The Unique Move of God

[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.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

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.

We both agree that there were sub-groups and different meeting places in each city. The difference is you see these sub-groups in a denominational way, and I see them as meetings of the one church.

The difference is a denominational church/organization is quite different from a house assembly in how and why it arranges itself.

Do you really believe that the churches in each house met because of some preference in doctrine or practice (as denominations do today)? For example, do you really believe Paul was writing to a house church of full immersion baptizers, a house of tongue-speakers, a Jewish house church, and a Gentile house church? It seems to me that he was trying to over look all and any distinctions (there is no Jew or Gentile etc, all are one in Christ), and to distinguish them by anything (names, practices, doctrines etc) would be to violate that oneness. I believe this is why Paul does not write this way:

"dear household of tongue speakers", "dear household of Jewish circumcisers", "dear household of gentiles", "dear household of Sabbath keepers"

as he would have if it was a situation like todays denominations.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We both agree that there were sub-groups and different meeting places in each city. The difference is you see these sub-groups in a denominational way, and I see them as meetings of the one church.

The difference is a denominational church/organization is quite different from a house assembly in how and why it arranges itself.

Do you really believe that the churches in each house met because of some preference in doctrine or practice (as denominations do today)? For example, do you really believe Paul was writing to a house church of full immersion baptizers, a house of tongue-speakers, a Jewish house church, and a Gentile house church? It seems to me that he was trying to over look all and any distinctions (there is no Jew or Gentile etc, all are one in Christ), and to distinguish them by anything (names, practices, doctrines etc) would be to violate that oneness. I believe this is why Paul does not write this way:

"dear household of tongue speakers", "dear household of Jewish circumcisers", "dear household of gentiles", "dear household of Sabbath keepers"

as he would have if it was a situation like todays denominations.

The problem is that you equate "the one church" with your group.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

The problem is that you equate "the one church" with your group.

OK so if not us, which group do you suggest we equate "the one church" with? Someone has to put their hand up and say "we are the one church". The alternatives are - there is no such thing as the "one church", or that every group that calls itself Christian is the"one church". I doubt that Catholics, Orthodox, and most protestants/evangelicals would like calling every group in their locality the "one church".

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

OK so if not us, which group do you suggest we equate "the one church" with? Someone has to put their hand up and say "we are the one church". The alternatives are - there is no such thing as the "one church", or that every group that calls itself Christian is the"one church". I doubt that Catholics, Orthodox, and most protestants/evangelicals would like calling every group in their locality the "one church".

Jesus put his hand up. This is why Paul wrote Romans to all who are loved by God. Corinthians is written to all who call on the name of the Lord. Ephesians is written to all the holy people who are faithful to the Lord Jesus Christ.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

OK so if not us, which group do you suggest we equate "the one church" with? Someone has to put their hand up and say "we are the one church". The alternatives are - there is no such thing as the "one church", or that every group that calls itself Christian is the"one church". I doubt that Catholics, Orthodox, and most protestants/evangelicals would like calling every group in their locality the "one church".

What you are is not negated by what you call yourself. And what you call yourself doesn't make you what you are.

It's simple, there is one church in the city which is comprised of smaller groups and churches, just like there is one church on earth comprised of smaller churches. On the one hand each group is "the church" and on the other they are just their group.

The LCM is "the church" but so are the community churches and other groups of Christians. On the one hand they can call themselves "the church," on the other they can can call themselves something else. There is no Biblical edict or warning that if you call yourself something else you lose your status as the church. Claiming otherwise is non-biblical.

For example, each year a family might celebrate the "Smith" reunion. But the Smiths have grown into other families by marriage. So the Joneses are there, the Johnsons are there, the Greens are there, etc. But they are all the Smith family as well.

The Church is like that. Every group is the church in the city, but on the other hand every group is only part of the church in the city. Just like every group is the universal church, but then again only part of it.

Size and name does not take away the status of being the church. We are what we are.

You seem to to think there must be one group in the city that has the overriding status of being the church over all others, or that by having some kind of name one's status as the church is diminished.

But the Bible gives us no such instruction. It is just an LCM construct. It carries no weight because it's not backed by the Bible. It's just human reasoning.

And please don't try to make the case that the LCM is more inclusive because they call themselves "the Church in ...." The LCM is more doctrinally divisive than most groups are. Any credit they might get by their naming conventions is more than eclipsed by their insistence on following Lee to a "T."

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I doubt that ..most protestants/evangelicals would like calling every group in their locality the "one church".

You don't get out much, do ya bro? Have you been secluded in the Local Church of Witness Lee cave for so long that you're that oblivious to what is happening outside the confines of your little sect? Do you really think the infinite God of the universe is restricting himself to your infinitesimal, insignificant religious organization? I know that you have been brainwashed to think that the vast Body of Christ is solely and completely represented by your group, and the only legitimate leaders are stationed their just off the 5 freeway on La Palma Ave, but I'm here to tell you that it just ain't so. Igzy and some others have done a good job of telling you that it just ain't so.

The title of this thread is "The Unique Move of God". So God's move is unique. Unique to what, or better yet unique to who? Is the move of God unique to any particular group of people who follow a particular man and his particular ministry? Even the apostle Paul did not claim such a privilege for himself. Neither did any of the original apostles, whose teachings we are to closely follow.

You keep insisting that "most protestants/evangelicals" are this or that, and teach this or that. You are clueless my friend. I guess I can't blame you too much, your guru was decidedly clueless and ignorant of what God was really doing to build his church. Witness Lee had zero trust in the Lord Jesus' declaration that "I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH". (Matt 16:18) Lee set out to build something alright, and unfortunately we see the results of his handiwork in your posts here on this forum.

Getting back to your quote I have cited above: Igzy has answered you well. Actually most evangelicals (even the dreaded denominations) consider every local church in their city/community as "the church" if they preach and teach the one true Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. Secondary teachings and practices are just that...secondary. Those who clearly teach false doctrines that touch upon the primary, core, central teachings of the Christian faith are rightfully marked out and people are warned. I hate to break the bad news to you, Evangelical, but localism is NOT, and NEVER HAS BEEN one of the primary, core, central teachings of the Christian faith.
-

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I doubt that Catholics, Orthodox, and most protestants/evangelicals would like calling every group in their locality the "one church".

I don't think any group these days except perhaps some old-style Catholics and a few fringe oddballs like the LCM have a problem calling any group in a city "the church." And for that matter they don't have a problem calling any group out in the country "the church."

But they don't do it in the exclusive way you do it. When you call a group "the church" you mean they are part of the LCM movement. When anyone else does it they mean they are part of the universal church.

Times have changed a lot. Everyone now realizes we are all part of one church. Whether that one church is measured by the city or the whole earth, it matters little. In reality we are one. And because that reality is clearer than ever, churches are cooperating and joining forces more than ever. I visit different churches a lot. I have no problem viewing them as the church nor would I think people visiting our church would have a problem either, and we get visitors all the time.

As UntoHim said, you need to get out more.

But, I'll say it again: The pretzel-logic localism constructs of the LCM are not designed to achieve universal practical oneness among all Christians. They are designed to reserve to the LCM exclusively the status of "church."

It's a more clever and sophisticated way of proclaiming themselves to be the "true church" than has been done by other chest thumpers down through history. But in essence it's no different than when the RCC does it, the ICC does it, the LDS does it or the JWs do it. It's the same error.

[Evangelical]

Dear Igzy and UntoHim.

Regarding 'everyone now realizes...'...it is simply not true.

For example the orthodox fellow on here had a problem with calling other groups churches. I can quote our discussions if you like. Why do I need to get out more when you can't see the evidence right in front of you?

The views that you hold regarding the one true church including everyone who preaches the gospel is not shared by the majority of the body of Christ.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Do you really believe that the churches in each house met because of some preference in doctrine or practice (as denominations do today)?

I don't know. And the fact is you don't either. And your insistence that you do is, again, evidence of a sectarian attitude.

Besides, the LCM meets the way they do because of doctrinal differences as well. And the fact that you consider yourselves the only legitimate expression of the church doesn't make it so.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We both agree that there were sub-groups and different meeting places in each city. The difference is you see these sub-groups in a denominational way, and I see them as meetings of the one church.

The difference is a denominational church/organization is quite different from a house assembly in how and why it arranges itself.

Actually, the distinction of denominationalism is one that does not exist in the scripture because it is not a basis for exclusion. You define denominationalism as if a peculiar error that is different from simply meeting separately and even differently. 1 Corinthians was a hotbed of such activity. And they were acrimonious about it. Yet you admit that they are all the church in Corinth.

I doubt that any of these called themselves "the church in" anything. They just met. As Christians meeting. Now you want a name to create division that is worse than excluding others for anything that is not meeting with you and you call them the problem. This is not about names or separate assemblies. It is about assemblies that do not fall under the control of the elders of the LRC in your city (or in mine) and not under the control of the headquarters in Anaheim.

I can assure you that the Presbyterians do not think this way. They do not invalidate every other church for simply not being under their umbrella. Neither do the Methodists, the Pentecostals, the Baptists, the Bible churches (all independent), the Anglicans, and so on. There is some question about the RCC stance, but even that one does not declare the assemblies of Protestantism as invalid and therefore not churches.

[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]

Almost by definition, matters which we should be one on should be things that are obvious to most reasonable Christians.

Demonstrably the local ground does not meet that requirement, to say the least.

Ask yourself, if the local ground was so crucial to God's plan, why would this point be something so obscure that almost no Christians have agreed with it and something which they likely could never reach agreement on going forward?

This is one reason I say the LCM really doesn't want everyone to meet on the ground of the city. Because if they did the LCM would be over. They really just want to use the local ground as a way to claim legitimacy for themselves and deny it to others.

Imagine if a group said that to be the true church all members must wear green caps with purple and yellow slinkys hanging from them. All the members of that group wear such caps and claim that those groups that don't are not true churches.

But they have a dirty little secret. They really think that no one else will come to wear the caps, and so they will get to continue being the only ones doing things right and being the true church. Their "uniqueness" is secured, they believe.

But one day, to their shock, most of the other Christians in the city start wearing green caps with purple and yellow slinkys. The group didn't expect this, so they just up the ante. They declare that the others' caps don't have enough slinkys, or that the colors are not the right shade, or some other excuse to deny legitimacy to everyone else and reserve it for themselves.

And so it goes with the local ground, the "unique move" and the LCM. It's all just a gimmick of self-aggrandization. It's all just a game of self-delusion.