Bible Answer Man Converts to Eastern Orthodox!

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

And at that, you have included the LRC as merely a sect because they do not carry any special status that excludes them from any of what you have stated. Your claim of special status is not founded on anything any more substantial than the RCC's claim that their pope links back to Peter and therefore has the keys of the kingdom.

And you distill the differences down to how they baptize. But if baptism is everything, then the Baptists were around practicing full immersion before the LRC came along practicing the same. I will use your own rhetoric on you to point out that despite the fact that you claim no set doctrines or practices ("No doctrines or forms that you have to learn to come and meet with us. Just . . . .") yet you do practice in certain ways. You would only immerse. Yet since the Baptists were around before you, why did you start a different group that opposes them. (Yes, you oppose them because you argue against their very legitimacy, not just think differently.)

You are not open to all believers. you are only truly open to those who will come to you. Who will agree to set aside other teachers and only learn from Lee (and a little of Nee). And who, to the extent that they can't quite do it all, will at least keep their disagreements about any of it quiet.

Otherwise it is the door.


There is a big difference between disagreement on issues and ideas and disagreement on who is actually in the church. And if you dare to say that we are all in the church, then when any of us get together to meet, we are the church no matter how much you don't like something about our positions on certain issues and ideas.

If there is a problem in the unity of the church, it is much greater when observed from the perspective of the LRC v everyone else. The 50,000 ft. view of Christianity as a whole looks more like a continent with cities and states while the LRC appears as an island with gunboats surrounding it. Why is that? Because you insist that it is so. You are so closed to everyone else (despite rhetoric about unity) that you put up a wall of partition. You declare that everything on your side of the wall is church and everything on the other side is sect.

And you think that if you just talk to the people individually you can persuade them. But what if the organizations do not come to you, but the mass of people who are in them and they collectively do not agree with you. What do you do then? It would no longer be about denominations. Your boogeyman would have been destroyed. I can assure you that I do not speak from the perspective of one denomination and not the others. We agree that when someone is saved they should become connected with the church. And not just my church. We would welcome them. But it is more important that they know Christ and connect with Christians than that they join my group.

How's that for your divisiveness claim??

The fact that a new convert has to "choose a group", such as "your group" or "another group" after becoming a believer demonstrates the issue here. That is, being a born again believer and member of the universal body of Christ is not enough to grant a person connectivity with the whole body of Christ. The reason for that is denominations which create cuts or divisions in the body which simply did not exist in the new testament church.

You are pretending that denominations in a city are merely different groups of believers that see differently on a few things, which I know not to be the case at all.

If one wishes to be "connected with the church" the next question is "which church"?

In the bible this was not the situation of having to choose a church. They simply joined "the church" in the city.

In the denominational world, a person who wants to meet simply on the basis of them being a born again believer and living in a particular locality and being member of the universal body, does not have anywhere to go unless they choose the particular "type" of group that they want to join.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If one wishes to be "connected with the church" the next question is "which church"?

In the bible this was not the situation of having to choose a church. They simply joined "the church" in the city..

In the question, the LSM LC assumes meaning. Church, here, means standing religious body. But Jesus didn't teach on this, but on being gathered in His name, and declaring His witness, and having His presence, and the power to bind and loose on earth what had already been done in heaven.

Instead, the LSM LC way is to look disdainfully at their fellows. But the only ones Jesus had contempt for were empty, religious know-it-alls.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

In the question, the LSM LC assumes meaning. Church, here, means standing religious body. But Jesus didn't teach on this, but on being gathered in His name, and declaring His witness, and having His presence, and the power to bind and loose on earth what had already been done in heaven.

Instead, the LSM LC way is to look disdainfully at their fellows. But the only ones Jesus had contempt for were empty, religious know-it-alls.

I can re-phrase my question, it does not change my point:

If one wishes to be "connected with the church" the next question is "which gathering in His name, declaring His witness, and having His presence, and the power to bind and loose on earth what had already been done in heaven"?

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I can re-phrase my question, it does not change my point:

If one wishes to be "connected with the church" the next question is "which gathering in His name, declaring His witness, and having His presence, and the power to bind and loose on earth what had already been done in heaven"?

Being connected to a church - Wouldn't that depend on the city/town/village? Also the individual/family's situation? The prompting of the Spirit?

Heaven forbid there was no LSM denomination church in ones city - THEN what would they do? Can you even have a LSM church in a town? Because then it wouldn't follow the "Church in City" framework? Would they need to move? So many questions! Why didn't someone clearly lay out these rules in scripture since it's of such importance?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Heaven forbid there was no LSM denomination church in ones city - THEN what would they do? Can you even have a LSM church in a town? Because then it wouldn't follow the "Church in City" framework? Would they need to move? So many questions! Why didn't someone clearly lay out these rules in scripture since it's of such importance?

That happened back in the 90's where I was meeting at the time. A number of brothers and sisters would make the 10-15 minute drive from where I know live to meet with that locality until there was "fellowship" to "take the ground" in my town. having lived here for nearly 20 years, I can assure you there are a number of assemblies to meet with if one wants to meet locally. If it's "the ministry" that's the issue rather than meeting locally, let's be honest and call it what it is and that's ministry churches.
It's been mentioned before on this forum during the GLA turmoil when certain localities made the decision they weren't going to be taking the LSM publications corporately though wouldn't discourage anyone from taking the ministry privately, that's when the blendeds saw a need for those localities to be "replastered" (a reference to Leviticus 14).

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Being connected to a church - Wouldn't that depend on the city/town/village? Also the individual/family's situation? The prompting of the Spirit?

Heaven forbid there was no LSM denomination church in ones city - THEN what would they do? Can you even have a LSM church in a town? Because then it wouldn't follow the "Church in City" framework? Would they need to move? So many questions! Why didn't someone clearly lay out these rules in scripture since it's of such importance?

It is the practice of evangelical ministries and missions today to preach the gospel and establish churches in places where a Roman Catholic church has existed for centuries. This is more of less a statement that evangelical Protestantism rejects the (works-based) gospel that the Roman Catholics preach, and also believes that the RC church is unsuitable for a born again (by faith alone not works) Christian to fellowship in. This is also a statement that the RC church in the city does not represent all the Christians in the city.

If you stand for and with these ministries and churches and are not Catholic, then you cannot blame us for starting a new church in a city, without sounding a little hypocritical.

Many towns and cities had a Roman Catholic church in them first. In LA I believe the first church was a Roman Catholic church.

People should take a look at their own "log in their eye" -the existence of so many denominations that followed the Catholic churches.

You can't have it both ways. You can't on the one hand claim that the Roman Catholic church is representing the universal body of Christ, and support the starting of a new church because we don't believe the Roman Catholic church.

So I'm wondering why people on this forum take issue with us starting our own church in a city. I would say that we have the most biblical precedent to do so (No one yet has offered any biblical support about why the baptist and Presbyterians should be separated.)

Our biblical precedent is the biblical pattern of churches in localities, that (all) denominations are wrong and we are called out of Babylon.We have a much stronger biblical reason for establishing a new church in the city than many denominations which establish a new church for trivial reasons (such as methods of baptism or beliefs about the bread and wine).

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It is the practice of evangelical ministries and missions today to preach the gospel and establish churches in places where a Roman Catholic church has existed for centuries. This is more of less a statement that evangelical Protestantism rejects the (works-based) gospel that the Roman Catholics preach, and also believes that the RC church is unsuitable for a born again (by faith alone not works) Christian to fellowship in. This is also a statement that the RC church in the city does not represent all the Christians in the city.

If you stand for and with these ministries and churches and are not Catholic, then you cannot blame us for starting a new church in a city, without sounding a little hypocritical.

Many towns and cities had a Roman Catholic church in them first. In LA I believe the first church was a Roman Catholic church.

People should take a look at their own "log in their eye" -the existence of so many denominations that followed the Catholic churches.

You can't have it both ways. You can't on the one hand claim that the Roman Catholic church is representing the universal body of Christ, and support the starting of a new church because we don't believe the Roman Catholic church.

So I'm wondering why people on this forum take issue with us starting our own church in a city. I would say that we have the most biblical precedent to do so (No one yet has offered any biblical support about why the baptist and Presbyterians should be separated.)

Our biblical precedent is the biblical pattern of churches in localities, that (all) denominations are wrong and we are called out of Babylon.We have a much stronger biblical reason for establishing a new church in the city than many denominations which establish a new church for trivial reasons (such as methods of baptism or beliefs about the bread and wine).

I'm a little confused about how the forum works. If you quote me are you talking to me or to my comment?

I think it's fine for the LSM, JW's, Mormons, Catholics, whoever to start a church wherever they would like - its a free country, I don't have to like it. But that's a whole different discussion on a point that I've never made.

There is no biblical precedent for churches in localities, as you argue.

One could argue that denominations are wrong (I would somewhat fall into that camp - but nowhere to the extent of the LSM - again a different discussion), but the LSM is the purest form of a denomination I've ever seen.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

I'm a little confused about how the forum works. If you quote me are you talking to me or to my comment?

I think it's fine for the LSM, JW's, Mormons, Catholics, whoever to start a church wherever they would like - its a free country, I don't have to like it. But that's a whole different discussion on a point that I've never made.

There is no biblical precedent for churches in localities, as you argue.

One could argue that denominations are wrong (I would somewhat fall into that camp - but nowhere to the extent of the LSM - again a different discussion), but the LSM is the purest form of a denomination I've ever seen.

I talk to your comment. Your view presents a common view that may be held by many people (more than just yourself). So I address that.

It is the same for me. Whenever I post anything about LSM the replies I get are as if I run LSM and am Witness Lee himself.

You raise an interesting point I have not considered - "Denominations of the purest form". I would argue that the existence of a denomination is conditioned not upon what they do but what they are, how they are setup and what they represent and stand for.

It is possible for a genuine church to have 90% fornicators as members - it is possibly if the state of the church is not so good. Paul addressed these kind of genuine churches. It is possible for a sect or division to have no fornicators as members - it is easy to do, just ban anyone from your church who is not a fornicator. I hope you see my point. People are characterizing who is a church and who is not based upon the quality of their practice or teaching. Not based upon the fact they stand for a particular "flavor" and do not see themselves as representing the whole body, but only part of it.

That is, a group is not a denomination just because it has an "all welcome" sign on the front. It is a denomination because it does not believe itself to be the local expression of the universal church in the city. In other words, it admits that they are only "one of many churches" in the city. By saying that, they are really admitting that they are "one of many sects" within the one church.

If this was biblical then the version of Last Supper / Lord's table in the bible would be one of Jesus setting up multiple meetings to cater for the different needs of his disciples. One Last Supper at 9 am to cater to Peter and John's belief that the wine turns into the blood of Christ, and the next at 10 am to cater for Andrew and Matthew who believes the wine is just a symbol, and the Last Supper meeting at 11 am to cater for Judas Iscariot who believes communion is not necessary at all.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The fact that a new convert has to "choose a group", such as "your group" or "another group" after becoming a believer demonstrates the issue here. That is, being a born again believer and member of the universal body of Christ is not enough to grant a person connectivity with the whole body of Christ.

Another strawman.

Even you admit that they need to join with Christians. And it is preferable that they are joined at least somewhat regularly with a constant group of other Christians. Not because they are better or the result of a careful choice, but because they are the ones you regularly meet with.

You miss that even in a large city with the LRC present, if there was enough members of your group, you would end up meeting in more than one place. and possibly never all together in a single place. While I do not deny that meeting at all is the most that you can get out of "do not forsake the assembling of yourselves together," it is equally true that this passage does not define who you assemble with other than others of the same status as Christians. But that cannot be used to state that it must mean that you join with all Christians because that is physically impossible in a city as large as Dallas, or even Austin — how small do you think you have to go before just the Christians in that city could easily meet as a single unit (assembly)?

If you are reading into this that the assembly must be connected with other assemblies of like thinking, then you are mistaken. There is no such statement. And if you are thinking that all in a single city must be in one assembly, you are similarly mistaken. Neither is even hinted at.

Being a born again believer and a member of the universal body of Christ must be sufficient to grant them connectivity to the whole body of Christ. Unless someone else cuts them off. Unless some group declares that they cannot be connected with us as the body of Christ because they don't come our way. And that is what you do in spades. Cut everyone else off. They (including us here on this forum) do not state that the LRC and its members are not part of the body of Christ. We declare that the LRC's caustic rhetoric concerning everyone that is not part of their group is both poisoning its own members and establishing a wedge in the body that is of their own making.

The fact of any division at the extremes that you claim to exist can only be found due to your own excision of most of the body of Christ. You don't just not need a small toe, you don't need anything but a head. But that head does not appear to be Christ, but Witness Lee.