The Unique Move of God

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Your post is more persuasive than your others, and you don't have to remind me that we are a tiny minority of opinion, as if that really mattered anyway. You seem worried that God really is telling us to do these things, and you might be wrong. But don't worry, remember Lee's messages about the peaks of Jerusalem and the higher peaks? We try to be the higher peak, but it doesn't mean people in other churches aren't peaks.

I think that God works purposefully with one group at a time, as He so often has according to the Bible (whether Old Testament or New). I don't think God raised up thousands of denominations in a scatter gun approach.

God does't raise up denominations. He raises up people and those people eventually coalesce into something he can more or less use, or not use, as the case may be. It's simply human nature to arrange ourselves along the lines of what makes the most sense to us, which gives us all the different flavors of groups.

Where we go wrong is when we start deciding to the extreme that what makes sense for us has to make sense for everyone else. That's why the whole idea behind the generality of the "unity of the faith" exists. Our unity is not in the details. It's in the general faith. And the faith does not include things like the local ground, or someone's proprietary idea of unity.

The LCM would be a good idea if it weren't such a bad idea. By that I mean in abstract theory it sounds good. But in application the flaws in the theory become apparent, as when you resort to invalid reasoning techniques to try to "prove" you are right. If you were right you wouldn't have to do that. But you do it over and over and I think you know it. Everyone else here does.

You are like Lee in that you think there is a practical mental construct, a theory of how to do church life, that can be applied to everyone. The problem is it's too specific and you eventually succumb to forcing unreasonable ideas on people in the name of "oneness," like expecting everyone to join the Recovery. In short, your theory doesn't work. And I definitely do not think God intended it to work because the end result really is something like Catholicism, where one organization presumes to speak for God to everyone. That always results when an elite few feel they have all the answers, which always issues in corruption and abuse, which is exactly what happened in Catholicism and in the LCM.

So what does God do? He continues to raise up people, who continue to coalesce into groups which he can use to one extent or another, or not use, as the case may be. Some of these fade away, some thrive and serve him well, others turn into religious institutions, or worse. But of none of them does he say, this is my unique place, better than all the rest. And even if he did think that, he'd never let us know, because it would go to our heads and make us presumptuous about what we could dictate to others, as it did with Catholicism and the LCM.

And the cycle repeats, over and over. History shows that. So in a sense God does scatter shoot. Absolutely he does. That's what the picture of the seed sower shows us. We never know where he is going to appear next, or who he is going to anoint next, or even exactly how we fit in. We just follow him and try to be faithful while we are here. And we let out a long and relieved sigh of humility and admit we don't have the perfect theory of anything.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

God does't raise up denominations. He raises up people and those people eventually coalesce into something he can more or less use, or not use, as the case may be. It's simply human nature to arrange ourselves along the lines of what makes the most sense to us, which gives us all the different flavors of groups.

Where we go wrong is when we start deciding to the extreme that what makes sense for us has to make sense for everyone else. That's why the whole idea behind the generality of the "unity of the faith" exists. Our unity is not in the details. It's in the general faith. And the faith does not include things like the local ground, or someone's proprietary idea of unity.

The LCM would be a good idea if it weren't such a bad idea. By that I mean in abstract theory it sounds good. But in application the flaws in the theory become apparent, as when you resort to invalid reasoning techniques to try to "prove" you are right. If you were right you wouldn't have to do that. But you do it over and over and I think you know it. Everyone else here does.

You are like Lee in that you think there is a practical mental construct, a theory of how to do church life, that can be applied to everyone. The problem is it's too specific and you eventually succumb to forcing unreasonable ideas on people in the name of "oneness," like expecting everyone to join the Recovery. In short, your theory doesn't work. And I definitely do not think God intended it to work because the end result really is something like Catholicism, where one organization presumes to speak for God to everyone. That always results when an elite few feel they are in control, which always results in corruption and abuse, which is exactly what happened in Catholicism and in the LCM.

So what does God do? He continues to raise up people, who continue to coalesce into groups which he can either use to one extent or another, or not use. Some of these fade away, some thrive and serve him well, others turn into religious institutions, or worse. But of none of them does he say, this is my unique place, better than all the rest. And even if he did think that, he'd never let us know, because it would go to our heads and make us presumptuous about what we could dictate to others, as it did in Catholicism and the LCM.

And the cycle repeats, over and over. History shows that. So in a sense God does scatter shoot. Absolutely he does. We never know where he is going to appear next, or who he is going to anoint next, or even exactly how we fit in. We just follow him and try to be faithful while we are here, and admit we don't have the perfect theory of anything.

I think what you say is true of every revival in history that has ever happened. So if we want to be in God's current move, we really need to be looking for that. What do you think? Should we stay where we are and wait for God's move, or should we seek God's move in other groups?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think what you say is true of every revival in history that has ever happened. So if we want to be in God's current move, we really need to be looking for that. What do you think? Should we stay where we are and wait for God's move, or should we seek God's move in other groups?

God is moving in all kinds of venues. Like I said, once you start believing you are exclusively in the one unique current move of God you've erred. The unique move of God is to bring people to himself through Jesus and build them up together in his kingdom by the Holy Spirit. That can happen in a lot of ways and that's what you need to look for. It could be happening in your living room tomorrow if you wanted it to be. That's the beauty of it.

God's Spirit will eventually produce the oneness you are looking for. Paul predicted that when he said "until we all arrive at the unity of the faith." But you can't force it. You can't expect people to conform to your definition of it. You have to take oneness where you can get it, and look for it to grow and spread.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think what you say is true of every revival in history that has ever happened. So if we want to be in God's current move, we really need to be looking for that. What do you think? Should we stay where we are and wait for God's move, or should we seek God's move in other groups?

Evangelical, I couldn't help jump in again given this is touching a new topic.

"Current move" or "divine stream" whatever you like to call, it is not limited to a single group (unless that single group is the body of Christ as a whole). God holds the seven stars in His right hand and walks among the seven golden lampstands. He can certainly multitask beyond human imagination.

Some churches may be more pleasing to God and some less, but all are blessed with promises to the overcomers. God didn't tell members of the seven churches to move to somewhere else so this is probably not the best formula to become an overcomer.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Evangelical, I couldn't help jump in again given this is touching a new topic.

"Current move" or "divine stream" whatever you like to call, it is not limited to a single group (unless that single group is the body of Christ as a whole). God holds the seven stars in His right hand and walks among the seven golden lampstands. He can certainly multitask beyond human imagination.

Some churches may be more pleasing to God and some less, but all are blessed with promises to the overcomers. God didn't tell members of the seven churches to move to somewhere else so this is probably not the best formula to become an overcomer.

Each church mentioned covered a whole city. So presumably each group Jesus spoke to was a "denomination". Most likely the way the people overcame, was to leave one denomination and join the local church in the city.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Each church mentioned covered a whole city. So presumably each group Jesus spoke to was a "denomination". Most likely the way the people overcame, was to leave one denomination and join the local church in the city.

Sheer speculation. You can't leave the one local church in the city, just like you can't leave the universal church. There is no teaching that says anyone in the NT "met as the church in the city." This is not a biblical teaching. There is no teaching that says those who meet in other groups, even with names, were not a part of the church in the city.

The church in the city exists. But the Bible never says if you don't meet as the church in the city you have separated yourself from it. Just as the Bible never says that if you don't meet as the universal church you have separated yourself from it.

There is no place in the NT where a group of Christians are identified as not being part of the church. John mentions people leaving, but it's pretty clear he is speaking about people that tried to join the church and weren't true believers to begin with.

Again, for you to insist on your interpretation of oneness, to call others divisive for not conforming to such a speculative model is a worse kind of division than what you imagine they are committing.

You need to understand the the LCM model of locality was specifically designed so that the Nee/Lee group could declare that they were the church and that other groups were not the church. It was not designed to produce oneness. It was designed so that they could say they were for oneness while conveniently feeling justified to exclude who they wanted to exclude. But the justification they use for their model is extremely speculative, which is precisely why the model has been rejected by the larger Body of Christ over and over and over.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The church in the city exists. But the Bible never says if you don't meet as the church in the city you have separated yourself from it. Just as the Bible never says that if you don't meet as the universal church you have separated yourself from it.

If the word church means 'ekklesia' or assembly, which it does. Then technically, if one does not join the assembly in their city, they have separated themselves from the church in their city.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If the word church means 'ekklesia' or assembly, which it does. Then technically, if one does not join the assembly in their city, they have separated themselves from the church in their city.

The Bible never says we need to "join" the church in the city. We are the church in the city. And we certainly don't need to join the LCM just because it calls itself the church in the city. That is completely specious logic.

As I said the whole LCM model is a trick designed to coerce people into considering the LCM the church in the city. The point is not to produce oneness, the point is to empower the LCM. But we all are the church in the city, just like we are all the universal church. You don't have to call yourself the universal church or join it to be it.

There is no evidence from the NT that all the Christians in a city met together, considered themselves all part of the same "practical church" or were all under the same group of leaders. It is just not specified that way.

Again this is why most everyone rejects the LCM locality model. There is no biblical foundation for it. It borne from trying to create a rigid binding model from vague non-binding verses.

You simply have no ground or right to try to hold people to it. And the ground you give to the devil in people by making them feel guilty about it you will be accountable for.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Each church mentioned covered a whole city. So presumably each group Jesus spoke to was a "denomination". Most likely the way the people overcame, was to leave one denomination and join the local church in the city.

This is reckless speculation. And it doesn't even make sense. If the church in Sardis was a "denomination," then why did the Lord refer to it as "the church in Sardis"?

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Each church mentioned covered a whole city. So presumably each group Jesus spoke to was a "denomination". Most likely the way the people overcame, was to leave one denomination and join the local church in the city.

Don't you find it a bit too convenient? When it comes to justifying locality, Jesus was addressing the whole church in the city. When it comes to blames, Jesus spoke only to "denomination"?

One of the most dangerous attitudes in studying God's Word is believing "I" am saved so the blessings are for "ME" and the blames/curses are for "OTHERS".

[Cal]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Don't you find it a bit too convenient? When it comes to justifying locality, Jesus was addressing the whole church in the city. When it comes to blames, Jesus spoke only to "denomination"?

One of the most dangerous attitudes in studying God's Word is believing "I" am saved so the blessings are for "ME" and the blames/curses are for "OTHERS".

I think that's called a self-righteous judgmental attitude.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

Don't you find it a bit too convenient? When it comes to justifying locality, Jesus was addressing the whole church in the city. When it comes to blames, Jesus spoke only to "denomination"?

One of the most dangerous attitudes in studying God's Word is believing "I" am saved so the blessings are for "ME" and the blames/curses are for "OTHERS".

I can show you a few examples.

For example, this verse:

which said: "Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea."

One church per city.

Can you count to seven? Only 7 churches. I can almost guarantee that If you were to ask any pastor of any denomination today, how many churches there are in their city, they would not say "one". They would say the Catholic, the Lutheran, the baptist.. at least 3, 5, 10 or 20 churches in my city. I will show in a minute how the bible says a Catholic church is not a real church.

This verse indicates a denomination in that city:

Rev 2:15 "Likewise, you also have those who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans."

This is obviously the denominations in that city with priest-clergy distinctions. As Nico-laitan means ruler over the people.

Here Jesus said he's coming to their city, to fight against those in the Nicolaitan denomination in their city:

Rev 2:16 Repent therefore! Otherwise, I will soon come to you and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.


Here is another:

Rev 2:20 Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols.

In this city, there was a Catholic church, that's who Jezebel represents.

A good theologian like Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible makes this clear:

By her is meant the apostate church of Rome, comparable to Jezebel, the wife of Ahab; as she was the daughter of an Heathen, so is Rome Papal the daughter of Rome Pagan; and as she was the wife of Ahab, and therefore a queen, so the whore of Babylon calls herself; and as Jezebel was famous for her paintings, so the church of Rome for her pretensions to religion and holiness, and for the gaudiness of her worship; and as she was remarkable for her idolatry, whoredoms, witchcrafts, and cruel persecution of the prophets of the Lord, and for murder, and innocent blood she shed; so the church of Rome, for her idolatrous worship of images, for her whoredoms, both in a literal and spiritual sense, and for the witchcrafts, magic, and devilish arts many of her popes have been addicted to, and especially for her barbarities and cruelties exercised upon the true professors of Christ

So it means that if our city is like Thyatira with a Catholic church in it, Jesus is against that Catholic church in our city. So we better avoid that one.

Having dealt with the Catholics, Jesus then talks about the "rest of you in Thyatira", These would be the ones who just meet on the ground of locality and not because they are Roman Catholic:

Rev 2:24

Now I say to the rest of you in Thyatira, to you who do not hold to her teaching and have not learned Satan's so-called deep secrets, 'I will not impose any other burden on you,

We can see that Jesus is treating the whole city as a church. He never talks about multiple churches in the city, nor does he say "churches of Thyatira". There is only one church, and that can be only one true group of followers in any city. Not the denominations that follow Nicolai, Judaism, or Jezebel.


Someone on here before was saying how they believe that all churches in a city are a true expression of the body of Christ.

This is a false idea because Jesus is clear he is only happy with a small group of people in Sardis:

Revelation 3:4 Yet you have a few people in Sardis who have not soiled their clothes. They will walk with me, dressed in white, for they are worthy.

These few people in Sardis are the true expression of the body of Christ. The others are not. These are the true church.

In the city of Philadelphia, there is a denomination of Judaizing Christians. Jesus never treats them as just another church in the city:

Revelation 3:9 Behold, I will make those of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie—behold, I will make them come and bow down before your feet, and they will learn that I have loved you.

Presumably, the ones that were right in His eyes were the ones that did not divide into a denomination of Rome or a denomination of Judaizers.

In Summary

The churches that Jesus addressed were city wide, comprising all believers in each city.
There were some groups within those cities who departed from Christ - the Nicolaitans, the Judaizers, the Jezebels (Catholics, by any good bible commentator's reckoning), etc.
Jesus nowhere talks about "true believers" in the midst of the Nicolaitans or the Judaizers or the Jezebels. He will deliver some kind of punishment to these, and that is why the bible says "come out" (Revelation 18:4).

So if we think that when God sends an angel to deal with the Catholic church, he is going to skip over the "true believers" in her midst ? No, it will be like Lot, or the angel of Death in Egypt, or like the Christians fleeing the Romans in Jerusalem. For any who do not leave, and heed the call, they suffer the punishment.

As someone said before.. all of God's people came out. It is not a possible for a true believer to stay in the Catholic church for very long, for example.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In Summary

The churches that Jesus addressed were city wide, comprising all believers in each city.
There were some groups within those cities who departed from Christ - the Nicolaitans, the Judaizers, the Jezebels (Catholics, by any good bible commentator's reckoning), etc.
Jesus nowhere talks about "true believers" in the midst of the Nicolaitans or the Judaizers or the Jezebels. He will deliver some kind of punishment to these, and that is why the bible says "come out" (Revelation 18:4).

So if we think that when God sends an angel to deal with the Catholic church, he is going to skip over the "true believers" in her midst ? No, it will be like Lot, or the angel of Death in Egypt, or like the Christians fleeing the Romans in Jerusalem. For any who do not leave, and heed the call, they suffer the punishment.

As someone said before.. all of God's people came out. It is not a possible for a true believer to stay in the Catholic church for very long, for example.

Don't want to make this discussion too lenghy so I'll try keep it short.

I think you have confused the tares with the wheat and you are trying to burn the whole field because you see tares.

Jesus didn't seem to consider Jezebel a member of the Church in Thyatira. The letter was to addressed to the believers ("you") who tolerated Jezebel ("her"). So I would not hastily say Jezebel equals the whole Catholic Church or "denominations".

Every church which received the letter was already a called-out assembly by definition of "church". Some of their members were being deceived by false believers who sneaked into the assembly.

In the letters, Jesus was focusing on His people and warned them, especially the deceived ones, according to their deeds.

In the letters Jesus asked His people to repent, to be faithful and to hold fast (didn't find any "come out" here). Probably this is what we should focus more too.