The Unique Move of God

[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.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by 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.

When they used the term "everyone" I don't think they were speaking literally... But I'm sure you already knew that. This is a good example of how you are your own worst enemy on the forum.

During my time with the LSM denomination, I interacted with people like Evangelical, and it saddened me when they constantly spoke poorly of other churches, denominations, etc... these are my brothers and sisters in Christ. Not only that, but (as I have shared) I have been blessed to live, work, and play among a diverse set of Christians - the same people that many of those in the LSM denomination write off with such bold, broad strokes.

I don't think it matters how many people, from all different walks of life, different locations around the world that you hear this from - it doesn't fit your narrative - so it must be false.

May the Lord remind us all "If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.'

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

During my time with the LSM denomination, I interacted with people like Evangelical, and it saddened me when they constantly spoke poorly of other churches, denominations, etc... these are my brothers and sisters in Christ. Not only that, but (as I have shared) I have been blessed to live, work, and play among a diverse set of Christians - the same people that many of those in the LSM denomination write off with such bold, broad strokes.

I used to have that attitude as well until the Lord convicted me of it and I repented for it. It being practical is it worth damaging relationships with our brothers and sisters in Christ. How many prophesying meetings have I been in hearing the utterance, "we in the local churches have everything and Christianity has nothing"? Not very edifying. Instead of building up of the Body, it's building a wall.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by 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.

I think I have a better feel for the attitudes and beliefs of the Church at large than the average LCMer. Your beliefs are basically in line with what Witness Lee taught 50 years ago.

Go to any Christian bookstore. Start reading the books and see how many you find where the writer advises people to join one particular denomination. It just doesn't happen that much anymore. Yes, people generally think their church preference is a good choice, that's why they go there. Duh. But I think the vast majority of serious Christians do not have divisive prejudices anymore.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I think I have a better feel for the attitudes and beliefs of the Church at large than the average LCMer. Your beliefs are basically in line with what Witness Lee taught 50 years ago.

Go to any Christian bookstore. Start reading the books and see how many you find where the writer advises people to join one particular denomination. It just doesn't happen that much anymore. Yes, people generally think their church preference is a good choice, that's why they go there. Duh. But I think the vast majority of serious Christians do not have divisive prejudices anymore.

Christian bookstores ? what about a Catholic bookstore are they now advising people to join their nearest evangelical church?

So you dont think Orthodox people are serious christians because they advise joining the orthodox church?

[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.