Bible Answer Man Converts to Eastern Orthodox!

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Evangelical and Drake,

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot condemn me for belonging to a group, and then condemn me for not belong to a group.

I have fellowship with believers regularly (almost daily) face-to-face and by other means. What is it that you expect of me?

Sorry Koinonia, I posed my question to ask for clarification, not to condemn you. If one lived in Paul's time, in the New Testament, in the city of Corinth, they might say "I have a group, it's called the church in Corinth".

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Sorry Koinonia, I posed my question to ask for clarification, not to condemn you. If one lived in Paul's time, in the New Testament, in the city of Corinth, they might say "I have a group, it's called the church in Corinth".

Evangelical,

Witness Lee rightly taught that the church in Corinth is all the believers in Corinth, and that all believers in Corinth constitute the church in Corinth. I agree with this. When Witness Lee first came to this country, there was no thought about putting this name ("the church in Los Angeles") onto a building. For how can one call his group "the church in Los Angeles"? That is totally absurd. At most, you can claim to represent the church in Los Angeles. But realizing that all believers in a given city are the church in that city and claiming that your group is the church in that city are completely different propositions.

As for your assertion that a Corinthian believer would claim the church in Corinth as his "group"--the example does not apply. There is a difference between saying 2000 years ago, "I have a group, the church" and saying in 2017, "My group is the church."

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Evangelical,

Witness Lee rightly taught that the church in Corinth is all the believers in Corinth, and that all believers in Corinth constitute the church in Corinth. I agree with this. When Witness Lee first came to this country, there was no thought about putting this name ("the church in Los Angeles") onto a building. For how can one call his group "the church in Los Angeles"? That is totally absurd. At most, you can claim to represent the church in Los Angeles. But realizing that all believers in a given city are the church in that city and claiming that your group is the church in that city are completely different propositions.

As for your assertion that a Corinthian believer would claim the church in Corinth as his "group"--the example does not apply. There is a difference between saying 2000 years ago, "I have a group, the church" and saying in 2017, "My group is the church."

Koinonia, in the local churches I have met in various homes and meeting halls within the same city. And each place refers to themselves as "the church in Los Angeles". It is correct for them to say that because that is what they are, according to the view that "all believers in Corinth constitute the church in Corinth". It is right for all and any believers in a city to say they are part of the church in that city. But then whether or not they are in the church practically or only in theory is another matter. Any church which calls itself "the church in Corinth" within that city is rightfully the church in that city.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Koinonia, in the local churches I have met in various homes and meeting halls within the same city. And each place refers to themselves as "the church in Los Angeles". It is correct for them to say that because that is what they are, according to the view that "all believers in Corinth constitute the church in Corinth". It is right for all and any believers in a city to say they are part of the church in that city. But then whether or not they are in the church practically or only in theory is another matter. Any church which calls itself "the church in Corinth" within that city is rightfully the church in that city.

I have met in a lot of churches which do not follow your doctrine of names. The Holy Spirit's presence is just as real there and sometimes more so that some LCM meetings I've been to. There is no practical evidence to support your assertion that groups that name themselves a certain way are more churches that others. And there is no biblical doctrine to support this either.

I honestly do not see what you hope to gain by this tedious and closed-minded insistence of this silly doctrine. The LCM movement has been around for over half a century, crowing about the local ground. It had its chance to prove the viability of its claims and it has failed--miserably. Its doctrines have produced division after division. In doing so it has wrecked the spiritual lives of many. Yet you continue on to champion it.

You guys had your chance. Now you are just making noise and being nuisances. You know the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing and expecting different results. Why don't you try something different? Repeating Witness Lee hasn't worked. Maybe something else will. At least you might spare us all the hell of boring us to death.

As Billy Hoyle said, "You're not getting to me, you're just making my eardrums hurt."

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I have met in a lot of churches which do not follow your doctrine of names. The Holy Spirit's presence is just as real there and sometimes more so that some LCM meetings I've been to. There is no practical evidence to support your assertion that groups that name themselves a certain way are more churches that others. And there is no biblical doctrine to support this either.

I honestly do not see what you hope to gain by this tedious and closed-minded insistence of this silly doctrine. The LCM movement has been around for over half a century, crowing about the local ground. It had its chance to prove the viability of its claims and it has failed--miserably. Its doctrines have produced division after division. In doing so it has wrecked the spiritual lives of many. Yet you continue on to champion it.

You guys had your chance. Now you are just making noise and being nuisances. You know the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing and expecting different results. Why don't you try something different? Repeating Witness Lee hasn't worked. Maybe something else will. At least you might spare us all the hell of boring us to death..

I think the "silly doctrine" has merit as long as you and others can provide no better alternatives. But I think your subjective viewpoint is the worst, and I would prefer Westboro Baptist to your view because I can go into any Buddhist temple and "feel" the "Holy Spirit". It's there, that's why people are hooked on those religions, or are you really that naive? With these churches you are visiting, how do I know that your "feeling the Holy Spirit" is not a demon tickling your nose or giving you a back rub?

Defining a church based upon the subjective interpretation of who feels the Holy Spirit's presence and who doesn't, is not reliable. Firstly, can the Spirit's presence be felt? and if so, how do we know it is the Holy spirit, and how much of it depends upon ourselves, or even a counterfeit feeling given by a demon?

Our definition of church is absolute, objective, and has strong biblical support. We can point to our church and say that is "the church", regardless of how people are feeling, or what name or doctrine we identify with.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Defining a church based upon the subjective interpretation of who feels the Holy Spirit's presence and who doesn't, is not reliable. Firstly, can the Spirit's presence be felt? and if so, how do we know it is the Holy spirit, and how much of it depends upon ourselves, or even a counterfeit feeling given by a demon?

Our definition of church is absolute, objective, and has strong biblical support. We can point to our church and say that is "the church", regardless of how people are feeling, or what name or doctrine we identify with.

Wait a minute. Hold on. Didn't Witness Lee claim time and again that the "rich experience of the Spirit" in the local churches validated his claims about its special standing?

Sure he did. Over and over and over. Get your facts straight, Evangelical. You don't even jibe with the guy you claim to follow.

And basing on one's fellowship on the presence of God in one's experience is a lot better than basing it on some lame-brain definition of the church that isn't even biblical, repeated by a guy who doesn't even know what his MOTA actually said.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Wait a minute. Hold on. Didn't Witness Lee claim time and again that the "rich experience of the Spirit" in the local churches validated his claims about its special standing?

Sure he did. Over and over and over. Get your fact straight, Evangelical. You don't even jibe with the guy you claim to follow.

And basing on one's fellowship on the presence of God in one's experience is a lot better than basing it on some lame-brain definition of the church that isn't even biblical, repeated by a guy who doesn't even know what his MOTA actually said.

The bible shows objectivity and subjectivity together, in right proportion. You seem to be rejecting objectivity. I'm not discounting a degree of subjectivity and I think Lee's words should be read in the wider context of his objective views. It would be shortsighted of you to claim that I don't "jibe with the guy" based upon my one post. I believe both objectivity and subjectivity is important. But you would be wrong that it is "not biblical" because the locality churches in the bible are plain to see. Even if we do not agree on what that locality should look like, the locality is plain to see nonetheless. I mean, relatively speaking, there is more evidence in the bible for churches in localities (not named by anything other) than the "born again experience" doctrine, which is a doctrine based upon a very short dialogue between Christ and one man.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Koinonia, in the local churches I have met in various homes and meeting halls within the same city. And each place refers to themselves as "the church in Los Angeles". It is correct for them to say that because that is what they are, according to the view that "all believers in Corinth constitute the church in Corinth". It is right for all and any believers in a city to say they are part of the church in that city. But then whether or not they are in the church practically or only in theory is another matter. Any church which calls itself "the church in Corinth" within that city is rightfully the church in that city.

Can one call themselves "the church in _____". Is it meeting practically? I beg to differ. Where I live there could be an assembly of 30-40 calling themselves the Church in _____ in a city of 50,000+. Is that all the Christians in the city that can meet practically as the church? The answer is no.
I was in a home meeting. I wanted to invite a Christian family to the home meeting. I checked with the host and I was told "we don't have enough room". Several months later there's another family that's in the ministry. There's room for them. Hmmm!
Let's have another example. A brother from the Church in Moses Lake wanted to meet with the Church in Ephrata. He wasn't welcome because the locality he's from (Moses Lake) isn't in the ministry.
What do we have here? A case of the ministry becoming the lampstand.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Terry

Can one call themselves "the church in _____". Is it meeting practically? I beg to differ. Where I live there could be an assembly of 30-40 calling themselves the Church in _____ in a city of 50,000+. Is that all the Christians in the city that can meet practically as the church? The answer is no.
I was in a home meeting. I wanted to invite a Christian family to the home meeting. I checked with the host and I was told "we don't have enough room". Several months later there's another family that's in the ministry. There's room for them. Hmmm!
Let's have another example. A brother from the Church in Moses Lake wanted to meet with the Church in Ephrata. He wasn't welcome because the locality he's from (Moses Lake) isn't in the ministry.
What do we have here? A case of the ministry becoming the lampstand.

That doesn't change the definition of church. It does not mean the Roman Catholics are right, they are the true church in the city, or that all or none of the churches in the city are "the church".

I think it is easy for Christians to say they (wherever they meet) are a church, but hard for them to say what or who is not a church.

An interesting question to ask pastors or priests of churches is "are you the true and genuine local church in the city as per the bible". If they are, they should have no problem saying they are.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

An interesting question to ask pastors or priests of churches is "are you the true and genuine local church in the city as per the bible". If they are, they should have no problem saying they are.

No, but what I have heard is saying they're part of the local Body of Christ.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Terry

No, but what I have heard is saying they're part of the local Body of Christ.

My follow on question to that would be "Which part and how many parts are there?". We then get to the point of the matter which is they believe there are many churches , and not "one church" as the bible teaches. That is because they are sects (groups within a group) and not "the church", as Christ said he will build "my church" (not churches).

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Terry

No, but what I have heard is saying they're part of the local Body of Christ.

The Body of Christ is universal, spanning space and time. The churches are local.

Those who use the term "local Body of Christ" want it both ways: They are leveraging the fact that they are members of the universal Body of Christ and apply it to their division, the very divisions that separate its members.

Drake