Bible Answer Man Converts to Eastern Orthodox!

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Defining a church based upon the subjective interpretation of who feels the Holy Spirit's presence and who doesn't, is not reliable. Firstly, can the Spirit's presence be felt? and if so, how do we know it is the Holy spirit, and how much of it depends upon ourselves, or even a counterfeit feeling given by a demon?

Our definition of church is absolute, objective, and has strong biblical support. We can point to our church and say that is "the church", regardless of how people are feeling, or what name or doctrine we identify with.

Wait a minute. Hold on. Didn't Witness Lee claim time and again that the "rich experience of the Spirit" in the local churches validated his claims about its special standing?

Sure he did. Over and over and over. Get your facts straight, Evangelical. You don't even jibe with the guy you claim to follow.

And basing on one's fellowship on the presence of God in one's experience is a lot better than basing it on some lame-brain definition of the church that isn't even biblical, repeated by a guy who doesn't even know what his MOTA actually said.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Wait a minute. Hold on. Didn't Witness Lee claim time and again that the "rich experience of the Spirit" in the local churches validated his claims about its special standing?

Sure he did. Over and over and over. Get your fact straight, Evangelical. You don't even jibe with the guy you claim to follow.

And basing on one's fellowship on the presence of God in one's experience is a lot better than basing it on some lame-brain definition of the church that isn't even biblical, repeated by a guy who doesn't even know what his MOTA actually said.

The bible shows objectivity and subjectivity together, in right proportion. You seem to be rejecting objectivity. I'm not discounting a degree of subjectivity and I think Lee's words should be read in the wider context of his objective views. It would be shortsighted of you to claim that I don't "jibe with the guy" based upon my one post. I believe both objectivity and subjectivity is important. But you would be wrong that it is "not biblical" because the locality churches in the bible are plain to see. Even if we do not agree on what that locality should look like, the locality is plain to see nonetheless. I mean, relatively speaking, there is more evidence in the bible for churches in localities (not named by anything other) than the "born again experience" doctrine, which is a doctrine based upon a very short dialogue between Christ and one man.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I'm not discounting a degree of subjectivity and I think Lee's words should be read in the wider context of his objective views. I believe both objectivity and subjectivity is important. But you would be wrong that it is "not biblical" because the locality churches in the bible are plain to see. Even if we do not agree on what that locality should look like, the locality is plain to see nonetheless.

Local churches are biblical. What is not biblical is the way you apply the idea. The Bible also supports house churches. And there is no reason, other that a desire to insist on local churches, to claim those house churches were actually local churches.

Further there is no prescription for local churches in the Bible. But in your insistence on them you run roughshod over other doctrines that the Bible does plainly prescribe, such as allowing people to be fully persuaded in their own minds. You have no right to insist on things the Bible does not insist on. And it most plainly does NOT insist on local churches.

Sorry, the Bible just does NOT support your beliefs like you wish it did. Your claims are false and non-biblical and, ironically, divisive. Unity around the LCM's warped local ground doctrine will not reflect the unity of the Spirit, but a false unity of man's mistaken and divisive doctrines.

In the end all it does is make you proudly think you are right and, along with that, predictable division. It has produced no unity whatsoever.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Local churches are biblical. What is not biblical is the way you apply the idea. The Bible also supports house churches. And there is no reason, other that a desire to insist on local churches, to claim those house churches were actually local churches.

Further there is no prescription for local churches in the Bible. But in your insistence on them you run roughshod over other doctrines that the Bible does plainly prescribe, such as allowing people to be fully persuaded in their own minds. You have no right to insist on things the Bible does not insist on. And it most plainly does NOT insist on local churches.

Sorry, the Bible just does NOT support your beliefs like you wish they did. Your claims are false and non-biblical.

We apply it in the same way that Paul did. We call a church by its locality name, nothing else. All of his letters are addressed to localities, not denominations. Paul would never write a letter to a denomination, or a sect, that bore "another name". The bible refers to all churches by their locality. Paul's letters, Revelation, that's biblical. There is no case of the church being referred to by anything other. This is biblical support. But I suppose people will continue to justify their definition of church according to their own experience, fuzzy feelings, spine chills, or whatever. But they won't be able to differentiate between the words church, sect, and cult ,because they don't have a clear understanding of what the church is. Eventually they will end up meeting in an LGBT church just because they feel the Spirit there. Maybe they sympathize with its doctrines, I don't know. But our definition of such a church can protect against this happening, because it is not based upon feeling, doctrine, or quality.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The bible refers to all churches by their locality. There is no case of the church being referred to by anything other. This is biblical support.

Except for the church in Philemon's house (Phi 1:2), the church in Aquila and Priscilla's house (1 Cor 16:19), the church in Nympha's house (Col 4:15) and again the church at Aquila and Priscilla's house (Rom 16:5). There were referred to not by city, but by the tenants of the house they met in. So your above claim is FLAT FALSE.

Again, there is no compelling reason to believe these house churches were actually local churches, that is unless you are trying to push that doctrine, which Lee was and you are. Note Aquila and Priscilla had a church in their house in Corinth and also at their house in Rome. Do you really think Paul would refer to two different local churches by the names of the same two people that happened to house each? That doesn't make sense. Just look at the wording. Paul in Romans greets a bunch of saints. And then greets the church in Aquila's and Priscilla's house. It doesn't make sense from context and wording that the church in their house corresponded to the whole church in Rome. Paul greeted more people than could fit in the house of two itinerant missionaries, and there had to be many more saints in the church. How could the whole church meet there?

No, the only safe bet is that local churches and house churches were different. House churches blow a gaping hole in your insistence on local churches. Any fair-minded person can see that. Their existence should temper your boldness. The fact it doesn't is evidence of fanaticism and unreasonable, divisive dogma.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Except for the church in Philemon's house (Phi 1:2), the church in Aquila and Priscilla's house (1 Cor 16:19), the church in Nympha's house (Col 4:15) and again the church at Aquila and Priscilla's house (Rom 16:5). There were not referred to by city, but by the tenants of the house they met in. So your above claim is FLAT FALSE.

Again, there is no compelling reason to believe these house churches were actually local churches, that is unless you are trying to push that doctrine, which Lee was and you are. Note Aquila and Priscilla had a church in their house in Corinth and also at their house in Rome. Do you really think Paul would refer to two different local churches by the names of the same two people that happened to house each? That doesn't make sense. Just look at the wording. Paul in Romans' greets a bunch of saints. And then greets the church in Aquila's and Priscilla's house. It doesn't make sense from context and wording that the church in their house corresponded to the whole church in Rome. Paul greeted more people than could fit in the house of two itinerant missionaries, and there had to be many more saints in the church. How could the whole church meet there?

No, the only safe bet is that local churches and house churches were different. House churches blow a gaping hole in your insistence on local churches. Any fair-minded person can see that. Their existence should temper your boldness. The fact it doesn't is evidence of fanaticism and unreasonable, divisive dogma.

What is clear to me is that there is no denominational names given to those house churches. Paul does not even say "the house church of..." The church in the household of such and such must reside in some locality. They are the church in the locality and also the church in the house.

In the Recovery, we sometimes refer to the church, or meeting, in such a such a person's house. Yet we believe we are all part of the one same church in the city. A church in a house is also a locality church.

What we cannot find, I believe, is any example of a church being larger than a city. When referring to more than one locality, scripture reverts to the plural word - churches. This rules out the idea of a church encompassing a number of localities, as most denominations do.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What is clear to me that there is no denominational names given to the house churches. Paul does not even say "the house church of...". It is the "church in the household of...". It's both, actually. The church in the household of such and such must reside in some locality. They are the church in the locality and also the church in the house.

In the Recovery, we sometimes refer to the church, or meeting, in such a such a person's house. Yet we believe we are all part of the one same church in the city. A church in a house is also a locality church.

What we cannot find, I believe, is any example of a church being larger than a city.

Now you are tap dancing on very thin ice. First you said the Bible did not reference any church except by city. I gave you four examples that proved that claim was false, so now you try to change the focus.

It is not any more true to say the church in the house is the same as the church in the city as it is to say the church in the city is the same as the universal church. Yes, they are the same in nature, but they are different.

The Bible plainly allows churches based on the boundaries of houses. Given that there are usually more than one house per city this makes it reasonable to claim that there can be more than one church in a city. (Don't get me wrong, there is still the church in the city, but there is also the church in the house and they are not made up of exactly the same group of people.)

House churches place reasonable doubt on your claims. To insist on locality in the light of them shows you to be in the realm of fanaticism.

As for your weird and unbiblical obsession with names, whatever. Grow up. Get a life. Do something that shows you have some sense.

You've been shown twice tonight to not know what your talking about. Maybe you should take a break.