I need a church life that isn't led astray!!!

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by aron

And on the other hand, if I receive those who confess the Lord then I have every expectation to be received as well, and that includes what the Lord speaks to me in his word. If I'm willing to listen to those who use Calvin as their muse, or Luther or Darby or Wesley or whomever, then they can hear me as well. Each one has.

Aron, I had a conversation with Evangelical (whatever happened to him?) a while back about discerning between those that confess Jesus as Lord but are not confessing the correct Jesus. Can I ask, how do you personally discern "those that claim they are Jews and are not"? Do you base your discernment on words, works, both or...?

[byHismercy]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Aron, I had a conversation with Evangelical (whatever happened to him?) a while back about discerning between those that confess Jesus as Lord but are not confessing the correct Jesus. Can I ask, how do you personally discern "those that claim they are Jews and are not"? Do you base your discernment on words, works, both or...?

This is the scary part. There are a few groups that I have been made familiar with who I think are holding forth another jesus, another spirit, another gospel. In some cases it is so obvious. In other cases, it is not so clear. What if I am not sure?

[aron]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

This is the scary part. There are a few groups that I have been made familiar with who I think are holding forth another jesus, another spirit, another gospel. In some cases it is so obvious. In other cases, it is not so clear. What if I am not sure?

If you are not so clear then try to give the benefit of the doubt. God can make things clear. One must always be cautious, and when caring for vulnerable children even moreso. But one must also be cautious to pass hasty judgment. Because we also are being judged. So show mercy! But I get ahead of myself, here...

Originally Posted by Jo S

about discerning between those that confess Jesus as Lord but are not confessing the correct Jesus. Can I ask, how do you personally discern "those that claim they are Jews and are not"? Do you base your discernment on words, works, both or...?

Obvious cases who "claim they are Jews but are not":

~David Koresh and Branch Davidians. Koresh started with the Southern Baptists, then SDA, then took over the Branch Davidians.
~Black Israel. They believe that Jesus was black and they are the true Israelites. They love to remonstrate with others over Hebrew words and keeping the law.
~Mormon Polygamists. All Mormons, for that matter. I don't greet them in the streets, I just move on.
~Moses David Berg and the Children of God/Family. Started as "Teens for Christ" in 1968, believe it or not.
~Rastafarians. They think that Haile Selassie was God incarnate.
~Unification Church. They think that Sun Myung Moon was God incarnate.
~[LC spin-off]Eastern Lightning. They think that God is a Chinese woman who failed her university exams and had a nervous breakdown and identity crisis. Hey! Maybe she's God incarnate! Yeah! That's it! (Nah)
~Jim Jones and Peoples Temple. Jones started as a Methodist, then became a charismatic Pentecostal, then started his own spin-off group in San Francisco.
~Elizabeth Clare Prophet. She grew up with parents in Lutherans' and Catholics' faith traditions, then was exposed to Christian Science, then started her own New Age "Path to Christ-hood" called Summit Lighthouse.
~Heavens Gate cult: Jesus was supposedly coming on the Hale Bopp comet.
~JWs, etc, etc... one must draw the line somewhere.... God eventually makes clear (to me) who to avoid. Otherwise I'd try to give folks the benefit of the doubt, to start anyway. Peter at one point denied Jesus, but Jesus had mercy. So I need to follow Jesus and try to show mercy. If they are trying to acknowledge Christ, try to acknowledge them.

Jude v. 3 says, "Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God's holy people." But vv. 22,23 say, "And indeed, have mercy on those who doubt; save others by snatching them from the fire; and to still others, show mercy tempered with fear, hating even the clothing stained by the flesh." In other words, those who show mercy will be shown mercy. ~Matt 5:7 Just like Jesus taught, surprise, surprise...

My current criteria are that there should be words (confess Jesus as Lord) and there should also be works (humility, eagerness to learn, showing love to those who are without). I try to be patient and kind, if possible, but there are some who are best to avoid (see list above). And if caring for young children, even moreso! Keep them safe!

There are some borderline cases like Seventh Day Adventists and Christian Scientists that may be genuinely "Christian" but I don't spend time on them. I don't judge them but I'm not going to spend my time in fruitless argument and/or outreach over abstract formulations. But my point here is that if someone's nominally "Christian" I should try to find common ground, and fellowship, and opportunity mutual experience and expression. This is my job as one who confesses Jesus Christ. But there are clearly lines drawn - who to avoid. Be wise like a serpent, guile-less like a dove. Try to find the good and avoid the egregiously bad.

Back in the first century you just hung out with Peter and John if you wanted to be safe. Or be with those whom John received/approved. Now we don't have that simplicity.

(The above list was a bit tongue-in-cheek, as these groups are not where most wouldn't want to end up. But that's the point - start with obvious cases and move toward 'iffy' ones. And remember that they all either started out Christian or claimed to...)

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by aron

~Mormon Polygamists. All Mormons, for that matter. I don't greet them in the streets, I just move on.

It's curious to see Mormons on this list because as far as zeal to spread their movement and biblical knowledge, they would run circles around LC'ers. Same goes for JW's.

The Mormons have the prophet Joseph Smith and his extra biblical revelation of a latter day restored church. The LC's have their apostles Nee, Lee, Chu with the extra biblical revelation of a restored church in a one church per city model.


Both claim Jesus as Lord. Where do you draw the line in the case of the Mormons and do you consider the Local Churches in that group that you posted? Why or why not?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Jo S

The Mormons have the prophet Joseph Smith and his extra biblical revelation of a latter day restored church. The LC's have their apostles Nee, Lee, Chu with the extra biblical revelation of a restored church in a one church per city model.

The Book of Mormon is an addition to scripture, not an interpretation of existing canon. Seems like a clear difference to me. Although the uncritical reception of the Lee hermeneutic within the LC, versus the critical reception of scripture as "fallen human concept" does blur the line somewhat. The LC likes to dance on the edge of orthodoxy- the LDS goes over the edge with its Book of Mormon.

But there are a lot of similarities.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by aron

The Book of Mormon is an addition to scripture, not an interpretation of existing canon. Seems like a clear difference to me. Although the uncritical reception of the Lee hermeneutic within the LC, versus the critical reception of scripture as "fallen human concept" does blur the line somewhat. The LC likes to dance on the edge of orthodoxy- the LDS goes over the edge with its Book of Mormon.

But there are a lot of similarities.

I'd agree that the Book of Mormon is over the top but the biblical charge you're referring to is the addition of special revelation to scripture found in Revelation 22:19 although I believe you may be interpreting the "adding" to a literal second book rather than in a more general sense.

Yes, Mormons do add revelation to scripture but so do the Local Churches. Perhaps it's not through an additional book but they do it through biblical interpretation in speech and literature.

Adding revelation to scripture can come in more than one way. It doesn't matter whether it comes from an additional book or through verbal or written exposition, you're adding revelation to scripture that is not there in the text. Mormons and Local Church members are similar in this sense no matter what the "extra" is.

So if you argue that the reason Mormons and the Local Churches differ is because they do not have an additional book along with the bible I'd say that may be true but both groups are still violating the same command in scripture.

As it stands both groups have their self appointed apostles and prophets and their unique revelation, neither of which are found in orthodoxy, so if you deem one heretical based on adding to revelation then wouldn't it only be fair and do the same with the other?

[byHismercy]

I agree with Aron as to the LC dancing near the edge of the precipice whilst the Mormon church has fallen off the cliff with their lineage of gods, god fathers, god grandfathers and on and on. But regarding adding to scripture they have both erred.

Which brings me back to the reformed assembly. Isn't saying that God has elected some, His chosen, and the rest of mankind, the vast majority in fact, are without chance of salvation....absolutely without hope of avoiding hell, isn't that an addition? I just don't see it in scripture. And if it is an addition, should I have anything to do with it? It may be that it doesn't divide or separate the believers, but it seems like an awfully slippery slope to play near, in my opinion. Especially coming out of the LC.