The Unique Move of God

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The Bible tells us to discern teachings. It tells us to discern teachers and apostles. It tells us to discern spirits.

But what's interesting is the Bible never says nor implies that we should discern what is and isn't a church. Never.

There is no place in the NT where a writer talks about a "false church." Some churches are rebuked for being in error, but no group is ever directly or indirectly said to be "false."

I would say this is more evidence that the impulse to find some standard for deciding whether a group is or isn't a "church" is completely wrong-headed, and it exposes a huge error of the Local Church Movement.

To say that this group is church because they do this and this, and another isn't because they do that and that (assuming no gross sin) is not in keeping with the Lord's heart. I believe the Lord gives us neither the wisdom nor the commission to do that. And with good reason. If he did, then the back and forth claims of "you are not a church" would be never-ending and fatal to the Lord's testimony.

Fortunately, only tiny, fringe groups make such claims now. The RCC used to do it. How did that work out for the Lord, eh?

Sure, there has to be some point where a group of so-called Christians are so off-the-mark that they become no longer a church. But long before that point most real seekers would have left anyway, because the conditions which led to that ultimate losing of the lampstand would have already become blatantly obvious.

The reason the bible does not talk about false churches is because at the time there was only one church per city.

There was only one church per town/city as even Christian evangelical websites recognize, such as gotquestions.org:

https://www.gotquestions.org/church-hopping.html

The early church consisted of small groups of Christians meeting in homes or in public places. There is no indication in Scripture that towns or cities had more than one group of believers meeting there.

So it would not make sense for Paul at the time to write about avoiding "false churches".

"Fortunately, only tiny, fringe groups make such claims now. The RCC used to do it. " - Used to?
see

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...icism.religion
"It is nevertheless difficult to see how the title of 'Church' could possibly be attributed to [Protestant communities]

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/comm...why-hes-wrong/

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The reason the bible does not talk about false churches is because at the time there was only one church per city.

OMG, you can't make this stuff up.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The reason the bible does not talk about false churches is because at the time there was only one church per city.

There was only one church per town/city as even Christian evangelical websites recognize, such as gotquestions.org:

https://www.gotquestions.org/church-hopping.html

The early church consisted of small groups of Christians meeting in homes or in public places. There is no indication in Scripture that towns or cities had more than one group of believers meeting there.

That's not true at all. Both Rome and Colosse, for example, had more than one group of believers there.

These contradictions to Lee's church model have been cited repeatedly, yet you refuse to acknowledge these Scriptures.

John's Revelation seems to imply the one church one city model, yet when we study the rest of the N.T., that theory is not supported.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

John's Revelation seems to imply the one church one city model, yet when we study the rest of the N.T., that theory is not supported.

But the only thing it clearly indicates is that the body of Christ was to be found in those cities. It does not define the "boundaries" of an assembly, or the manner in which it should be identified.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

But the only thing it clearly indicates is that the body of Christ was to be found in those cities. It does not define the "boundaries" of an assembly, or the manner in which it should be identified.

If you want to infer one church per city you can make that inference, but you have to understand this is an inferred teaching and not based on the black and white word.

So whereas there is a very clear word concerning Jesus coming in the flesh, or how to have the Lord's table meeting, or about the requirement to baptize, there is no such teaching on the boundaries of the city and how they relate to church administration.

Also, you might want to rethink or restate the part about the church being identified. Each letter gives very distinct description that would identify Laodicea from Philadelphia from Ephesus. It surely does tell you how to identify them.

To infer that these seven are representative of genuine churches throughout the age is, once again, an inferred teaching that is never given in black and white. To take that inference further and say that if your gathering does not fit one of these seven models it is not a genuine church would surely be unwarranted and without any real basis.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

To infer that these seven are representative of genuine churches throughout the age is, once again, an inferred teaching that is never given in black and white. To take that inference further and say that if your gathering does not fit one of these seven models it is not a genuine church would surely be unwarranted and without any real basis.

One of the craziest conclusions from these theories was to assume that Philadelphia -- brotherly love -- did NOT exist as a church until the Darby Brethren came along, with their endless anf fickle divisions I should add.

This was based on their ideal that no name was the right name, thus negating all manners of evil.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

One of the craziest conclusions from these theories was to assume that Philadelphia -- brotherly love -- did NOT exist as a church until the Darby Brethren came along, with their endless anf fickle divisions I should add.

This was based on their ideal that no name was the right name, thus negating all manners of evil.

That is what happens when you take create teachings based on shadows, types and allegories.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Also, you might want to rethink or restate the part about the church being identified. Each letter gives very distinct description that would identify Laodicea from Philadelphia from Ephesus. It surely does tell you how to identify them.

Actually, it gives a very distinct reference to the body of Christ as found in that city, the significance being that within that city there was found something noteworthy. Deeds of Nicolaitans, deep things of Satan, belief that they had the best and needed nothing, etc. And even those statements do not suppose that everyone in that city were mired in these problems. So there begins to be a question. If we understand things correctly, then the problems were not just a few on the side with issue, but more systemic problems seen in that area.

Whether it was within certain ones meeting separately from those who were noted as not going along with the error is never stated in any form. Yet you seem to talk about it as if the term church is simply synonymous with both a single assembly and the city in which that assembly is found. I find no such implication. The only reason that we ever thought it was that simple was because someone once said it was yet ever bothered to say why. I know that you do not subscribe to the inferred teaching of one church in a city, yet the rest of what you say concerning the letters in Revelation "infers" that it must be understood that way. If there is no church-city equivalence, then referring to the body of Christ (and not specific assemblies, whether singular or plural) in that city would be correct to call according to the city.

You wouldn't write to the Baptists who are in Dallas if you meant to cover all the believers. You would write to the church in Dallas (not to be confused with the group meeting on Meandering Way and using that as their name). The church in Dallas, as the body of Christ, is composed of many Christians who meet in many assemblies that have various names of all kinds. There is no conflict in this.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

To infer that these seven are representative of genuine churches . . . .

I'll stop the quote there. I do not disagree (much) with what you wrote. But this term "genuine church" is problematic. It presumes that a gathering of Christians for the purpose of teaching, worship, etc., can be "not genuine" and therefore not really church. I realize that there is a "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" that we generally consider to not be a church because it does not hold that Jesus is God and is the source of salvation. And there a some others. But when discussing the LRC, Baptists, Methodists, AOG, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Anglicans, various other evangelical, Pentecostal or free groups, or even Catholics, if we insert "genuine" into the discussion, we are implying that some of those are not churches in the sense of assemblies collecting together the Christ-believing, Christ-following members of that body.

It is mostly brought into the conversations to differentiate and marginalize. Much like the "c" word recently discussed. "Not genuine" is an unfounded overlay onto the body of Christ that marginalizes and demeans brothers and sisters in Christ.

Jesus prayed that we would be one. Those who find ways to dismiss others are exercised to see to it that only they count and their lack of being one with others can instead be transformed into the only true oneness.

[countmeworthy]

I have a question for those who were or are more enveloped in "the Unique Move of God" than I ever was.

In the 70s, the 'leading brothers' were called 'elders' not pastors. Elders is an OT word.

Yet, PAUL describes certain offices in Ephesians 4:11
Prophets,
Evangelists,
Pastors,
Teachers

He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ;

In other letters we read about bishops (overseers) and deacons (ministers)

No blended brothers are mentioned in the scriptures though

Did Lee ever give any reason why those offices mentioned in the bible were ignored by him and possibly Nee? They ARE in the scriptures after all.

Personally, I think naming these offices invited the religious 'spirits'. The RCC has bishops as do some denominations. Pastors, prophets, evangelists and teachers. These 'offices' ended up elevating man.


2nd question
How did Lee explain the many mansions mentioned in John 14:2
In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Thanks in advance

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

2nd question
How did Lee explain the many mansions mentioned in John 14:2
In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Thanks in advance

Mansions make no sense in the translation. How does the Father's house contain many "mansions?" The proper translation should be literally "places to stay", i.e. "rooms, dwelling places, abodes, resting places, habitats, lodgings, etc." The word "mansion" (and I'm not sure what this word once meant in the Shakespearean English of the early 17th century) comes from Greek "monai" which root is from Greek "mone."

The KJV translation of "mansions," or even "manor or manse," partly transliterates this Greek word into English, but wrongly connotes large, private, individual homes for each believer for the future only.

Little Kittel (p.582): "In the NT the word occurs only twice in John. In 14.2 it denotes the abiding dwelling (in contrast with our transitory earthly state) that Christ prepares for His people in His Father's house. In 14.23, however,the abode is on earth, for Christ and the Father will come to believers and make their home with them... In both of these verses, the reference is individual rather than universal or eschatological. Salvation consists of union with God and Christ through their dwelling in believers and their taking believers to dwell in them. The "mone" brings out the indestructibility of the union."

This means, in part, that our "mansion" in the Father's house is both today and forever, and is not physical, but spiritual in nature.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

I have a question for those who were or are more enveloped in "the Unique Move of God" than I ever was.

In the 70s, the 'leading brothers' were called 'elders' not pastors. Elders is an OT word.

Yet, PAUL describes certain offices in Ephesians 4:11
Prophets,
Evangelists,
Pastors,
Teachers

He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ;

In other letters we read about bishops (overseers) and deacons (ministers)

No blended brothers are mentioned in the scriptures though

Did Lee ever give any reason why those offices mentioned in the bible were ignored by him and possibly Nee? They ARE in the scriptures after all.

Personally, I think naming these offices invited the religious 'spirits'. The RCC has bishops as do some denominations. Pastors, prophets, evangelists and teachers. These 'offices' ended up elevating man.





2nd question
How did Lee explain the many mansions mentioned in John 14:2
In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Thanks in advance

In Ephesians 4:11 the grammatical construction for the word describing pastors (shepherds) and teachers are one function - those who "teach and shepherd".

So there are really 4 kinds of persons:
Apostles
Prophets,
Evangelists,
Pastors (Shepherds/Teachers)

Christianity takes it heritage from Judaism that is why the terminology "elders" for presbuteros carried over from Old testament to New Testament. In Scripture the role of presbuteros is not well defined, only defined are the episcopos and the diakonos. The presbuteros is thought to be leading men, who are spiritually older and more mature. Hence, the "leading brothers" is an appropriate term for the presbuteros. If we want to be particular about names, in the LC there are really no terms for the episcopos or the diakonos.

The view of Lee/Nee was that the offices were never intended to be official positions in the church, but a matter of function and calling. e.g. pastors are those who perform the function of shepherding and teaching. The LC sees them as functions (things people do) not as particular offices or positions to hold. The LC also believes that all believers are priests, all can prophesy, all can be an evangelist or a pastor.

The concept of particular people holding certain office or position in the church such as the Prophets of the old testament, ceased when the New Testament came about.

I see it like this. There is really only one gift God gives us- the Holy Spirit (Luke 11:13), and all gifts and functions are a result of the one gift. That is, anyone with the gift of the Spirit can operate in any of the 4 or 5 gifts as the Spirit wills. There is really no such thing in the bible of a person operating in only one of the gifts for their entire life (e.g. the apostle Paul, also functioned as a pastor, evangelist, prophet, miracle worker etc). A person who the Spirit uses to operate in one of the gifts more than others might be known or recognized according to that gift (e.g. a person who evangelizes much might be known as an evangelist, but this is not to say that the same person cannot teach in a church).

John 14:2 - many mansions or better - abodes.
The Father's house is the body of Christ, the temple, God's dwelling place. God's dwelling place is mankind, or us - Revelation 21:2..Therefore we are the many abodes of the Father/Son.

Lee/Nee did not believe that "the Father's house" or the New Jerusalem is a physical city as in a building. It is a metaphor to describe God's people. Just like the metaphor "temple" is used to describe our bodies (we are temples of the Spirit etc).

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The reason the bible does not talk about false churches is because at the time there was only one church per city.

That is pure speculation. There were all kinds of groups back then. Where do you think all the strange writings like "The Shepherd of Hermas" and "The Gospel of Thomas" came from?

Paul said there were those who were preaching Christ to try to hurt him. He talked of the "super apostles" who obviously were in competition with him. Are you saying those apostles had no followers? Are you saying the apostles were in different groups and loyalties and the common believers were not? That makes no sense. How would you know this?

Again, it just seems you are seeing things the way you want to, without real evidence to support your conclusions.

I think it is possible that the reason Paul addressed his letters to the church in the city was not because there was only one church or group of Christians there, but because he didn't want to favor one over the other. He wanted to reach all the Christians. Sometimes he didn't even address "the church," as in Romans. There he just addressed the believers directly. He doesn't mention the "church in Rome."

In reality any group of believers is "the Church." You can't take that away from them.

And again, if you are going to base your beliefs on biblical patterns, you have to acknowledge that your practice of proclaiming who is a church and who isn't is not Biblical.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I think it is possible that the reason Paul addressed his letters to the church in the city was not because there was only one church or group of Christians there, but because he didn't want to favor one over the other. He wanted to reach all the Christians. Sometimes he didn't even address "the church," as in Romans. There he just addressed the believers directly. He doesn't mention the "church in Rome."

That is an interesting concept. It would suggest that although there were many different meeting halls, homes, etc that there was still a fellowship that would allow the letter to be passed from one group to the next.

I would think that the idea of a large meeting hall for a hundred or more Christians is highly unlikely in a period where there is persecution, so by necessity they had to be "underground" in houses and small gatherings.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

That is pure speculation. There were all kinds of groups back then. Where do you think all the strange writings like "The Shepherd of Hermas" and "The Gospel of Thomas" came from?

Paul said there were those who were preaching Christ to try to hurt him. He talked of the "super apostles" who obviously were in competition with him. Are you saying those apostles had no followers? Are you saying the apostles were in different groups and loyalties and the common believers were not? That makes no sense. How would you know this?

Again, it just seems you are seeing things the way you want to, without real evidence to support your conclusions.

I think it is possible that the reason Paul addressed his letters to the church in the city was not because there was only one church or group of Christians there, but because he didn't want to favor one over the other. He wanted to reach all the Christians. Sometimes he didn't even address "the church," as in Romans. There he just addressed the believers directly. He doesn't mention the "church in Rome."

In reality any group of believers is "the Church." You can't take that away from them.

And again, if you are going to base your beliefs on biblical patterns, you have to acknowledge that your practice of proclaiming who is a church and who isn't is not Biblical.

I do not think that Paul was writing to "all kinds of groups" including the "super apostles" just in the hope that it might reach one or two genuine believers in their midst.

It seems to me that he wrote to specific households and individuals by name (see Romans 16:5), as if to single out the assemblies which he knew to be genuine assemblies. This is why Paul says greetings to this house and greetings to such and such in that house. Paul is not extending those greetings to the churches that he knows to be false.

If there was an assembly at the time lead by a "super apostle" , those who are against Paul's writings, I think it would be easy for the churches faithful to Paul to know that and avoid them. Rather than pretend they are all in unity and part of the common faith.

Writing to everyone including the churches of the super apostles and those holding erroneous beliefs just doesn't seem like a common sense thing to do. Particularly when elsewhere the bible says to avoid or have nothing to do with such people.

I find this blog to be particularly insightful by an Associate Professor in the Humanities Division at York University in Toronto
http://www.philipharland.com/Blog/20...corinth-nt-28/

Paul’s relations with various groups of Christians at Corinth had its ups and downs, but mostly downs it seems. In the time leading up to his writing of what we call 1 Corinthians (actually at least his second letter to them — see 1 Cor 5:9), there were divisions among different groups meeting in different homes, and there were also divisions between those who, in Paul’s view, thought they were superior either socially or spiritually. Some wealthier members with time for leisure were arriving early for the Lord’s supper and consuming all the better food and wine before the arrival of the lower class Christians who had to work for a living (11:17-34). Some Corinthians who felt they had a special connection with things spiritual were viewing their ability to receive divine messages in the form of seemingly nonsensical languages (“tongues”) as a sign of superiority over those who did not receive such messages (12-14). Some other Corinthians, like the woman Chloe, who was likely a leader, were concerned about the situation and communicated this to Paul by messenger (1:11).


This blog by this professor (who to my knowledge has nothing to do with Lee/Nee) seems to paint a picture like we believe - one church per city consisting of various groups who should not have de-name-iated themselves, and Paul writing to try and get them to all stay together (at least, the genuine ones, non-genuine ones ,say Gnostic groups, I doubt Paul would ask them to come together in unity).

As it implies Paul considered all of the believers in Corinth as part of the one church. No where does Paul address the various groups in a denominational way (the group of super apostle such and such). Paul was writing against divisions between different groups meeting in different homes. No one of those groups were said to be a particular denomination, they were simply different meetings of the one church in the city which did not consider themselves to be separate organizations and institutions like we see today (Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican etc).

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

As it implies Paul considered all of the believers in Corinth as part of the one church. No where does Paul address the various groups in a denominational way (the group of super apostle such and such).

And if he were alive to today and wrote to the church in your city, he might address the letter in the same way. But in doing that, he would not be calling any particular group "the church" and the others "not the church." You say he did not address them in a denominational way. However you acknowledge that they were not all meeting together, yet were all part of the church in Corinth.

And what he described in terms of the divisions was something very acrimonious, not like the situation among the denominations today. In fact, it would appear that the group you hold so dear as the "one true church" is the one that displays the most acrimony concerning other groups, calling them harlots, mooing cows, and more. I admit that there have been individuals in years past who did things like that. But that is not the general state among churches today. It is your blindness to the forced division created by your own group as you denigrate everyone for merely "having a name."

He charged the Corinthians with having fights over which teacher each group was following. You won't find such in today's landscape. We admit that we do not see eye-to-eye on everything, but do not denigrate others for their honest stance before God.

Can you say the same about your group? The answer is "no." They not only demand that everyone follow their way (which precludes there being any other group within a city where they already are) but also that they get in line with their teachings and ways. If you say that last statement is false, then why are individuals and even entire churches excised from your numbers for such failure? While the status of the "lampstand" was threatened in a case or two, for all the failings of the churches in the cities written to in Revelation, none were referred to as "genuine," "not genuine," or "false." They were all churches.

Do you really think that the situation in the denominations today is worse than what was described in Thyatira? A place that was still represented as having a church.

In those pesky denominations, if someone is wanting to teach in a different way than what the group prefers, they don't excommunicate them. But they might suggest that they would be happier and freer to follow the Lord as they understand it if they joined group C or D. Harmony is maintained in both groups and all can follow Christ without interference. Not the same where you are. You would exile them from all fellowship (since you consider the "fellowship" of other groups to not be genuine church) for merely failing to teach your way or for writing materials not approved by your denominational headquarters.

And you cannot avoid the fact that the LRC is a denomination. Its leaders are chosen by a headquarters. They are required to have certain meetings that are directed as to all content, including which songs to sing, by that headquarters. If someone feels the urge to write something for the benefit of the people, it can only be published if that headquarters approves it. And they declare that if you are not part of them, you are effectively not in the church, but are cut off from the church.

If you want to say that denominations are all about the name, then why is the format of the name important? You claim you have no name, but there has been more than one lawsuit to retrieve the name from the existing group when they no longer followed the edicts from the headquarters. Those lawsuits cannot be claimed to be erroneous and done only by the locals because LSM and/or DCP supported their efforts. And in at least one case, when the group no longer followed the headquarters, a small minority split off and file suit to retrieve the very meeting hall property from the main group. Again, supported by the headquarters through LSM and/or DCP.

And you say it is not a denomination. Just fall on your sword and get it over with. The magical formula of the true church does not exist. The garlic room was never somewhere else, but within you own walls. It took years to get the stench off of my clothes.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

And if he were alive to today and wrote to the church in your city, he might address the letter in the same way. But in doing that, he would not be calling any particular group "the church" and the others "not the church." You say he did not address them in a denominational way. However you acknowledge that they were not all meeting together, yet were all part of the church in Corinth.

And what he described in terms of the divisions was something very acrimonious, not like the situation among the denominations today. In fact, it would appear that the group you hold so dear as the "one true church" is the one that displays the most acrimony concerning other groups, calling them harlots, mooing cows, and more. I admit that there have been individuals in years past who did things like that. But that is not the general state among churches today. It is your blindness to the forced division created by your own group as you denigrate everyone for merely "having a name."

He charged the Corinthians with having fights over which teacher each group was following. You won't find such in today's landscape. We admit that we do not see eye-to-eye on everything, but do not denigrate others for their honest stance before God.

Can you say the same about your group? The answer is "no." They not only demand that everyone follow their way (which precludes there being any other group within a city where they already are) but also that they get in line with their teachings and ways. If you say that last statement is false, then why are individuals and even entire churches excised from your numbers for such failure? While the status of the "lampstand" was threatened in a case or two, for all the failings of the churches in the cities written to in Revelation, none were referred to as "genuine," "not genuine," or "false." They were all churches.

Do you really think that the situation in the denominations today is worse than what was described in Thyatira? A place that was still represented as having a church.

In those pesky denominations, if someone is wanting to teach in a different way than what the group prefers, they don't excommunicate them. But they might suggest that they would be happier and freer to follow the Lord as they understand it if they joined group C or D. Harmony is maintained in both groups and all can follow Christ without interference. Not the same where you are. You would exile them from all fellowship (since you consider the "fellowship" of other groups to not be genuine church) for merely failing to teach your way or for writing materials not approved by your denominational headquarters.

And you cannot avoid the fact that the LRC is a denomination. Its leaders are chosen by a headquarters. They are required to have certain meetings that are directed as to all content, including which songs to sing, by that headquarters. If someone feels the urge to write something for the benefit of the people, it can only be published if that headquarters approves it. And they declare that if you are not part of them, you are effectively not in the church, but are cut off from the church.

If you want to say that denominations are all about the name, then why is the format of the name important? You claim you have no name, but there has been more than one lawsuit to retrieve the name from the existing group when they no longer followed the edicts from the headquarters. Those lawsuits cannot be claimed to be erroneous and done only by the locals because LSM and/or DCP supported their efforts. And in at least one case, when the group no longer followed the headquarters, a small minority split off and file suit to retrieve the very meeting hall property from the main group. Again, supported by the headquarters through LSM and/or DCP.

And you say it is not a denomination. Just fall on your sword and get it over with. The magical formula of the true church does not exist. The garlic room was never somewhere else, but within you own walls. It took years to get the stench off of my clothes.

If there is no true church (batch of dough), then why does the bible warn against the leaven? (Galatians 5:9)

If there is no true church then why is Paul giving instructions to preserve it?:

1 Cor 5:13 "Purge the evil person from among you".

2 John 1:10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take them into your house or welcome them.

The denominations are like a dough which has already been leavened! We cannot remove the leaven once it is already permeated the dough! The only solution is to throw it out and start again.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If there is no true church (batch of dough), then why does the bible warn against the leaven? (Galatians 5:9)

If there is no true church then why is Paul giving instructions to preserve it?:

The subject of this thread is not whether not the church can become corrupted and may need to takes steps to purify itself.

The subject of this thread is whether or not one group should consider itself the "true church" while discrediting all others, and whether or not one movement should consider itself the "unique move of God" while discrediting all others.

Let's stick to the subject.

I maintain that the LCM is grossly in error by making the above claims. The Bible records gives us no ground to decide whether some group is or is not a church. And it certainly gives no ground for a movement to consider itself the unique representatives of the unique move of God.

Check church history and find one subset of the church which claimed the above and were proven by history to be right. No. Every group which made such self-serving claims ended up either dropping them or becoming irrelevant.

What you tend to do, Evangelical, is equivocate. You go back and forth between claiming a church has become corrupt to claiming it is not a church. But clearly the Bible shows that being a church does not mean practical perfection. Thyatira was in bad shape. Yet the Lord addressed it as church. This does not mean we should be apathetic about corruption. It just means, and I'll say it again, that we should be very careful about claiming to know what are churches and what aren't.

Make the call for holiness and purity all you want. I'll back you up on that. But stop the business of claiming to know which are churches and what aren't. You don't.

[Cal]

I maintain that LCM's standards of what is a church are not intended to achieve the goal of us all being one happy family on the ground of oneness. The LCM's standards are intended to reserve for themselves alone the status of "church."

The LCM claims to want all Christians in a city to meet together in oneness. But actually they would be terrified if that actually happened. Because if all the Christians in a city joined together, the tiny minority that wished to follow Witness Lee would be swallowed up by the majority.

If 95% of the Christians decided to drop all names and just meet together and follow a coalitions of leaders it would probably look like just a typical 21st-century community church, albeit a very large one. But they most likely would not follow Witness Lee or Watchman Nee. The certainly wouldn't follow the Blended Brothers.

The tiny Lee-loyal-LCM-faction would then find an excuse to break off from the majority, concocting some excuse as to why the much larger group was "off." And it would be business as usual for them, as they resumed their song-and-dance about being the unique, proper testimony, albeit their hypocrisy would be evident to all and their journey to irrelevancy would be complete.

No, the last thing the LCM really wants is for all the Christians in cites to meet as the church in those cities.

It would mean the end of the LCM.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The subject of this thread is not whether not the church can become corrupted and may need to takes steps to purify itself.

The subject of this thread is whether or not one group should consider itself the "true church" while discrediting all others, and whether or not one movement should consider itself the "unique move of God" while discrediting all others.

Let's stick to the subject.

I maintain that the LCM is grossly in error by making the above claims. The Bible records gives us no ground to decide whether some group is or is not a church. And it certainly gives no ground for a movement to consider itself the unique representatives of the unique move of God.

Check church history and find one subset of the church which claimed the above and were proven by history to be right. No. Every group which made such self-serving claims ended up either dropping them or becoming irrelevant.

What you tend to do, Evangelical, is equivocate. You go back and forth between claiming a church has become corrupt to claiming it is not a church. But clearly the Bible shows that being a church does not mean practical perfection. Thyatira was in bad shape. Yet the Lord addressed it as church. This does not mean we should be apathetic about corruption. It just means, and I'll say it again, that we should be very careful about claiming to know what are churches and what aren't.

Make the call for holiness and purity all you want. I'll back you up on that. But stop the business of claiming to know which are churches and what aren't. You don't.

OK back on topic. I wish to address the part you highlighted in bold about Thyatira. What you said is my point exactly. We do not distinguish between a genuine church and a false church based upon its level of perfection. We distinguish on the basis that the Lord addressed it as a single entity and not as a collection of churches/sects/sub-groups. This is what we mean by the genuine/true church. The church in Thyatira was a genuine church. No other group in Thyatira could claim to be "the church in Thyatira" while holding onto a denominational name. Any group which wishes to identify itself as merely a sub-group of "the church" in the city is clearly a division/sect, regardless of its condition.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I do not think that Paul was writing to "all kinds of groups" including the "super apostles" just in the hope that it might reach one or two genuine believers in their midst.

Paul wrote to the church in a city. By definition that means he wrote to every Christian in a city.

Exactly what that meant--whether he was writing to some "proper church" subset which represented the church (the LCM view), or to the church at large (my view)--WE CANNOT KNOW. You don't know for sure, nor do I. I have my opinion, you have yours. But that's all we have--opinions.

And since we cannot know, your and the LCM's insistence on adhering to the stricter interpretation is unreasonable, and even irrational. When you don't know for sure you must give way to the more general denominator. Anything else is sectarian and divisive.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Paul wrote to the church in a city. By definition that means he wrote to every Christian in a city.

Exactly what that meant--whether he was writing to some "proper church" subset which represented the church (the LCM view), or to the church at large (my view)--WE CANNOT KNOW. You don't know for sure, nor do I. I have my opinion, you have yours. But that's all we have--opinions.

And since we cannot know, your and the LCM's insistence on adhering to the stricter interpretation is unreasonable, and even irrational. When you don't know for sure you must give way to the more general denominator. Anything else is sectarian and divisive.

Romans
7To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be his holy people:

This is clearly the church at large.

1Corinth
2To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be his holy people, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours:

Again, this is clearly the church at large.

2Corinth
To the church of God in Corinth, together with all his holy people throughout Achaia:

Perhaps this is closer to being written to some "proper church" while also being written to the "church at large".

Galatians
To the churches in Galatia:

This is the closest to being written to some "proper churches" but then it is also plural.

Ephesians
To God’s holy people in Ephesus, the faithful in Christ Jesus:

This is clearly written to the "church at large"

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Romans
1Corinth
2Corinth
Galatians
Ephesians
- - - to the "church at large"

I realize that I did not include the nuances you admit might be there. But still essentially what you said.

And I agree.

The problem I find is that when people want to read things as exclusive, then terms like "beloved" or "called by God" suddenly do not mean what you and I think they mean. So to the LRC, it doesn't matter that the "obvious" reading is against them. They will insist on their convoluted understanding of the words as being only to special Christians, not to all Christians.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

I realize that I did not include the nuances you admit might be there. But still essentially what you said.

And I agree.

The problem I find is that when people want to read things as exclusive, then terms like "beloved" or "called by God" suddenly do not mean what you and I think they mean. So to the LRC, it doesn't matter that the "obvious" reading is against them. They will insist on their convoluted understanding of the words as being only to special Christians, not to all Christians.

But that feeds into Igzy's complaint that "unique" move of God means that you alone are the beloved of God.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Paul wrote to the church in a city. By definition that means he wrote to every Christian in a city.

Exactly what that meant--whether he was writing to some "proper church" subset which represented the church (the LCM view), or to the church at large (my view)--WE CANNOT KNOW. You don't know for sure, nor do I. I have my opinion, you have yours. But that's all we have--opinions.

And since we cannot know, your and the LCM's insistence on adhering to the stricter interpretation is unreasonable, and even irrational. When you don't know for sure you must give way to the more general denominator. Anything else is sectarian and divisive.

As Paul was an apostle called to minister to God's people then yes he wrote to every Christian in the city. But had he known of a particular false teacher for example, gnostic, or otherwise, I very much doubt he would have intended the letter for them or any group of such people (aka a wicked or pagan organization like the Roman Catholic church). I also very much doubt that Paul would have instructed a heretical sect of Christians to try and maintain unity with an orthodox sect. Paul would have followed his own advice which was to
1 Cor 5:13 "Purge the evil person from among you".

Paul's instruction to purge evil people from among them, proves that there must have been a genuine "true church" at the time. Also in John:

2 John 1:10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take them into your house or welcome them.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The reason the bible does not talk about false churches is because at the time there was only one church per city.

And once again, the intended conclusion is provided as the evidence that it is correct. A truly circular argument. Begging of the question at its finest.

Evidence that evidence is of no importance to those who argue in that manner. That reason is left at the door with their opinions and even their brains so that they will not be hindered by thinking.