The Unique Move of God

[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

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. This is what we mean by the genuine/true church. 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.

There is no such directive or clarity in the Bible about this matter, and there is legitimate evidence against it. Paul addressed churches in houses. Those could legitimately be viewed as subgroups of the larger church in the city.

Every practical church is a subset of the larger Church. It is not a matter of whether groups "wish" to identify themselves as subgroups, the fact is every practical group IS a subgroup, whether they wish it or not.

Your argument is circular. You begin with the assumption that the only legitimate churches are local, then proceed from there. But you don't have enough Biblical backing to even make that assumption, and so your argument collapses under its own weight. That is why no appreciable percentage of Christians take it seriously.

Simply put, reasonable doubt wrecks your case.

There is not a good enough Biblical argument for what you claim to be true. Therefore insisting on it works the opposite of what you claim to want. It works division.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

We have repeatedly advised you of a church in Romans (16.19) and a church in Colosse (4.15) which Paul greeted in his letters, and obviously addressed in his letter as a 'sub-group" of the one church in that respective city.

Yet you either ignore these situations or claim they do not exist.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

You say, "No other group in Thyatira could claim to be "the church in Thyatira" while holding onto a denominational name," but are these not two issues?

One is an unapproved name, at least by Anaheim's standards. The other is a denomination, which has the demands of a controlling headquarters.

Firstly, the Bible does not consistently use any specific name for the church, contrary to your formulae. Secondly, TLR is clearly the headquarters for every member LC around the globe. It is so disingenuous to condemn others as "illegitimate and divisive denominations" when you are no different.

[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.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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

I think you are getting lost in nuances or something like that. I am saying that church is church. It is not simply an assembly. Nor is it some special assembly or group of assemblies to the exclusion of others for any reason (other than not being an assembly of believers).

The church is the body of Christ. There are no qualifiers put on that other than to be "Christian," meaning those who believe in Jesus, the Son of God (within the meaning of "believe" as used in John 3:16). Whether they are the only assembly in town, or can't even quantify the number of assemblies is irrelevant. Whether all assemblies in a particular city are under a single unified set of elders is not written as a qualification.

All attempts to invalidate other assemblies is evidence of a sectarian mind that is seeking something other than Christ and should make their status as meeting as Christian suspect.

In that environment, "unique" would be an irrelevant word. God is unique. But he works in multifarious ways. To over-define, or over-restrict God's ways with terms like "unique" is evidence of a lack of knowledge of God. It surely does not evidence a special status with God. The most clear example of such a mindset was found in Revelation chapter 3 in the letter to Laodicea. The church that claimed the most while Christ was on the outside knocking to get in.

[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.