The Unique Move of God

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Drake

Koinonia "We are not the church in London because we call ourselves "the church in London." We are the church in London because we are. "

That is true. And if you recognize that is what you are, then you should call yourself that too.

That would be consistent too.

Drake

And I agree.

But I do not agree that using "the church in London" letterhead makes your group the "reality" or "practicality" of the church in London. That's just silly.

Drake, perhaps you would tell me: Is it possible to be a part of the practicality of the local church without being associated with Living Stream Ministry and Witness Lee?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

And I agree.

But I do not agree that using "the church in London" letterhead makes your group the "reality" or "practicality" of the church in London. That's just silly.

Drake, perhaps you would tell me: Is it possible to be a part of the practicality of the local church without being associated with Living Stream Ministry and Witness Lee?

Yes, of course.

But your argument now favors semantics over substance.

Drake

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Drake

Yes, of course.

But your argument now favors semantics over substance.

Drake

The whole LC argument is semantics--that there is no "genuine local church" unless there is a group that calls itself "the church in," and when a group calls itself "the church in," that group is then the "practicality" of the "genuine church life."

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

The whole LC argument is semantics--that there is no "genuine local church" unless there is a group that calls itself "the church in," and when a group calls itself "the church in," that group is then the "practicality" of the "genuine church life."

No, you are still making an argument of semantics. Yours is not the "LC argument".

By analogy, there would be no nation of Israel if 23 million Jews lived somewhere other than Israel. Though all 23M are Jews only 6M are practically standing on the proper ground as the nation of Israel. Therefore, a nation exists practically.

When a Jew exercises the Law of Return they begin participating in fulfilling the mission of the nation of Israel. They call themselves an Israeli citizen because they are... they are not an Israeli citizen merely because they call themselves one. A Jew living in New York is not an Israeli citizen just because they call themselves as such.

Likewise, a group of Christians meeting as the church in a city on the ground of oneness in that city, expressing the universal Body of Christ are the church in that place and should call themselves as such. A name alone is insufficient. And like the Jew living in New York, a Christian can choose to live in a denomination but is not practically living on the ground of oneness of the church no matter how much they claim they are. Neither should they complain about those who actually meet on the ground of oneness of the church and call themselves as such because that is what they are, not just what they call themselves.

Drake

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Drake

No, you are still making an argument of semantics. Yours is not the "LC argument".

By analogy, there would be no nation of Israel if 23 million Jews lived somewhere other than Israel. Though all 23M are Jews only 6M are practically standing on the proper ground as the nation of Israel. Therefore, a nation exists practically.

When a Jew exercises the Law of Return they begin participating in fulfilling the mission of the nation of Israel. They call themselves an Israeli citizen because they are... they are not an Israeli citizen merely because they call themselves one. A Jew living in New York is not an Israeli citizen just because they call themselves as such.

Likewise, a group of Christians meeting as the church in a city on the ground of oneness in that city, expressing the universal Body of Christ are the church in that place and should call themselves as such. A name alone is insufficient. And like the Jew living in New York, a Christian can choose to live in a denomination but is not practically living on the ground of oneness of the church no matter how much they claim they are. Neither should they complain about those who actually meet on the ground of oneness of the church and call themselves as such because that is what they are, not just what they call themselves.

Drake

By analogy, there would be no [church in London] if [believers in London] [met] somewhere other than [the practical expression of the church in London as defined by Witness Lee]. Though all [believers in London] are [Christians] only [those associated with Living Stream Ministry and Witness Lee and who refer to themselves as "the church in London"] are practically standing on the proper ground as the [church in London]. Therefore, a [church] exists practically.

When a [Christian] [begins associating with Living Stream Ministry and Witness Lee and begins to meet with those believers who refer to themselves as "the church in London] they begin participating in fulfilling the mission of the [church in London]. They call themselves [a member of the church in London] because they are... they are not [a member of the church in London] merely because they call themselves one. A [beliver] [not meeting with the group associated with Living Stream Ministry and Witness Lee and who refer to themselves as "the church in London"] is not [a member of the church in London] just because they call themselves as such.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

By analogy, there would be no [church in London] if [believers in London] [met] somewhere other than [the practical expression of the church in London as defined by Witness Lee]. Though all [believers in London] are [Christians] only [those associated with Living Stream Ministry and Witness Lee and who refer to themselves as "the church in London"] are practically standing on the proper ground as the [church in London]. Therefore, a [church] exists practically.

When a [Christian] [begins associating with Living Stream Ministry and Witness Lee and begins to meet with those believers who refer to themselves as "the church in London] they begin participating in fulfilling the mission of the [church in London]. They call themselves [a member of the church in London] because they are... they are not [a member of the church in London] merely because they call themselves one. A [beliver] [not meeting with the group associated with Living Stream Ministry and Witness Lee and who refer to themselves as "the church in London"] is not [a member of the church in London] just because they call themselves as such.

I went along with the Nee/Lee one church/one city on the "proper ground" for my best 30 years of my life until I learned of all the corruption behind the scenes at LSM.

Then I was forced to choose between (1) LSM's obscure "church naming rights" found only in John's Revelation and (2) all the hundreds of verses in every book of the N.T. concerning righteousness, not lording it over the elect, descriptions of healthy leaders, descriptions of false teachers, etc. all of which exposed LSM leadership for the past half century.

I still have much precious take away from my time in 3 LC's, but have little use for LSM and its books. Back in August of 2007, while I was debating what to do with my vast library of books from LSM, a sudden thunderstorm hit the neighborhood, flooded my basement, and all those boxes of books got soaked with backed up sewage. Problem solved.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

By analogy, there would be no [church in London] if [believers in London] [met] somewhere other than [the practical expression of the church in London as defined by Witness Lee]. Though all [believers in London] are [Christians] only [those associated with Living Stream Ministry and Witness Lee and who refer to themselves as "the church in London"] are practically standing on the proper ground as the [church in London]. Therefore, a [church] exists practically.

When a [Christian] [begins associating with Living Stream Ministry and Witness Lee and begins to meet with those believers who refer to themselves as "the church in London] they begin participating in fulfilling the mission of the [church in London]. They call themselves [a member of the church in London] because they are... they are not [a member of the church in London] merely because they call themselves one. A [beliver] [not meeting with the group associated with Living Stream Ministry and Witness Lee and who refer to themselves as "the church in London"] is not [a member of the church in London] just because they call themselves as such.

Close.... but no cigar!

Here is where you err.

It is irrelevant whether Witness Lee's name is even mentioned or the Living Stream Ministry materials are used for edification or not. Throwing that up in a discussion about the truth revealed in the Scriptures concerning the church and the churches is ignorance at best or the enemy's craft at worst.

Now Koinonia, if you agree with the biblical revelation as I have attempted to explain it then say it. If you don't then it is doubtful you will ever transcend an argument of semantics and it is pointless to reason with a contentious man.

But if you agree with the biblical revelation but you just disagree with the execution of it then say that too. I get that. We can discuss it.

Yet, it does not contribute one iota to anyone's edification for you to take my words and then twist them to say something I did not say nor believe. Believe me, I will tell you exactly what I mean to say and you will have plenty of material to object to. Let's agree where we do and where we don't we can engage in a vigorous exchange.

Thanks,
Drake

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Drake

Close.... but no cigar!

Here is where you err.

It is irrelevant whether Witness Lee's name is even mentioned or the Living Stream Ministry materials are used for edification or not. Throwing that up in a discussion about the truth revealed in the Scriptures concerning the church and the churches is ignorance at best or the enemy's craft at worst.

Now Koinonia, if you agree with the biblical revelation as I have attempted to explain it then say it. If you don't then it is doubtful you will ever transcend an argument of semantics and it is pointless to reason with a contentious man.

But if you agree with the biblical revelation but you just disagree with the execution of it then say that too. I get that. We can discuss it.

Yet, it does not contribute one iota to anyone's edification for you to take my words and then twist them to say something I did not say nor believe. Believe me, I will tell you exactly what I mean to say and you will have plenty of material to object to. Let's agree where we do and where we don't we can engage in a vigorous exchange.

Thanks,
Drake

Drake, you have equated those not meeting with your group with Jews in New York who are not citizens of Israel. That is sectarian and ridiculous. "Citizenship" in the church is based upon belief into Christ, not participation in your group because you use the correct name.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

No, you are still making an argument of semantics. Yours is not the "LC argument".

By analogy, there would be no nation of Israel if 23 million Jews lived somewhere other than Israel. Though all 23M are Jews only 6M are practically standing on the proper ground as the nation of Israel. Therefore, a nation exists practically.

When a Jew exercises the Law of Return they begin participating in fulfilling the mission of the nation of Israel. They call themselves an Israeli citizen because they are... they are not an Israeli citizen merely because they call themselves one. A Jew living in New York is not an Israeli citizen just because they call themselves as such.

Likewise, a group of Christians meeting as the church in a city on the ground of oneness in that city, expressing the universal Body of Christ are the church in that place and should call themselves as such. A name alone is insufficient. And like the Jew living in New York, a Christian can choose to live in a denomination but is not practically living on the ground of oneness of the church no matter how much they claim they are. Neither should they complain about those who actually meet on the ground of oneness of the church and call themselves as such because that is what they are, not just what they call themselves.

Drake

I am confused by this argument you are presenting. What is the ground of oneness?

Let's engage in a meaningful dialogue based on the Truth in the Scripture. You can quote WL or WN if you like, don't care as long as we are discussing the truth in the scripture.

I will begin with your analogy of Israel. It seems based on this analogy that there is no "Kingdom of Israel" without people willing to stand on this ground. That seems to me to make this a very important issue for the Church, which is the Kingdom. Therefore it seems to me the NT should be very explicit about this truth.

When I ask myself, what does the scripture say about such an incredibly important doctrine as "the ground of oneness" Ephesians 4 and John 17 are the first two references that immediately come to mind.

4 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,

2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;

3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

I think this portion clearly foresees that oneness will require lowliness, meekness and long-suffering. That to me suggests we will have to be one with all sorts of believers with different opinions, practices and concepts.

But the bond that holds us together is the peace that Jesus wrought on the cross. A name we call our group is not a bond that is going to hold all these different believers together.

Paul states it as a fact that there is one body, one spirit and one hope of our calling. What we call our fellowship doesn't change any of that. I have a hope of a coming kingdom and calling myself the "super spiritual vanguard of the Christian elite warriors" doesn't in any way change this one hope. (My point is not to mock the LRC but rather to point out how every single little Christian group generally gives them-self some positive name).

Again, there is one Lord for every Christian regardless of the name of their group, one faith, and one baptism. We are not immersing believers into the name of our group but into the person and work of the Triune God.

Likewise we are all one because there is one God and Father who is above all, over all and in you all.

I believe it is sovereign of God that a group like the LRC takes the stand they do because it causes us to examine this truth of the "ground of oneness". But I also believe it is sovereign that there are many other fellowships of Christians.

WL used to compare his ministry to graduate school. But I remember a book that came out years ago saying that everything important this person ever learned they learned in kindergarten. Graduate school is necessary, and perhaps WL is right to compare his "training day" to graduate school. By comparison some Christian gatherings are kindergarten. But God is sovereign and in the grand scheme of things Kindergarten is just as important and impactful on the population as graduate school.

11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

13 And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves.

14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.

16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.

19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.

20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

It seems to me that the two most important things that Jesus is giving us to keep the oneness is the name of the Triune God and His word, which is truth.

I do not see anything in either of these sections that suggests there is any other name by which we would keep the oneness.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Drake, perhaps you would tell me: Is it possible to be a part of the practicality of the local church without being associated with Living Stream Ministry and Witness Lee?

Originally Posted by Drake

Yes, of course.

But your argument now favors semantics over substance.

Drake

But now Drake is crossing his fingers behind his back and is referring to the spirituality of the local church and not the practicality of the local church.

How truly ironic to see aged wordsmiths accuse others of "semantics over substance."