would have to meet to be a church. Again, no valid reason to reject a group as small as 2-3.

I asked what would you call this fellowship of 2-3 that meets the standard of Matt 18 and the 7 ones in Ephesians. No other valid name other than a gathering of the called out ones.

How is it that something so simple as you say, so central to the NT, so key, so important, and you can't even answer the most basic question -- what is it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

If its complex it is because you have made it so. It is really very simple from a biblical point of view.

Drake

I am asking the simplest and most basic question. What does the NT say that a church is?

If that is making things complex for you then that comes across as someone handling the word deceitfully. How can you tell me that giving a NT definition of a church is my making this "complex" or leading this "into the weeds".

This is hermeneutics 101.

Ohio · 11-07-2016, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

And, back to the church as the pillar and base of the truth, a la 1 Timothy 3 -- you know what I recently found out? The brother of Jesus was named Jacob. Not James. Can you believe that? Look up the Greek interlinear. "I'acovos". Same as the patriarch in the LXX, translated in English as "Jacob". But they translated the patriarch as "Jacob" and the brother of the Lord as "James". Like the English king. Can you believe that?
If you get a Greek interlinear, and look up Galatians 2:12 "some came from James" and look up Romans 9:13 "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" and you'll see the word is the same. "I'acov"

Interesting find.

Over the years I have run into some who insist on the "Authorized Version" of the Bible, none other for them will do.

Authorized by who? James himself.

11-07-2016, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

You 'simply' are reading today's understanding, and simply your understanding, back onto the text, and where the text doesn't line up you can just ignore it.

aron,

Denominations are the recent change having proliferated like gang-busters over the last few hundred years. The church for many centuries would have been unfamiliar with the denominational situation of today. If you read the Bible without the filter of denominations it is obvious that there was one church in one city.

Drake

11-07-2016, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You and Evangelical have claimed that the city is a key component of the definition. Allegorically I agree, but no one, including you, has provided a black and white definition from the NT that says this. And that, to me is very interesting. How could something so important, as portrayed by you, Evangelical and Witness Lee, be left to an inferred teaching?

Inferred? Surely you jest.

The black and white definition is so apparent that it is incredulous how anyone with a seeking heart could possibly see it any other way. The only way one could find any justification for denominations from the text of the Bible is by willful ignorance of its plain speaking.

If you still doubt this then I recommend one more possible help. Read Strong's references (#1577) for "church" & "churches" straight through in one sitting. If looking up over one hundred verses is too time consuming then read the abbreviated text in Strong's. The pattern is clear, the weight of the matter is overwhelming, and the intentional meaning is without dispute: There was one church in each city made up of the believers in that city and they were addressed as such. There were churches in a province or a region and they were referenced as such.

Denominations are a relatively new invention. Even where there were divisions in the early churches they still met as the church in that city.

Those are the facts. You are entitled to your own opinion and interpretation but you are not entitled to your own facts.

Drake

Evangelical · 11-07-2016, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Are you trying to be cute? This thread is about what the NT has to say concerning the matter of the church and the gathering of the saints together. A matter which is very important and which according to you, only you are fully aware of the importance...

Not at all. I was just stating the purpose of Paul staying with Peter. It was two (of the best) disciples meeting together yet they would not call their meeting a church service. This is an example of two or three meeting together with the presence of the Lord, yet not really being a church.

My explanation all along has been because it is not a denomination, but the local church, it is therefore superior and disqualifies all other Christian gatherings.

ZNPaaneah · 11-08-2016, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

Inferred? Surely you jest. The black and white definition is so apparent that it is incredulous how anyone with a seeking heart could possibly see it any other way...

You appear to think that correlation = causation.

It doesn't. Yes, the overwhelming majority of references to the church in the NT correlates with "one church in one city". But that is not a black and white definition, it is correlation and you must infer the definition.

ZNPaaneah · 11-08-2016, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Not at all. I was just stating the purpose of Paul staying with Peter. It was two (of the best) disciples meeting together yet they would not call their meeting a church service...

They don't refer to any meeting as a "church service". That is not a NT term.

The word church means a gathering of believers, and that is the term they use.

The verb they use is fellowship.

11-08-2016, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You appear to think that correlation = causation.
It doesn't. Yes, the overwhelming majority of references to the church in the NT correlates with "one church in one city". But that is not a black and white definition, it is correlation and you must infer the definition.

I do not think correlation = causation as a rule and certainly not in this discussion. Rather, I believe causation can be derived from trends and patterns. Lacking the ability to do primary research (by asking the NT writers directly why they addressed the believers in a city as "the church in..." ) then you are left with the objective citations from the scripture, historical records, contemporary writers, etc. The pattern and trends from the scripture are clear on this topic so we can derive causation - that is, the believers in a city were addressed as the church in that city beCAUSE the inspired writers considered all believers to make up the church in that city.

On the other hand, your approach is to dismiss the plain, clear instances and trends of the scripture (100+ citations concerning the "church" and "churches") in favor of a private interpretation to justify denominations. You readily admit that "the overwhelming majority of references to the church in the NT correlates with "one church and one city"" and yet you not only willfully reject what you know to be true but you also indignantly castigate those who embrace those facts and endeavor to practice accordingly.

Why?

Drake

ZNPaaneah · 11-08-2016, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

I do not think correlation = causation as a rule and certainly not in this discussion. Rather, I believe causation can be derived from trends and patterns. Lacking the ability to do primary research (by asking the NT writers directly why they addressed the believers in a city as "the church in..." ) then you are left with the objective citations from the scripture, historical records, contemporary writers, etc. The pattern and trends from the scripture are clear on this topic so we can derive causation - that is, the believers in a city were addressed as the church in that city beCAUSE the inspired writers considered all believers to make up the church in that city.

On the other hand, your approach is to dismiss the plain, clear instances and trends of the scripture (100+ citations concerning the "church" and "churches") in favor of a private interpretation to justify denominations. You readily admit that "the overwhelming majority of references to the church in the NT correlates with "one church and one city"" and yet you not only willfully reject what you know to be true but you also indignantly castigate those who embrace those facts and endeavor to practice accordingly.

Why?

Drake

I haven't dismissed anything. However, I do not elevate a pattern to a rule, which is what you have done.

For example, if all believers who meet in a city are aligned with the seven ones in Ephesians it would be fair to call them "one church". Why? Because they have one Lord, they have one God, one Spirit, one Faith, one Baptism.

My interpretation is that Jesus makes us one. There is no need for a rule or doctrine of dirt.

Your interpretation is that you have to have a particular name, and certain practices to be a "true church". All of these rules and practices are not directly taught but are derivative of your inferring a rule that is not taught by the Apostles.

Ohio · 11-08-2016, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

On the other hand, your approach is to dismiss the plain, clear instances and trends of the scripture (100+ citations concerning the "church" and "churches") in favor of a private interpretation to justify denominations. You readily admit that "the overwhelming majority of references to the church in the NT correlates with "one church and one city"" and yet you not only willfully reject what you know to be true but you also indignantly castigate those who embrace those facts and endeavor to practice accordingly.

You keep saying that posters here "dismiss the plain, clear instances and trends of the scripture to justify denominations."

I have not been a part in a "denomination" since I graduated from Catholic high school.

You make it all about "the name." As if God no longer looks at the heart, cares for righteousness, gives a hoot about faith, etc. But where is the evidence that God has discarded every principle He has ever spelled out in the scripture in lieu of a principle not spelled out at all?

If "the name" of the church unlocked all of God's heavenly blessings, then true believers would be willing to die for that name. There is no record of Christians ever dying for that name, unless it is the name of Jesus. As it is, the most they have ever done for that church name is to sue their brothers in court over their name. That happened in both Columbus and Mansfield, Ohio. Ask John Myer, he was there in court. His book opens with that scene.

11-08-2016, 11:38 AM

ZNP)" I haven't dismissed anything.... There is no need for a rule or doctrine of dirt."

Your term "doctrine of dirt" is your unequivocal dismissal of the clear biblical teaching of one church in each city.

aron · 11-08-2016, 12:40 PM

Drake,

The proliferation of denominations is also known as the Protestant Reformation, which many of us think was a positive development. Or are you of two minds about this?

I know that you prefer your history neat, like the Just So Stories of Witness Lee. "Then God raised up Watchman Nee on the virgin soil of China. . ."

But history isn't what you or Lee wish it were. It just is. We may wish that electricity had never been invented. Or powered flight. But it was. Nee and Lee's return to the good old days, pre-reformation, of a proper, normal, true church gave us the Vicar of Christ and his ne'er do well sons running roughshod over the church members, the disparagment of scripture, lifeless uniformity, smearing anyone who had an ounce of vitality as ambitious, and we could go on. Public shaming sold as perfecting. Complete lack of curiosity. Lee told us he hadn't learned anything from anyone for 45 years.

No thanks.

Drake · 11-08-2016, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

Drake,

The proliferation of denominations is also known as the Protestant Reformation, which many of us think was a positive development. Or are you of two minds about this?

I know that you prefer your history neat, like the Just So Stories of Witness Lee. "Then God raised up Watchman Nee on the virgin soil of China. . ."

But history isn't what you or Lee wish it were. It just is.

Aron,

The history I was referring to (read my note in context) is the early history of the church. You either misunderstood that or decided to take a shot on an unrelated topic.

Drake

aron · 11-08-2016, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

Aron,

The history I was referring to (read my note in context) is the early history of the church. You either misunderstood that or decided to take a shot on an unrelated topic.

Drake

So the denominations started proliferating around the time Paul wrote his first epistle to the Corinthians?

Your post #177 said they were a recent change, over the past few hundred years. That sounded like the Protestant Reformation to me.

ZNPaaneah · 11-08-2016, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP)" I haven't dismissed anything.... There is no need for a rule or doctrine of dirt."

Your term "doctrine of dirt" is your unequivocal dismissal of the clear biblical teaching of one church in each city.

Oh great, you have responded to my thread. what is the "clear biblical teaching"? This is precisely what I have been asking for.

NewManLiving · 11-08-2016, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP)" I haven't dismissed anything.... There is no need for a rule or doctrine of dirt."
Your term "doctrine of dirt" is your unequivocal dismissal of the clear biblical teaching of one church in each city.

There is no "biblical teaching". Christians were "addressed" according to where they lived. The Holy Spirit makes no mention of locality as a requirement for our oneness. You can derive what you like, but there is no command to do so. I really don't think the apostles gave it much thought either. We are limited by time and space. It would be natural to address Christians by the city that they live and assemble in. You are making a doctrine and calling it a teaching. This is not the case.

Evangelical · 11-08-2016, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NewManLiving

There is no "biblical teaching". Christians were "addressed" according to where they lived. The Holy Spirit makes no mention of locality as a requirement for our oneness. You can derive what you like, but there is no command to do so. I really don't think the apostles gave it much thought either. We are limited by time and space. It would be natural to address Christians by the city that they live and assemble in. You are making a doctrine and calling it a teaching. This is not the case.

I agree with you there is no biblical teaching. However this does not mean it can easily be dismissed. In fact I could not imagine what a church service or Christianity would look like if we took away everything and followed only the prescriptive instructions in the Bible, and many things done in Christianity are not even prescriptive or descriptive. For example Christianity adamantly follows Christmas and Easter (which is not prescriptively or descriptively found in the Bible) but they have such a problem with the biblically descriptive view of locality.

It is mostly from the descriptive "teaching" of the Bible - how things were done. A number of things we do in Christianity are because of observation of how things were done - communion and baptism for example. There is no teaching in the Bible that lays out exactly how we should do that (the Catholics require referencing early church writings, not the Bible, to support their way of doing these things).

It is partly from God-given revelation (given to Watchman Nee and others) and partly from practical common sense.

If it is natural to address Christians by the city that they live and assemble in, then to address Christians by their denominational affiliation is unnatural. That is because denominations are "unnatural".

ZNPaaneah · 11-08-2016, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I agree with you there is no biblical teaching. However this does not mean it can easily be dismissed. In fact I could not imagine what a church service or Christianity would look like if we took away everything and followed only the prescriptive instructions in the Bible, and many things done in Christianity are not even prescriptive or descriptive. For example Christianity adamantly follows Christmas and Easter (which is not prescriptively or descriptively found in the Bible) but they have such a problem with the biblically descriptive view of locality.

Can you please stop speaking for all of Christianity. This thread is simple, what do the Apostles say in the NT.

No one made you a spokesman for what I believe, much less for what hundreds of millions of Christians believe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It is mostly from the descriptive "teaching" of the Bible - how things were done. A number of things we do in Christianity are because of observation of how things were done - communion and baptism for example. There is no teaching in the Bible that lays out exactly how we should do that (the Catholics require referencing early church writings, not the Bible, to support their way of doing these things).

It is partly from God-given revelation (given to Watchman Nee and others) and partly from practical common sense.

If it is natural to address Christians by the city that they live and assemble in, then to address Christians by their denominational affiliation is unnatural. That is because denominations are "unnatural".

So your point is that the NT "describes" a certain practice of the church which is one church in one city, but doesn't prescribe it?

I would raise three questions to this.

1. What is the description of this practice?

2. Why does WL prescribe something that the apostles only describe and don't prescribe?

3. Why would the apostles only describe something that is crucial for our oneness?

NewManLiving · 11-08-2016, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I agree with you there is no biblical teaching. However this does not mean it can easily be dismissed. In fact I could not imagine what a church service or Christianity would look like if we took away everything and followed only the prescriptive instructions in the Bible, and many things done in Christianity are not even prescriptive or descriptive. For example Christianity adamantly follows Christmas and Easter (which is not prescriptively or descriptively found in the Bible) but they have such a problem with the biblically descriptive view of locality.

It is mostly from the descriptive "teaching" of the Bible - how things were done. A number of things we do in Christianity are because of observation of how things were done - communion and baptism for example. There is no teaching in the Bible that lays out exactly how we should do that (the Catholics require referencing early church writings, not the Bible, to support their way of doing these things).

It is partly from God-given revelation (given to Watchman Nee and others) and partly from practical common sense.

If it is natural to address Christians by the city that they live and assemble in, then to address Christians by their denominational affiliation is unnatural. That is because denominations are "unnatural".

The local church of Witness Lee is also "unnatural". There is no biblical church that even resembles it. There is no unique apostle or apostle of the age, rather there are apostles. There is no one publication, but different letters as the Holy Spirit inspired each apostle to write. Peter commended Paul for his knowledge and writings. There is no central, money-making business that each church has to subscribe to. Paul labored as did the other apostles with their own hands as not to be a burden. Paul did not cut off churches simply because they did not agree with him. All of Asia left him. He did not sue, infiltrate, slander etc.. The list goes on and on. Whatever a proper church is it is NOT LSMLC

Evangelical · 11-08-2016, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Can you please stop speaking for all of Christianity. This thread is simple, what do the Apostles say in the NT.

No one made you a spokesman for what I believe, much less for what hundreds of millions of Christians believe.

No one made you a spokesman for what the local churches believe either

. You and others are painting the whole local churches according to your experiences in individual churches.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So your point is that the NT "describes" a certain practice of the church which is one church in one city, but doesn't prescribe it?

I would raise three questions to this.

1. What is the description of this practice?

2. Why does WL prescribe something that the apostles only describe and don't prescribe?

3. Why would the apostles only describe something that is crucial for our oneness?

We would have to consider the origins of this - Watchman Nee's normal christian church life book. I don't recall Nee saying "this is what the bible says a church should be like". It is based upon descriptions of the church in the bible and also a degree of spiritual revelation and insight that Nee had.

ZNPaaneah · 11-09-2016, 05:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

No one made you a spokesman for what the local churches believe either

.

Witness Lee is the spokesman for what the Local churches believe. The first post quotes Witness Lee. LSM publishes what the Local church believes. They are very clear on only having one publisher and have excommunicated any that try to publish outside of their authority. They also have made themselves the "spokesman" for what the Local church believes. My quotes come from their websites.

Your cutesy little responses cause you to lose all credibility with anyone who actually reads your posts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You and others are painting the whole local churches according to your experiences in individual churches.

This thread has nothing to do with our personal experiences in the various localities. The thread has been very narrowly defined -- Witness Lee talked about a "true church" I asked what that is. I would like a NT definition from the apostles.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We would have to consider the origins of this - Watchman Nee's normal christian church life book. I don't recall Nee saying "this is what the bible says a church should be like". It is based upon descriptions of the church in the bible and also a degree of spiritual revelation and insight that Nee had.

That is fine, however I assume at some point Watchman Nee and Witness Lee were expounding the Apostle's fellowship. Please point me to that fellowship. What is this "true church" based on?

Ohio · 11-09-2016, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NewManLiving

The local church of Witness Lee is also "unnatural". There is no biblical church that even resembles it. There is no unique apostle or apostle of the age, rather there are apostles. There is no one publication, but different letters as the Holy Spirit inspired each apostle to write. Peter commended Paul for his knowledge and writings. There is no central, money-making business that each church has to subscribe to. Paul labored as did the other apostles with their own hands as not to be a burden. Paul did not cut off churches simply because they did not agree with him. All of Asia left him. He did not sue, infiltrate, slander etc.. The list goes on and on. Whatever a proper church is it is NOT LSMLC

Had Witness Lee and the current Blended administration actually served by the principles of oneness supposedly established by the one church, one city model, with much of it highlighted in Nee's book TNCCL, then this discussion, this forum, and all of these painful and tragic stories, would never have happened.

Ohio · 11-09-2016, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

That is fine, however I assume at some point Watchman Nee and Witness Lee were expounding the Apostle's fellowship. Please point me to that fellowship. What is this "true church" based on?

Nee taught that the elders of each local church were the highest court in the New Testament.

Many joined Lee's movement early on after reading Nee's book. He was after all his closest coworker.

During trying times, Lee reduced the responsibility of the elders to choosing what time to start the meeting.

Such discrepancies undermine their ministries, and cast a huge shadow on their extremely unique and exclusive stance on "the New Testament Definition of a Church."

Evangelical · 11-09-2016, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Witness Lee is the spokesman for what the Local churches believe. The first post quotes Witness Lee. LSM publishes what the Local church believes. They are very clear on only having one publisher and have excommunicated any that try to publish outside of their authority. They also have made themselves the "spokesman" for what the Local church believes. My quotes come from their websites.

Your cutesy little responses cause you to lose all credibility with anyone who actually reads your posts.

You seem to have a problem when I said this:

For example Christianity adamantly follows Christmas and Easter (which is not prescriptively or descriptively found in the Bible) but they have such a problem with the biblically descriptive view of locality.

Does this apply to you or not? If you don't follow Christmas and Easter then I can say "Christianity except ZNPaaneah" if you like. Anyway my statement was not about you, but about Christianity, of which the celebration of Christmas and Easter are part of. My point was about the descriptive view of the Bible regarding the local church.

It is still true that Christianity celebrates and does things which have no descriptive or prescriptive basis in the Bible. No doubt you or others will say the same of the local churches. However at least the city locality church practice has a descriptive basis in the Bible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This thread has nothing to do with our personal experiences in the various localities. The thread has been very narrowly defined -- Witness Lee talked about a "true church" I asked what that is. I would like a NT definition from the apostles.

My post was not talking about personal experiences, my post was talking about what the bible describes as a NT church. My post was very much "on topic", until you interjected and made it personal by your statement:

"Can you please stop speaking for all of Christianity".. "

"No one made you a spokesman for what I believe"...

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

That is fine, however I assume at some point Watchman Nee and Witness Lee were expounding the Apostle's fellowship. Please point me to that fellowship. What is this "true church" based on?

It would be based upon the divine fellowship of which Watchman Nee and the Apostle's partook. Does a view of a divided church have the basis of divine fellowship ? Did Jesus tell his disciples they could start different denominations if they wanted to or felt the need, or did he ask them to be unified? Did he divided the 12 into 4 groups of 3 and tell them they were 4 churches?

ZNPaaneah · 11-10-2016, 05:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You seem to have a problem when I said this:

For example Christianity adamantly follows Christmas and Easter (which is not prescriptively or descriptively found in the Bible) but they have such a problem with the biblically descriptive view of locality.

Wow. I quoted you saying "no one made you a spokesman for what the Local Church believes". And responded saying that Witness Lee was the spokesman for what the Local Church believes as well as LSM, and yet you somehow thought that what really bothered me was the quote that I didn't reference?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Does this apply to you or not? If you don't follow Christmas and Easter then I can say "Christianity except ZNPaaneah" if you like. Anyway my statement was not about you, but about Christianity, of which the celebration of Christmas and Easter are part of. My point was about the descriptive view of the Bible regarding the local church.

No it does not apply to me and no it does not apply to this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It is still true that Christianity celebrates and does things which have no descriptive or prescriptive basis in the Bible. No doubt you or others will say the same of the local churches. However at least the city locality church practice has a descriptive basis in the Bible.

This thread is not about Christianity, nor have I held up Christianity as the definition or standard for the church. In fact, from the first post it should have been clear to any reader that Witness Lee's reference to the "true church" indicated that he was not talking about Christianity. The question is quite simple, what exactly is the "true church" based on the NT?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

My post was not talking about personal experiences, my post was talking about what the bible describes as a NT church. My post was very much "on topic", until you interjected and made it personal by your statement:

"Can you please stop speaking for all of Christianity".. "

You said that "Christianity adamantly follows Christmas and Easter". That is an example of you "speaking for all of Christianity". Please stop.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

"No one made you a spokesman for what I believe"...

You said that all of Christianity has a problem with the concept of one church in one locality. When you pretend to be a spokesman for all of Christianity, that included me. You are clueless about what I believe. You have willfully ignored my repeated comments on this issue. So then, stop trying to be a spokesman for what I and hundreds of millions of Christians believe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It would be based upon the divine fellowship of which Watchman Nee and the Apostle's partook. Does a view of a divided church have the basis of divine fellowship ? Did Jesus tell his disciples they could start different denominations if they wanted to or felt the need, or did he ask them to be unified? Did he divided the 12 into 4 groups of 3 and tell them they were 4 churches?

Yes, it would be based on that, which is why I have asked for someone to provide that basis. Seems like a reasonable request and all of your gyrations and protestations and misdirections appears to be a deceitful work.

ZNPaaneah · 11-10-2016, 05:34 AM

Here is the hypocrisy in Witness Lee's teaching.

1. In Taipei they have 26 meeting halls. So having separate meetings in separate halls is not equivalent to having division or a lack of oneness.

2. They don't have a meeting hall in Taipei large enough for everyone to meet so it is very rare for them to have such a meeting. they can rent a large stadium if necessary but for the most part these large meetings are viewed as unproductive, unprofitable and unnecessary.

3. In a city like NYC it is perfectly reasonable to estimate that there are a million Christians, hence there is no meeting hall even remotely close to holding that size crowd. Generally speaking a stadium holding 75,000 is about as large as you could go.

So then, any logical, sane, reasonable person would conclude that having separate meetings was not evidence of a lack of oneness, but rather evidence of being practical.

What then determines which of these meetings is "the true church"? This is a term not in the NT. Instead the NT is incredibly, strikingly vague on this subject. Instead the evidence from the NT is concerning "the true Jesus".

1. When Jesus first mentions the church it is in response to Peter having a revelation of Jesus Christ incarnated and come in the flesh.

2. When Paul has a revelation of Jesus for the first time it results in him having a vision of the Body of Christ. The scales fall off his eyes when Ananias lays hands on him.

3. According to Jesus it merely takes 2-3 meeting into His name for His presence to be there.

4. According to Jesus the sins of Laodicea caused him to leave, going outside and knocking on the door for those still in that meeting to leave and come outside to Him. Since His presence is no longer in that meeting we can conclude that they are no longer "meeting in the name of Jesus". They have violated one or more of the 7 ones. We can also conclude that the warning to Ephesus that either they repent or else they will lose their lamp stand very likely still applies to Laodicea.

The definition of the word refers to a gathering of called out ones.

There is no other word given in the NT for the gathering of the believers. The verb "fellowship" is used to describe the action, but the noun ekklesia is used to refer to the gathering.

Therefore I have concluded, based on the fellowship of Jesus, Paul and John that what makes a church a "true church" is the presence of the "true Jesus".

No person, no ministry, no publishing house, no doctrine determines this. If you gather together into the name of Jesus according to the fellowship of the apostles, primarily Ephesians 4, then the true Jesus will be in your midst, then you can express the incarnated Christ, and then you will be the Body of Christ, the true church.

If you do not deal with the Lord Jesus and repent of anything that He tells you to repent of then you could lose his presence and no longer be a lamp stand.

10-14-2016, 08:31 AM	#3
ZNPaaneah Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 7,105	Re: What is the New Testament Definition of a Church Here is how I read the NT on this question: 1. Paul said "There is one body" — This is equivalent to Witness Lee's no denomination. We aren't of Paul or Peter or Apollos. But it is completely opposite to Witness Lee. WL sees this as a way to show which churches aren't true, Paul shows this as a way to state that all believers are part of the one true Body of Christ. 2. Paul said "and one Spirit" — This is equivalent to Witness Lee's fellowship is universal, but it explains why fellowship is universal. This is not something that we have to do, it is due to the Spirit that we have received. 3. Paul said "even as also ye were called in one hope of your calling" — This is equivalent to Witness Lee's 'Central lane of God’s economy' which is based on Paul telling Timothy to charge some to "not teach differently". Why? Because there is one hope of your calling. 4. Paul said "one Lord —" This is equivalent to Witness Lee's one administration, except Witness Lee has distorted "one Lord" to be "one administration". Jesus is Lord, as long as we all submit to Jesus, the Lord, we can be one. Witness Lee created a new requirement that we need "one administration", elders which he himself picks and controls. This makes WL lord. This is abominable. This is why it is a "damnable heresy". This is why he denies the Lord who bought us. 5. Paul said "one faith" — This is equivalent to Witness Lee's no particular teaching, except that WL's word doesn't make sense whereas Paul's word makes it very clear what he is talking about. We all recognize the fellowship of the apostles as our "one faith". We have lots of particular teachings. Baptism and the Lord's table are two very particular teachings. Justification by faith, the Lord's redemption, eternal salvation, etc. Once again Paul is inclusive, Witness Lee is exclusive. Everyone who embraces the one faith is included by Paul, anyone who has "particular teaching" whatsoever it is, is excluded by Witness Lee. 6. Paul said "one baptism" — This is equivalent to Witness Lee's no connection with other organizations. We died to the world and the world to us when we were baptized. Every one of us is associated with other organizations (our job, our family, our community, our nation, etc). It is the Lord's work that makes us one, not some phony baloney claim to independence. It is being immersed into the triune God, separated from the world, and translated into the kingdom of the Son of His love, this is what makes us the true church. 7. Paul said "one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all"— He is over the apostles, the prophets, the elders. He is working through all, whether a group of 2 or 3, or a mega church of 10,000. He is in all, He is the good housekeeping seal of approval. Witness Lee tries to make "locality" over all, it isn't. He tries to make himself the MOTA, he isn't. He tries to be "through all" by only sanctioning churches that have elders that he picked and that answer to him, sorry he isn't God. He tries to make his ministry in all of the church meetings, once again he isn't God. In addition I agree when Witness Lee says that individually we are sons of God, corporately we are the church. The minimum number of believers to have a corporate experience is 2 or 3. If these 2 or 3 meet in the name of Jesus as described in the 7 ones I just went through then yes, they can have the Lord's table and yes, they can be a lamp stand and yes one of them can be the "elder".

10-14-2016, 01:52 PM	#8
ZNPaaneah Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 7,105	Re: What is the New Testament Definition of a Church Matt 18:15 And if thy brother sin against thee, go, show him his fault between thee and him alone: if he hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16 But if he hear thee not, take with thee one or two more, that at the mouth of two witnesses or three every word may be established. 17 And if he refuse to hear them, tell it unto the church: and if he refuse to hear the church also, let him be unto thee as the Gentile and the publican. 18 Verily I say unto you, What things soever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and what things soever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say unto you, that if two of you shall agree on earth as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father who is in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. The context here is similar to Martin Luther nailing his paper to the door of the Catholic Church. It is David vs Goliath. Jesus is making it clear that two or three plus Jesus out weigh any monster or mega lithic church. This thread was started in response to a post that said that 2 or 3 cannot be considered a church. As the person was questioned on this they did walk back their full assurance a little. But the context is very clear that 2 or 3 can take on a much larger group and they will succeed because Jesus is in the midst of them. At the very least it undermines the argument that there is some kind of minimum number of saints required to be classified as a church. If this verse were pictured as a seesaw you would have 2 or 3 with Jesus on one end outweighing the entire Catholic Church on the other.

10-15-2016, 12:57 AM	#9
Evangelical Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 3,965	Re: What is the New Testament Definition of a Church I question the view that says when two or three are gathered, Jesus is automatically present, because with the Laodicean church in Revelation, they were a gathering of 2 or 3 or more believers, but Jesus was not in their midst but outside knocking on the door wanting to get in. (Revelation 3:20). So I don't think it's correct that just because some believers get together they can claim to have the Lord's presence and be a genuine church. I am not talking about Jesus's presence with each individual believer or Jesus's omnipresence (which all believers and even non believers have) , but His manifest presence in the church. Many of you are thinking about church in terms of the outward, administrative or practical things. But this does not define a true church. A true church is also not merely about two or three gathering in Christ's name. That is, just because two or three gather in some place, does not mean they can hold the Lord's table there or claim to be the true church in the city. Merely copying the forms and patterns of the early church does not make it a genuine church. A church without the presence of the Holy Spirit is not the true church. The local churches in the Lord's recovery were established not as a decision to copy a first century church model, but because Watchman Nee and Witness Lee had the presence of the Holy Spirit. To get to the heart of the matter, the true local church in each city is the one that has the lampstand. The lampstand's purpose is to express spiritual light. The lampstand is the Spirit (Rev 4:5). The true church in each city is the church that Jesus Himself has chosen to express spiritual light and have His manifest presence in that city. In this sense, ZNPaaneah is correct that a two or three sized genuine church (with a lampstand) outweighs an entire false church (or self-proclaimed church). But to say that just any two or three believers can gather together somewhere and consider themselves the true church, I question that.

10-15-2016, 07:15 AM	#14
ZNPaaneah Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 7,105	Re: What is the New Testament Definition of a Church I'm not disagreeing with you. My point is that Witness Lee's strongest argument for his doctrine of dirt is to take the Greek usage of this word. I agree that if you limit this term to the Greek usage you can conclude a doctrine of dirt, but the apostles do not do this. And, that lack is, to my mind, very telling.

10-15-2016, 03:35 PM	#22
ZNPaaneah Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 7,105	Re: What is the New Testament Definition of a Church OK, another very good point. So, if we look at the prescription by Paul for choosing an elder and follow it, then although the elder wasn't ordained by the apostle, the elder was ordained according to the fellowship of the apostle.

10-14-2016, 05:37 AM	#1
ZNPaaneah Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 7,105	What is the New Testament Definition of a Church What is the church? The church is the composition of the Lord’s many brothers. Individually, we are the Lord’s brothers; corporately, we are the church. The church is the composition of the firstborn Son and the many sons of God. (Witness Lee, The Subjective Truths in the Holy Scriptures, Chapter 3, Section 1) On another thread this has become a bone of contention. Matt 18:20 20 for where there are two or three gathered together -- to my name, there am I in the midst of them.' According to Witness Lee Suppose that you and others in the city where you live are fed up with Christianity, so you start to meet together separately in the Lord's name. You say, “We give up Christianity; we have had enough of the old system of religion; now we are just meeting by ourselves in the name of the Lord Jesus, assured according to Matthew 18:20 that we have His presence.” We would simply ask you, Is your meeting taking the stand with the true local church in your city? Or is your meeting some isolated thing, something without the church as a standing? If so, your meeting is divisive and not a proper meeting. Do not isolate Matthew 18:20—it must be understood by the context. Read the context, and you will see the right meaning of meeting in the name of the Lord. (How to Meet, Chapter 1, Section 2) So then the question is this What is the "true local church in your city"? How do you know what it is? What does it mean to have a meeting that is "some isolated thing", "something without the church as a standing"?

10-14-2016, 05:42 AM	#2
ZNPaaneah Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 7,105	Re: What is the New Testament Definition of a Church Witness Lee provides several tests: 1. No particular name In the Bible a name is a great matter. Referring to the Lord's name, Acts 4:12 says, “There is salvation in no other, for neither is there another name under heaven given among men in which we must be saved.” Romans 10:13 says, “Whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Matthew 18:20 says, “Where there are two or three gathered into My name, there am I in their midst.” John 14:14 says, “If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.” Hence, salvation is obtained in the Lord's name, and the church is gathered into the Lord's name. Furthermore, even baptism is involved with the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19). By reading the New Testament, we can see that a name is a great matter. Witness Lee, The Bridge and Channel of God, Chapter 3, Section 1) 2. No particular teaching The basic need for the building up of the Body of Christ is the apostles' teaching. We should have no particular teaching other than the teaching of the apostles, which is the teaching concerning Christ's person and redemptive work and concerning God's economy in faith (2 John 9-11; 1 Tim. 1:3-4; Jude 3; Titus 1:4). (Witness Lee, Elders' Training, Book 10: The Eldership and the God-Ordained Way (2), Chapter 10, Section 2) 3. Fellowship is universal, not isolated Some people say that they do not have any of the above conditions and that they are non-sectarian and non-denominational. They do not have a special name, a set of special beliefs, or a special fellowship. However, we still need to know whether their fellowship is isolated rather than universal. Over the past thirty years, quite a number of people have seen the error of sects and left the denominations. Because they do not have a special name, a set of special beliefs, or a special fellowship, they think that they are non-sectarian and non-denominational. But there may still be a problem. Although they do not have a special name, a set of special beliefs, or a special fellowship, they have an isolated local fellowship, not a universal fellowship. They do not fellowship with all the saints on the earth. As a result, they become a local sect. According to lesson 14, even though the churches are expressed in different localities, they are still the Body of Christ, and their fellowship is universal. Therefore, if a Christian fellowship is limited to its locality and has lost its universality and the nature of the Body of Christ, it will be a local sect and will result in a division in the church. (Witness Lee, Lessons for New Believers, Chapter 17, Section 4) 4. Do not have separate administration. We also need to look at whether there are separate administrations in the same locality. Some groups have nothing special, having no special name, no special belief, and no special fellowship. They seem to be nondenominational, but their administration is separate from other nondenominational groups in the same locality. They do not meet together as one with other nondenominational groups in the same locality. For example, in Taipei there may be three small groups, none of which have a special name, special belief, or special fellowship, but the three groups have separate administrations and are independent of each other. This is also sectarianism. According to the Scriptures, a locality can have only one church, and in a church there can be only one group of elders which represent one administration. The Bible says that the apostles appointed elders in every church (Acts 14:23), and it also says that the apostle charged Titus to appoint elders in every city (Titus 1:5). This shows that the elders in a church are the elders in a city, and the elders in a city are also the elders in a church. The apostle did not charge Titus to appoint elders in every street. If he had, we would need to admit that there could be a church on a street. Rather, the apostle charged Titus to appoint elders in every city. Therefore, in a city there can be only one group of elders, and there can be only one administration of the church; there cannot be two or more groups of elders, and there cannot be two or more separate administrations of the church. Although the church in a certain locality may meet separately in many places because of a large number of believers, the administration should still be one. (Witness Lee, The Testimony and the Ground of the Church, Chapter 10, Section 4) 5. No connections with other organizations. "One other factor is a test of a genuine local church. There may be a Christian group that has no particular name, no particular fellowship, and no particular teaching. Their fellowship is universal, not isolated, and they do not have a separate administration. Although they pass all these tests, do not be quick to say that they are a true local church. It is still possible that this group has a hidden connection with another organization. They are like a kite in the air: someone on the ground is holding the string." (Witness Lee, Young People's Training, Chapter 14, section 5). So when I consider this definition I find it really useless at explaining why a gathering of 3 saints into the name of Jesus is not a church. No particular name -- could be No particular teaching -- could be Fellowship is universal -- could be Not some isolated thing -- could be. Do not have separate administration -- Might be problematic No connections with other organizations -- could be. So the only real issue that Witness Lee has with a gathering of 3 saints into the name of Jesus is that they might have a separate administration. Look at how interesting this word "administration" is. They have the same Lord. They submit to the apostles fellowship which is the NT authority. But the elders are the "administration". So then according to Witness Lee a true church is one that has the one true bureaucracy, the one appointed by the apostles. He doesn't identify the apostles, but he does identify the true churches, they are all ones where he himself appointed the elders. So then Witness Lee's working definition is this: Any church that has an administration appointed by Witness Lee and answerable to Witness Lee is a true church, all others are not because they have a separate administration. As a result I completely reject Witness Lee's teaching on this matter as being self serving with another Jesus. The apostle Peter said that he was an elder. Who appointed him? What apostle appointed him? Surely it was Jesus who appointed him. I also reject the entire teaching about 2 or 3 by Witness Lee as self serving and hypocritical. I see the church as being analogous to a body. How many cells does it take to have a human body? When the egg splits into two cells is that a body? How about 4 cells? Do you have to wait until you can see the hands and feet? Do you have to wait until you can identify the sex? Do you have to wait until the baby can survive outside the womb? It is a continuum. Once the cell is fertilized it has everything that it needs to grow into a complete human being. From this point on it is simply a matter of maturation.

10-15-2016, 05:36 AM	#10
aron Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Natal Transvaal Posts: 5,631	Re: What is the New Testament Definition of a Church 1. We established that 'ekklesia' didn't mean, specifically Christian gathering. It could be a civic gathering, or political, or religious. See Acts 19:41 "And with these words he dismissed the 'ekklesia'. 2. We established that the word had usage predating Christ by centuries. "In the midst of the 'ekklesia' I will sing hymns of praise to You" (Psa 22:22)'' So when Jesus said, "Tell it to the church" what did He mean? To me, He meant, Tell it to a group larger than two or three. It didn't have to be specifically a Christian organization. In Matthew 16 Jesus said, "I will build My church", meaning there were 'ekklesia' not of Him (see points one and two). In Matthew 18 we shouldn't be too quick to assume meaning. For confirmation, look at the next sentence. "Let this one be like the pagan or tax collector" (NIV) If they don't repent in the larger setting, the public assembly (religious or otherwise), let them be ignored. They are gone. Remember that the Jews were what we today would call racist, or xenophobic. They wouldn't acknowledge foreigners. If a gentile went up to a couple of Jews and asked for directions, one Jew would look at the other and say, "Why should I talk to a gentile dog?" They wouldn't even acknowledge their existence. They were a special, separated people. Jesus is saying that if your brother sins against you, and refuses to repent, when given chances, including private opportunity, then they are gone. Eventually "your brother" included the gentiles, after Jesus was gone. But we shouldn't read too much of "[gentile] church organization" into a Jewish teacher's sayings. In fact, the only universal points, "wherever two or three gather I am there" and "whatever you bind or loose on earth is bound or loosed in heaven" are specifically set to the two or three. So to say, "Oh, but that's not the church" doesn't hold much water with me. But I acknowledge that I may be in the minority position here. And since I don't want to be like the publican or sinner, I happily go to the established, Christian organizations. But I don't see it as a requirement, per Matthew 18. __________________ "Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers'

10-15-2016, 07:19 AM	#15
Ohio Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Greater Ohio Posts: 13,693	Re: What is the New Testament Definition of a Church Yes, but, there are many other Greek words which initially had secular meanings, yet were understood by the believers and the writers of the N.T. to have a Biblical or spiritual connotation. The context would determine the actual meaning. For example, the logos was the message, the discourse, and Greeks understood its meaning in the course of life, but for believers fellowshiping about their Savior, the Logos was something different, and had new meanings and implications. Likewise "assembly" is a general phrase, but in Christian circles it refers to a gathering of believers. I think it was much later that the German word "church" took over this meaning for clarification. __________________ Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!

10-15-2016, 04:37 PM	#23
Ohio Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Greater Ohio Posts: 13,693	Re: What is the New Testament Definition of a Church How much better than some lackey getting appointed elder due to his loyalty to headquarters. __________________ Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!

10-18-2016, 05:57 AM	#25
ZNPaaneah Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 7,105	Re: Summary To Summarize: Evangelical said that the NT qualification for a gathering of Christians to be a "church" is for them to have two male elders. However, as Ohio pointed out the verse Evangelical uses to make this claim says that "they appointed elders in every church". So, the NT already considered the gathering a church prior to the elders being appointed. We can assume from Evangelical's silence that he does not disagree. Witness Lee said that a church is the corporate expression of the son's of God. I agreed with this and noted that 2 or 3 would fulfill that requirement. The word ekklesia is defined as "gathering of the called out ones" and again I pointed out that 2 or 3 would fulfill that requirement. A common teaching in the Local church is that a to be a church you have to have a Lord's table. The practice of "taking the ground" (apparently one of the secret practices of this group that they don't discuss in their written ministry) involves a group of Christians having a "Lord's table" meeting for the first time (for that group in that city). However, there is no reason why 2 or 3 could not have a Lord's table meeting. So we did not reject this as being descriptive of a church, but saw no reason why it would eliminate a church meeting of 2 or 3. Evangelical stated plainly that 2 or 3 could not be a church. But when asked what the NT minimum number of believers was required for a church he walked this statement back. No one has provided any NT minimum number other than a "gathering" and "corporate expression". The really important expression, the one that is the most provocative and which elicits the strongest feelings is Witness Lee's expression of "the true Church". He never defines what makes a "true church" but rather works off the assumption that you have accepted everything he has taught about the ground of the church and then used that doctrine to claim that any gathering that does not subscribe to his doctrine is not a "true church". When we looked at his doctrine and criteria carefully the only point that would cause many groups an issue was the point about "elders appointed by the apostle". He uses the term "administration". But when you boil down his teaching and carefully dissect it to determine what is and is not a "true church" according to his teaching, the only churches that qualify are those in which he has appointed the elders. So I would dispute this term "true church". Instead, I would argue that the church is the expression of Jesus. As long as the church is expressing the "true Jesus" then no one should have any issue with that gathering. According to the Lord's word about 2 or 3, saying that "He would be in their midst". To me this says that this gathering is expressing the true Jesus, hence anyone who is judging this gathering falls under the Lord's word about judging another man's servant.

10-18-2016, 10:38 PM	#27
Nell Admin/Moderator Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Texas Posts: 2,100	Re: What is the New Testament Definition of a Church I don't believe there is such a thing as "the" New Testament definition of "a church" or "the church." As Ephesians 5 says, the church is a "great mystery." The NT has many references to the church but there is no clear definition. I believe this is by design. Jesus said He will build His church. Men can only speculate about what He will build as they interpret various scripture passages and game plan their buildout based on speculation. I think that any definition of the NT church arrived at by men we can pretty much guarantee not to be "it". Why? How "great" is a "great mystery"? When I say "great mystery" it is limited by my "poor reach of mind." But when God says "great" compounded by "mystery", I think we are way in over our heads attempting a definition of that which God has not clearly defined. The best men can do is to define structure, organization, hierarchy of the membership, etc. No mystery there. How does this compare to "a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church." There is plenty of structure, organization, hierarchy, etc., but I doubt that the Lord has committed Himself to this mound of spots and wrinkles. Perhaps we would do well to gather for fellowship with Him and other believers and trust Him to take care of the rest. Nell

10-18-2016, 11:50 PM	#28
Evangelical Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 3,965	Re: What is the New Testament Definition of a Church If a church is merely one's family group at home or a group of friends gathering together for a prayer time, the verses in the Bible about excommunication would not make sense. For example, suppose my church is my mom, my dad, my brother, my sister, and I. We have home fellowship every week, have bread and wine, sing a song, pray and read the Bible. Suppose my sister sinned in some way deserving of excommunication, am I supposed to apply this verse?: 1 Cor 5:1-6 : It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father's wife. You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst. Obviously a church cannot be a gathering of family or friends of this verse to "remove from our midst" could not apply. It seems like church as defined in the Bible is something more than just a gathering of believers.

10-19-2016, 06:57 AM	#31
ZNPaaneah Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 7,105	Re: What is the New Testament Definition of a Church I have found that 3 is an ideal number for evangelism, and for being sent out to a church. I cannot see any gift that cannot be exercised by 3 saints. Also, it has been my experience that when the church size is small, less than 100, the participation and service is very high on a per member basis. But once you get over 1,000 the participation and service on a per member basis is much lower. But I don't think anyone would disagree that a "church" of 3 would be a very sparse meeting indeed. It is doubtful you would meet the same way, probably no "message" rather just fellowship, often around the table as you might eat at the same time. Also, the burden for evangelism would be much greater. So then, how about looking at it the other way around. Is there a number too large to be a church? My father used to say that meetings that have more than 12 people are doomed to failure, hence the Lord's choice of 12 disciples, and even then He had Judas. According to Paul when you are in a meeting (gathering, ekklesia) and something is revealed to one they should stand up and the one speaking stop, while everything is being done in "good order". That seems to be impossible once a meeting reaches a certain size. We have seen in some of these "mega churches" that breaking the big meeting into much smaller groups (as they did in Taipei) is one effective way to shepherd and care for the entire flock. There has been a lot of discussion among Christians on the necessity of having home meetings to keep a church healthy, regardless of the overall size of membership.

10-19-2016, 08:13 AM	#33
ZNPaaneah Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 7,105	Re: What is the New Testament Definition of a Church The Local Church used their definition as a way to disqualify Christian gatherings. I think that as we look closer and closer at this we will see that the Apostle's view was inclusive, not exclusive.

10-19-2016, 11:32 AM	#36
ZNPaaneah Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 7,105	Re: What is the New Testament Definition of a Church Also, large churches are tempted to get involved in politics and are tempting targets for marketers and others with less than pure motives. They will also get caught up in large building projects since they will need a hall (or glass cathedral) and they will be targeted by the Jezebel's and Balaam's looking for a congregation big enough to give them the Benz. Likewise, one way to become bigger and more influential is by "franchising" or creating an alliance of churches (denominations). In my experience 200 is a number that will support several elders and a meeting hall without being so large as to attract those with an impure motive. That is also in line with your "150 friends". So this is certainly a large enough fellowship to keep you fully involved and links will exist with other churches since everyone has friends and family outside of this congregation. I don't mean to suggest there is anything in the definition that would say a church is too big, but the NT does describe a setting where each one has, and a certain level of impromptu sharing, as well as a number of different gifts along with elders and deacons. You can get all of this with 200. If you look at Taipei most of the halls in Taipei can only seat 100 or less. A couple of the bigger halls can seat upwards of 3 or 400. But even hall 1 is packed out at 400.

10-19-2016, 04:08 PM	#37
ZNPaaneah Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 7,105	Re: What is the New Testament Definition of a Church Finally, what about time and space? When Witness Lee makes "locality" a key criteria in defining a church he limits it by time and space and actually makes it clear that a church is limited and defined by time and space. But today our meetings do not need to be limited by locality. We can meet and fellowship with people all over the world through the phone, internet, video conference, etc. Also, we don't need to be limited by time. These forums are an example of how a meeting and fellowship can take place irrespective of time. So then is there anything in the NT that says a church must be limited by time and space? Was Witness Lee teaching from his poor human concept or was it actually based on the apostle's fellowship?

10-19-2016, 05:21 PM	#38
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,384	Re: What is the New Testament Definition of a Church While I agree that we can meet with anyone anywhere, anything besides a one-way meeting (live streaming of a sermon, for example) is fairly problematic once you have multiple points of access. At some level it may be worse than meeting in a huge room with 4,000 people at the same time. At least everything going on is visible to all. But I think that this whole location thing is missing Lee's point. And maybe even the points that the Bible actually make on the subject (few though they be). Lee is not concerned about how easy it is to meet. Despite the many "halls" that seat only 100 or so in Taipei, he restricts how people would physically meet by a series of criteria that he claims is only one item, and that is "locality." As high-sounding as it may seem before you actually try to vet it for scriptural significance, it is not the basis upon which the LCM has ever met. It is just a formulaic overlay that clearly no one else would use (or at least few would use) behind which they can hide a series of other "musts" to really be the true church. Moving back to online meetings, for all the possibilities of real connection in an online environment in limited circumstances, I believe that for the most part trying to make church as simple as joining a chat room or streaming a sermon, or other technological method is a way to fool ourselves into thinking that we met when all we did was observe. I fear that suggesting such things as viable is just providing an excuse for those who really don't want to connect to fool themselves into thinking they did. I don't really have a lot of problems with the idea of a mass video of a live sermon to difference locations where many people actual engage with each other, join in singing and other aspects of corporate worship, and are only "online" relative to the sermon. Once the whole thing becomes remote, then the idea of meeting has been short-changed. No matter what kind of technological marvels we can come up with, there is something to be said for real, flesh-and-blood gatherings of people. I cannot declare that the Bible would forbid such a thing. But you have to consider whether even a lot of such meetings might fool us into thinking that we have not forsaken the assembling of ourselves together when we really have become little more than people who sing karaoke with the computer and listen to YouTube videos of faux worship as some computer graphics show us a "room" full of personal avatars who are animated by the computer as if actually engaging with others when there are no real others to see or engage with. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

10-20-2016, 04:07 PM	#41
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,384	Re: What is the New Testament Definition of a Church Going with more recent posts by both Nell and ZNP, the fact of Christians is the fact of church. And I agree that Christians together are church. But that is in the sense that the verse about loving the church and giving himself for "her." In this sense the church is not the meeting, but the members. (I would add here that while I understand the popularity of the "personal" aspects of the Christian life, church, etc., there is little that makes even this particular verse really about "me" with respect to the church, but more about the church without borders. It is really about the whole of it, not the "personal" of it. The context in which the meeting is not relevant does not appear to make it about the components as much as it makes it about the whole without reference to the meeting.) This is the universal sense of the church. And in this sense, whether or how we meet is not the issue. But when we get back to brass tacks of continuing in our faith over a long period of time, it is the meeting of the members (that is also isolated from the whole by reference to the church in places, cities, houses, regions). And when it referred to regions, it used the plural "churches." So in that use it was not the same at the one where Christ "gave himself for her" because that one was about the whole, not the meetings. I do not dismiss the partial use of online meetings of one kind or another as being anything about the church. But if that is simply what you call "church" then I think that there is something missing that is important. If, as ZNP has since indicated, that online is "part of a balanced diet" or physical and online meetings, then they can clearly have their place. But at the same time I feel that the lack of real contact will result in a tendency to take such meetings less seriously. If it requires no personal commitment to be other than online, only those who are (at least at the time) "sold out" zealots for Jesus will continue with it in a serious way for very long. They will instead wear a decent shirt (if their web cam is on) and otherwise mute their microphone because they don't want anyone to hear the sound of the fingernail clippers. Or whatever. When I refer to sold out zealots, I am not demeaning them. But the Christian life is not only for sold out zealots. Full salvation and sanctification is for those who simply believe, obey, and grow. Anyone who thinks that being a believer is about "extreme Christianity" or whatever the latest buzzword is for being one of the disciples (the few) rather than the many that Jesus taught about their living. Told them to go home and live right. Not everyone was told to follow as a disciple. Even the rich young ruler was not denied the ability to believe. Just to follow. He didn't have it. Christianity (the collection of believers in Christ, not some negative overlay like the LCM throws around) is about believing and obeying. And for some, there is an additional call to follow like the disciples/apostles. If Christianity is only about disciples/apostles, then it isn't much because there never were many. But if it is about all who believe and obey, then it has been growing and multiplying from the beginning until this day. Even in the Dark Ages. They may have lost sight of assurance. But they did not lose sight of believing and obeying. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

10-21-2016, 06:05 PM	#42
ZNPaaneah Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 7,105	Re: What is the New Testament Definition of a Church Witness Lee got us to focus on what may have been a fully contrived goal, "the true church". When you read the Bible this is not the issue. The very concept of "wherever two or three are gathered into My name, there I am in their midst" completely changes the focus. The issue isn't the "true church" but rather the "true Jesus". If "the true church" is the focus, then you give Jezebel and Balaam power. You can't "walk out of the true church" and you literally become imprisoned. This appears to be what is keeping those in Laodicea from heeding the Lord's call to come out. On the other hand if the focus is on "having Jesus in your midst" Jezebel and Balaam cannot imprison you, and you will not find yourself stuck in Laodicea when the Lord is outside.

10-22-2016, 05:57 AM	#44
ZNPaaneah Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 7,105	Re: What is the New Testament Definition of a Church Suppose instead that a major promise indicating the true power and importance of the church is that Jesus will be in the midst of a genuine meeting of believers in His name. Something along the lines of one will put a thousand to flight, two ten thousand. What Lee did was go through and say "that meeting is no good, and that one and that one and that one..." It was such a big deal about how to qualify as a "proper meeting", ultimately it was only the meetings he controlled, and he condemned all meetings that he didn't control. Since he didn't control the internet the entire "cyberspace" was off limits. Telephones were vehicles of gossip. "We also need to consider the matters of gossiping, reasoning, and murmuring. Each day how much time do we spend gossiping? Some saints are very free in passing on information about others. Too much time has been wasted and too many dollars have been spent in talking vainly on the telephone. In such activities we have been outside of Christ." (Witness Lee, The Organic Union in God's Relationship with Man, Chapter 5, Section 4) Letters, emails were also somewhat suspect. We also need to check with ourselves about the way we write letters. Do you write letters in the spirit or in your natural man? It is very possible that much of our correspondence is done in the natural man, not in our regenerated being. There may be nothing wrong in a letter you write. Nevertheless, it may be written by the natural man, not by the spirit. The same may be true concerning our talk on the telephone. Much of the saints’ talking on the telephone is done by their natural being, not by their reborn being. (Witness Lee, The Fulfillment of the Tabernacle and the Offerings in the Writings of John, Chapter 10, Section 5) Instead of having the "true church" what his teaching really accomplished was to distract you from the true Jesus.

10-22-2016, 02:32 PM	#49
Drake Guest Posts: n/a	Re: What is the New Testament Definition of a Church Thanks for the welcome back Untohim. Just waddling through. ;-) Pick your favorite example. Any of them will demonstrate the fallacy of ZNP's selective criteria for the definition of a church. A city of 1 million could have as many as 500,000 churches! Of course that would be ridiculous too. The majority of the New Testament is to, about, and for the churches. To take a few slices and call it the complete definition is at best careless interpretation of the Bible.

10-23-2016, 12:30 AM	#53
Drake Guest Posts: n/a	Re: What is the New Testament Definition of a Church Least》"That's where your divisive mind works- a single household of 8 people could be 4 separate churches. " I know, it's absurd!

10-24-2016, 05:14 AM	#61
ZNPaaneah Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 7,105	Re: What is the New Testament Definition of a Church That is certainly a question that could be discussed, but this thread is trying to ascertain the New Testament definition of a church. In particular we have become hung up on the minimum number of members in the church before it can be called a church. You have argued that it cannot be three members where two are husband and wife because the husband could not excommunicate his wife. I have resisted the urge to mock this definition rather I would like to examine the implications. Since an "elder" is supposed to be "the husband of one wife" this issue would arise in every single "church". Your previous definition of a church is that they would have to have two male elders. However, it was pointed out that the NT says "appoint elders in every church" so then they were a church prior to the elders being appointed. So now you say that 3 members meeting in a home could not be a church because how could two of them excommunicate the third if they were related by marriage which would be likely. I'll refer to this doctrine as the doctrine of "primo excommunicado" meaning that before you can be a church you must be able to excommunicate. This reminds me of the church in Ephesus who examined those who claimed to be apostles and were not. Jesus commended them on this work, but if I recall there was some issue with that church, if I remember correctly there was something that Jesus was not happy about, He had something against the church in Ephesus, something they needed to repent of. And you know, if I remember correctly, Jesus told them that they could lose their lamp stand over that issue. Some issue that determines whether or not a church is a lamp stand, now that seems to me to be something that should go into our definition. Was it "primo excommunicado", nope, but there was something that took the first place.

10-24-2016, 06:08 AM	#62
Evangelical Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 3,965	Re: What is the New Testament Definition of a Church Yes they were a church of Martha's not of Mary's.

10-24-2016, 03:51 PM	#69
UntoHim Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,824	Re: What is the New Testament Definition of a Church Distant Star, When you get a chance, could you please point me to the posts you want to move. Please include the post #s, or if applicable, a series of post #s. Thanks. *To All. I think this is an extremely important subject to discuss on this forum. Accordingly, let's all try to keep from introducing side issues, such as excommunication, heretical teachings, details regarding the functions of elders, etc, etc. - __________________ αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11**

10-27-2016, 01:39 PM	#93
JJ Member Join Date: Jan 2016 Posts: 1,006	Re: What is the New Testament Definition of a Church I love where ZNPaaneah and Ohio are going with this thread. The church is where Paul's exhortation in Galations 6:1 applies, that is: "Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted." __________________ And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14 NASB)

10-27-2016, 02:27 PM	#94
Freedom Member Join Date: Mar 2014 Posts: 1,636	Re: What is the New Testament Definition of a Church The LC is certainly a close-knit group of Christians, however, that can give members a false sense of security when it comes to the obligation to love one another. If love is a presumption, then it is easy to assume there is no additional effort needed. It's easy for members to view things just like that, because after all, they can travel almost anywhere and receive hospitality with complete strangers. I know that I have some good memories of this aspect of the LC. Members often make reference to these things, saying "where else can you find this." So it seems that all is fine and dandy until a 'situation' arises. Then when love is put to the test, it all too often fails. And I don't claim for a second that other groups fail in this way too, but there are so many indicators that the LC is full of malice, deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander. It seemingly comes out of nowhere. The group members once believed to be so special always finds a way to rear its ugly head. __________________ Isaiah 43:10 “You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.

10-28-2016, 08:49 AM	#95
ZNPaaneah Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 7,105	Re: What is the New Testament Definition of a Church 7 “To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. 8 I know your deeds. See, I have placed before you an open door that no one can shut. I know that you have little strength, yet you have kept my word and have not denied my name. 9 I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars—I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you. 10 Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come on the whole world to test the inhabitants of the earth. 11 I am coming soon. Hold on to what you have, so that no one will take your crown. 12 The one who is victorious I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will they leave it. I will write on them the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on them my new name. 13 Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches. Let's see how our definition compares with the church in Philadelphia. 1. The words of He that is Holy and true. This is in contrast to those of the synagogue of Satan who claim to be Jews and are not. Their words are a lie. This is also in contrast to those who are trying to shut the door on this church. 2. A doer of the word -- I know your deeds. The Lord makes it very clear to this church that "talk is cheap". Anyone can claim to be the church standing on the proper ground, etc. But He knows "your deeds". Do your deeds reflect your talk. If you are standing on the ground as the church in the entire city, one with all the genuine believers in that city, are your deeds consistent with that? 3. Inclusive, not exclusive -- A genuine church is going to have "an open door that no one can shut". This is not an exclusive club, it is inclusive. Many of the doctrines of various cults are exclusive and shut the door on large groups of genuine believers. 4. Keep the Lord's word, Don't deny His name -- There are two requirements -- Keep the Lord's word and don't deny His name. I think this has to refer directly to the Lord's commandment to "love your neighbor as yourself". However, I think this point is so big it will need to be covered separately. 5. Can be small -- They have a little strength. This suggests to me that they don't have to be a huge organization like the Catholic Church or some great denomination. Small groups could easily be seen as those who have kept the Lord's word, not denied His name and "have a little strength".

10-29-2016, 04:21 PM	#108
Evangelical Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 3,965	Re: What is the New Testament Definition of a Church You said "The point is that Christians meet. There is no edict that all Christians in any segment of geography must meet together in a single place, or in a collection of places under the direction of on set of leaders." The oneness is the "edict". If Christians want to meet in oneness then they must meet together in a single place, and the New Testament way of meeting is with the oversight of the elders (leaders). That is, a man and his wife for example cannot have a meeting together and claim to be in oneness with all believers in their city if they never meet with other believers. I will change my question to a response to this then: ZNPaaneah said: "Explain to me how this group is not one with all the other genuine Christians in the city?" My answer: Because they are not meeting together with all the other (genuine) Christians in the city. Suppose that group of genuine Christians was the most holy and pure group of all, yet don't meet with others, how can they claim to be in oneness? Similarly, suppose that group of genuine Christians had problems, they were only 20% the quality of the group ZNPaaneah described, yet met with all Christians in the city. How are they not the genuine church? ZNPaaneah seems to say that church is about the quality of the meeting. However the Bible reveals it is more about the practical oneness, that is, the fact that a genuine believer would or should meet with other genuine Christians in the city. It is a clear fact that church is about oneness on city-based locality, and not quality, based upon Jesus addressing all of the churches in Revelation as genuine churches, but most were poor in quality.

10-29-2016, 06:35 PM	#110
Evangelical Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 3,965	Re: What is the New Testament Definition of a Church You are confusing the difference between spiritual and practical oneness. You described a group of (genuine) believers (their spiritual oneness is in relation to this aspect), and then described them in terms of practical aspects (being doers of the Word and having an open door policy etc). So I say to you that another practical aspect they must have is they must meet with others in their locality. But you say they can be practically one without actually meeting other believers in the city. I think if we are talking about practical oneness, then there is a requirement to actually meet with a believer to be one with them. It is true what you say about the spiritual oneness, and that does not change even if these believers are living on Mars or Jupiter. However there is no practical oneness unless these believers meet practically with other believers in their locality. A question: is it possible to achieve God's will for the church on Earth by spiritual oneness or practical oneness? Obviously it is the latter. Christianity could not have achieved what it did without the practical oneness of the New Testament churches.

10-29-2016, 06:51 PM	#111
ZNPaaneah Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 7,105	Re: What is the New Testament Definition of a Church If you are not one in spirit it doesn't matter if you are meeting together. That is a false oneness, a man made oneness, a contrived oneness. On the other hand it is impossible to have a "practical oneness" with every Christian. Can't do it with the Christians in the world, can't do it with the Christians in the US. and can't do it with the Christians in NYC. I have already pointed out that there may be 5 million Christians in NYC. For me to have a practical oneness with them I would have to meet with 1,000 different believers each week, every week for 100 years. Even then many of the Christians that lived in the US would have died without me ever meeting with them, or they might have moved out. Second, what an idiotic requirement. So how does this work, until I have met with each and every Christian in that city I am not "one with them"? So then, does this mean your requirement for a church is that it be a meeting of each and every Christian in that City? No, of course not. So then what is your "practical" solution to your contrived issue? Declare that it isn't your problem, it is there problem. No longer are you accountable, the problem is with all the Christians that don't meet with you, rather than the other way around. What hypocrisy.

10-30-2016, 01:00 AM	#112
Evangelical Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 3,965	Re: What is the New Testament Definition of a Church We are talking about genuine Christians here, so your first statement does not add anything to the discussion. Let's assume all Christians are genuine and have the Spirit. In my post I never stated anything of the sort that practical oneness demands or requires an impossible demand on meeting with every single believer in your city week to week. That is a straw man argument you have put forward. History speaks for itself on the practical possibility of one church per city. Large Christian city-wide communities existed in Europe (for example) for hundreds of years. The life of many major cities revolved around the central church or Cathedral. That is why the church or cathedrals today stand at the centers of many European towns and cities. Then there is the Jews worshiping in Jerusalem in practical oneness, which was the unique place God chose to maintain practical oneness among His people. So practical city-wide oneness is achievable in one way or another. For further consideration I post this wiki article which lists the largest peaceful gatherings in history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ngs_in_history It is possible for 1 million people or more to meet together for a common cause such as a demonstration or a rock concert or religious beliefs. Why is it not possible for Christians to do the same?

10-30-2016, 04:59 AM	#113
ZNPaaneah Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 7,105	Re: What is the New Testament Definition of a Church Of course such a meeting is possible, but is that your requirement for a church? Is this the NT definition of a church? The point of this thread is to define the church based on the NT fellowship of the apostles. The straw man argument you accuse me of making is merely a reasonable understanding of your posts. Please explain, using the NT, what the definition is. Saying "one church in one city" does not define church. I have provided a NT definition, church is a gathering of genuine believers. As long as these believers meet the seven ones in Ephesians they are "one with all believers". Hence their gathering would be inclusive of all genuine believers and therefore they are "one church". Since it is absolutely impossible to require that every meeting of the church include every single genuine believer in the city, that cannot be requirement or definition. You have not provided a definition from the NT. You have provided Wikis on church history. You don't explain why a gathering of Christians is not a church. You don't explain why one Christian gets to disqualify a church because they don't meet with them. There is nothing practical in your definition. Explain to me how I would know which gathering in my city is the church and which isn't. I have done that, if they don't have one Lord, if they don't have one God, if they don't have one faith, if they don't have one baptism. Any of these points would identify a group as not being the church.

10-30-2016, 06:13 AM	#114
ZNPaaneah Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 7,105	Re: A Review of this thread This thread was started because Witness Lee's doctrine of the ground of the Church has created an issue over what is and is not a "true church" (Witness Lee's words). The problem with Witness Lee's doctrine based on Watchman Nee's teaching does not give us any NT definition. What it does give us is an inferred understanding based on many, many NT references to a church indicating that in any locality (city, town, village) there is one church. This is not a NT doctrine of the apostles, which is why I and others are taking issue with this. It seems to me that if you judge and condemn all other Christian gatherings as not being "the true church" then that is a very serious accusation. I am concerned that such a strong and offensive judgement is not based on a clear NT teaching. For example, Paul has a very clear NT teaching that we don't sue other Christians in civil court. That is a clear, black and white teaching. There is another very clear black and white teaching from the Apostle Paul that you should excommunicate a "brother" due to sexual immorality. The hypocrisy of Witness Lee and his followers in ignoring the clear black and white teachings of the NT and then creating whole cloth teachings out of inferences is very disturbing. But you cannot deal with this without having a clear word from the Apostles on this issue. How do they define a church? At what point would they judge and condemn a gathering as not being a "true church"? How did the apostles respond to this very arrogant teaching of how this one very questionable group that plays very loose with the NT is supposedly the keepers of truth? Only they are the "true church". This is not some esoteric doctrinal debate. In my case meeting with the "true church" based on Witness Lee's definition is not an option. They showed me the door. Why? Because I asked one of the men who apologized to Philip Lee. That seems to me to be a contradiction to Paul's black and white word on this. Asking this brother was according to Jesus word in Matt 18. I also have an issue with the use of lawsuits by the Local church and Living Stream Ministry. That is also something that is a direct contradiction of the Black and white words. Jesus said to be at peace, believe in God believe also in Him. I am doing that, yet this doctrine that I am not meeting with the "true church" is an assault on that peace. This question is personal. It seems to me that the Local church is telling me that to "meet with the true church" I would have to deny the Lord's name and His word. I am not going to do that. So then, my question is are they really the "true church" like they say, or are they lying like the synagogue of Satan who says they are Jews and are not? Has Jesus really placed an open door before me, or have they shut the door on my Christian walk? If you want to understand what the church is you have to look at the first mention of the word. 15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[b] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.” The revelation that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God is the rock on which the church is built. It is not the Pope, it is not Jim Jones, it is not Witness Lee. You can claim to be the "true church" but if you are not faithful to the Lord, to His name and His word then you are a liar. Therefore, when I was shown the door because I was being faithful to the Lord's word in Matthew 18 they were not being faithful to the Lord's word. They were not being faithful to the Lord's name. They have the right to kick me out of their meeting hall, they have the right to call themselves the church in NYC, but that doesn't make them a true church.