Why Everyone Else is a Denomination

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The NLT version says it plainly:
These people left our churches, but they never really belonged with us; otherwise they would have stayed with us. When they left, it proved that they did not belong with us.

Is that being sectarian?

Evangelical, you are embarrassing yourself. In this section John is referring to "antichrists" (see verse 2:18). Why are you equating this to people that do not meet with your group?

So Luther was sectarian, and Calvin, and everyone else?

If we pretend that we are all in the same church, we are not sectarian, but if we point out the fact that we are not all in the same church, we are sectarian.

I thought it should be, if we are in a sect, we are sectarian, if we are in the true church, we are not.

Your group is not the "true church."

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Evangelical, you are embarrassing yourself. In this section John is referring to "antichrists" (see verse 2:18). Why are you equating this to people that do not meet with your group?

I think it does not matter who they were or why they left. It's basically saying, "people left our church, since they left it proves they never really belonged". John refers to "us and them".

Suppose these people were not anti-christ but wanted to leave to start their own denomination according to their own preference, would not John say the same thing?

I think John, being the last apostle/disciple alive at the time, would not have included as "us" any who did not stay with the apostle's teaching. To leave John's teaching and John's fellowship was like leaving Christ.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Your group is not the "true church."

OK. So what do we have to be like to be the true church?

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think it does not matter who they were or why they left. It's basically saying, "people left our church, since they left it proves they never really belonged". John refers to "us and them".

Suppose these people were not anti-christ but wanted to leave to start their own denomination according to their own preference, would not John say the same thing?

I think John, being the last apostle/disciple alive at the time, would not have included as "us" any who did not stay with the apostle's teaching. To leave John's teaching and John's fellowship was like leaving Christ.

Again, you are equating your Witness Lee group with the universal church.

OK. So what do we have to be like to be the true church?

You can't "do" anything. Are you a believer, Evangelical? Then, you are part of the church.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Again, you are equating your Witness Lee group with the universal church.

Our "group" is the local visible expression of the universal church that is why we take no name as God did not name the church.

What other groups in your city do you think are local visible expressions of the universal church that also do not take any name?

Originally Posted by Koinonia

You can't "do" anything. Are you a believer, Evangelical? Then, you are part of the church.

You are talking about the invisible aspects I am talking about the practical aspects. How can we be the true church practically? You said before we are not the true church. I think you are meaning in the practical sense because you believe that believers are part of the true church, and we are believers. So I'm asking how can we be in a practical way? What do we have to do or be like to be the true practical church in the city? The Catholic and Orthodox are already doing what they believe they have to do to be the true practical church in the city, and we are as well, but which one is the right approach?

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Our "group" is the local visible expression of the universal church that is why we take no name as God did not name the church.

No, it's not.

What other groups in your city do you think are local visible expressions of the universal church that also do not take any name?

All believers constitute the church.

You are talking about the invisible aspects I am talking about the practical aspects. How can we be the true church practically? You said before we are not the true church. I think you are meaning in the practical sense because you believe that believers are part of the true church, and we are believers. So I'm asking how can we be in a practical way? What do we have to do or be like to be the true practical church in the city? The Catholic and Orthodox are already doing what they believe they have to do to be the true practical church in the city, and we are as well, but which one is the right approach?

Evangelical, it is a heart-matter. You can talk all you want about "the practical aspects," but as long as your heart is proud, sectarian, and judgmental, it doesn't matter what you think your name is.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

No, it's not.

Ok then which group or groups are the local visible expression of the universal church? 3 choices as I see it are - all (all and any gathering of believers is valid, no matter what they teach or do), some (e.g. any group in particular), none (i.e. doesn't exist today, will exist again at the Lord's return, I believe Spurgeon believed in this).

Originally Posted by Koinonia

All believers constitute the church.

Agree. The universal church includes all believers. What about the local?

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Evangelical, it is a heart-matter. You can talk all you want about "the practical aspects," but as long as your heart is proud, sectarian, and judgmental, it doesn't matter what you think your name is.

So whether or not a group is a true local church (true expression of the universal church) depends on their condition?

I think it is the other way around. The churches mentioned in Revelation had problems, but were still referred to as churches in the city.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Ok then which group or groups are the local visible expression of the universal church? 3 choices as I see it are - all (all and any gathering of believers is valid, no matter what they teach or do), some (e.g. any group in particular), none (i.e. doesn't exist today, will exist again at the Lord's return, I believe Spurgeon believed in this).

I would say that believers constitute the "local visible expression of the universal church." I believe that seeking to be such as a group separate (or smaller than) all other believers is misguided and presumptuous.

Agree. The universal church includes all believers. What about the local?

The local church includes all believers in that place. Even you claim to believe this.

So whether or not a group is a true local church (true expression of the universal church) depends on their condition?

I think it is the other way around. The churches mentioned in Revelation had problems, but were still referred to as churches in the city.

There were not special groups in Revelation that constituted the "church in the city" because they had the right name (as opposed to anyone else without the right name). So, it is wrong to equate the situation of Revelation to the situation of today.

Besides, you have other requirements for being "the church in the city" in addition to having the right name. The whole discussion is a distraction from your actual practice. In your actual practice, what you consider the local churches are a network of people and congregations that follow Witness Lee. I do not believe you would consider a group outside of your network a "genuine local church" even if it did have the right name.