Is One Church One City a bad idea or unBiblical?

[Sons to Glory!]

Talking about the idea itself, not what all was necessarily associated with it through WN & WL. For instance, in the Kingdom, will there be any names the Lord's people will be known by other than Christ and perhaps the area they would be living in? Will there be any other distinctions other than area or locality? Or will the Lord's people continue to call themselves by other names - Baptist, Methodist, LCer, non-denominational, etc.?

In other words, in the kingdom would the Lord say to someone, "Go and fellowship with my dear Presbyterian saints in Boston," or would He just refer to "My dear saints in Boston?"

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Talking about the idea itself, not what all was necessarily associated with it through WN & WL. For instance, in the Kingdom, will there be any names the Lord's people will be known by other than Christ and perhaps the area they would be living in? Will there be any other distinctions other than area or locality? Or will the Lord's people continue to call themselves by other names - Baptist, Methodist, LCer, non-denominational, etc.?

In other words, in the kingdom would the Lord say to someone, "Go and fellowship with my dear Presbyterian saints in Boston," or would He just refer to "My dear saints in Boston?"

Boston will no longer be there. It will have been nuked.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Talking about the idea itself, not what all was necessarily associated with it through WN & WL. For instance, in the Kingdom, will there be any names the Lord's people will be known by other than Christ and perhaps the area they would be living in? Will there be any other distinctions other than area or locality? Or will the Lord's people continue to call themselves by other names - Baptist, Methodist, LCer, non-denominational, etc.?

In other words, in the kingdom would the Lord say to someone, "Go and fellowship with my dear Presbyterian saints in Boston," or would He just refer to "My dear saints in Boston?"

God gave Adam and Eve separate names, He didn't call them by one name. I imagine He will call us by a unique name He gives to each of His children on an individual basis.

When Christ gathers all the believers into the New Jerusalem, only then will there not exist denominations because in His presence the truth will be fully known (1 Cor 13:12).

"One Church, one city" only works when there's only one city with the Messiah as high priest. Never before and never through a movement like the Lord's Recovery.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Boston will no longer be there. It will have been nuked.

You can't get rid of the Patriots that easily!

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Jo S

God gave Adam and Eve separate names, He didn't call them by one name. I imagine He will call us by a unique name He gives to each of His children on an individual basis.

When Christ gathers all the believers into the New Jerusalem, only then will there not exist denominations because in His presence the truth will be fully known (1 Cor 13:12).

"One Church, one city" only works when there's only one city with the Messiah as high priest. Never before and never through a movement like the Lord's Recovery.

Good point I need to clarify - by saying no name other than Christ, I didn't mean individuals names. (maybe you'll be Jo Christ - LOL)

And perhaps it's useful to get closer to the Greek word that got erroneously translated as "church": ekklesia; meaning assembly or gathering . . . (i.e., "Go to those gathering in My Name in Boston")

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Good point I need to clarify - by saying no name other than Christ, I didn't mean individuals names. (maybe you'll be Jo Christ - LOL)

And perhaps it's useful to get closer to the Greek word that got erroneously translated as "church": ekklesia; meaning assembly or gathering . . . (i.e., "Go to those gathering in My Name in Boston")

Oh I see. In that case I already answered in saying that in that day there will only be one city and one high priest illuminating the entire city so no matter where we're placed we'll all be worshipping the lamb in one spirit and in one accord.

I think this type of complete fellowship that we'll partake in at the New Jerusalem is something all Christians deeply desire yet whenever we attempt to make this a reality in this life, it always ends up going sour and making things worse.

In this life we can worship God in spirit and truth which we are all individually responsible for doing. Until the day he returns, and that also becomes an outward reality, then we have to accept that no group has the complete vision because it's HIS vision. The rest of us only see in part like a mirror's dim reflection.

To say that you're a group that is in possession of Christ's vision, a vision only entrusted to him, and only you have the means to carry it out then in reality your making yourself out to be more blind then all the denomination that don't make such arrogant boasts.

We can be sure of only one thing, that Jesus is the Son of God and that he died and rose again. In that we can boast.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Until the day he returns, and that also becomes an outward reality, then we have to accept that no group has the complete vision because it's HIS vision. The rest of us only see in part like a mirror's dim reflection.

To say that you're a group that is in possession of Christ's vision, a vision only entrusted to him, and only you have the means to carry it out then in reality your making yourself out to be more blind then all the denomination that don't make such arrogant boasts.

That is what I see too. While I think the group I've been meeting with enjoys a very good portion of Christ, we certainly don't have the market cornered! It will take the ENTIRE body of Christ to express Him, and that is the heavenly vision I see conveyed in several places in scripture. It is the height of hubris to think we have seen something so lofty, which knowledge then causes us not to completely embrace our fellow believers without reservation. Lord save us from such folly!

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

That is what I see too. While I think the group I've been meeting with enjoys a very good portion of Christ, we certainly don't have the market cornered! It will take the ENTIRE body of Christ to express Him, and that is the heavenly vision I see conveyed in several places in scripture. It is the height of hubris to think we have seen something so lofty, which knowledge then causes us not to completely embrace our fellow believers without reservation. Lord save us from such folly!

It's wonderful to want to fellowship with other Christians from various backgrounds. However I see a lot of ex-members swinging from the ultra exclusivist mindset taught in the LC's to an ultra liberal mentality toward fellowship after exiting. Christians do have to be careful and use discernment when choosing who to yoke with. This mostly hinges on your personal relationship with God.

So if a group does not bring the whole of the gospel taught in scripture or they teach another Jesus, we are commanded not to greet them or invite them into our houses (2 John 7:11).

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Jo S

It's wonderful to want to fellowship with other Christians from various backgrounds. However I see a lot of ex-members swinging from the ultra exclusivist mindset taught in the LC's to an ultra liberal mentality toward fellowship after exiting. Christians do have to be careful and use discernment when choosing who to yoke with. This mostly hinges on your personal relationship with God.

So if a group does not bring the whole of the gospel taught in scripture or they teach another Jesus, we are commanded not to greet them or invite them into our houses (2 John 7:11).

True that there are many deceivers. However, I think we can embrace any believer if they have the essentials in place, and then we can de-emphasize the nonessentials. That is, if they are not practicing blatantly sinful/damaging things. If they are, they are still brothers and sisters, but we shouldn't meet with them regularly.

One of the most incredible bubbling-up spirit experiences I've had was while reading a WL book called, "The Speciality, Generality& Practicality of the Church Life." In it he conveys just this - that if the essentials are there we can and should have fellowship with any believer. Fringe practices and beliefs are to be diminished, as we focus on Christ. (too bad that the ideas in that wonderful little book are not practiced more!)

What do you think "the essentials" are?

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

True that there are many deceivers. However, I think we can embrace any believer if they have the essentials in place, and then we can de-emphasize the nonessentials. That is, if they are not practicing blatantly sinful/damaging things. If they are, they are still brothers and sisters, but we shouldn't meet with them regularly.

One of the most incredible bubbling-up spirit experiences I've had was while reading a WL book called, "The Speciality, Generality& Practicality of the Church Life." In it he conveys just this - that if the essentials are there we can and should have fellowship with any believer. Fringe practices and beliefs are to be diminished, as we focus on Christ. (too bad that the ideas in that wonderful little book are not practiced more!)

What do you think "the essentials" are?

If Lee ever condoned fellowshipping with other Christians it was for the self-seeking purpose of supplanting that person's faith and making them a member of the Lord's Recovery.

That's the thing with movement's like this. A lot of "truth" is spoken but it's all for the purpose of growing a man-centered movement.

Nee's and Lee's books don't point to the true gospel and the true Jesus of scripture. StG, hanging onto their books and trying to derive good things from them I believe comes from that ultra liberal mindset that I was talking about. Nee too had that eclectic mentality in that there is light available from many different sources.

To use an analogy, it's like rat poison. Rat poison is 99% good food. So even if there was 99% good food in Nee's and Lee's writings, there's that 1% poison that will kill you. You'd do yourself a favor by throwing all their literature away.

Paraphrasing the gospel essentials in my words would be this;

-Jesus is God's begotten son born as a man of God's will and not man's will, as we were (John 1:13).

-Jesus died for the sins of mankind.

-God rose Jesus after 3 days to demonstrate His resurrecting power and confirm Christ's sonship as firstborn of every creature.

-Whomever has godly repentance (2 Cor 7:10), believes in Jesus and is baptized by the Holy Spirit of God (Mark 10:38) will have eternal life.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Jo S

If Lee ever condoned fellowshipping with other Christians it was for the self-seeking purpose of usurping that person's faith and making them a member of the Lord's Recovery.

That's the thing with movement's like this. A lot of "truth" is spoken but it's all for the purpose of growing a man-centered movement.

A good start would be to throw away all the books by Watchman Nee and Witness Lee that you own. They just don't point back to the true gospel and the real Jesus Christ.

Paraphrasing the gospel essentials in my words would be this;

-Jesus is God's begotten son born as a man of God's will and not man's will, as we were (John 1:13).

-Jesus died for the sins of mankind.

-God rose Jesus after 3 days to demonstrate His resurrecting power and confirm Christ's sonship as firstborn of every creature.

-Whomever has godly repentance (2 Cor 7:10) and believes in Jesus and is baptized by the Holy Spirit of God (Mark 10:38) will have eternal life.

Your essentials sound good to me! (although "baptized by the Holy Spirit could bring up different interpretations of what that means. Do you mean indwelt by the HS?)

As far as throwing away all books by WN & WL, it sounds like this is what your conscience is speaking to you. This reminds me of a brother I meet with who cannot read another particular brother's writings, because of a personally divisive thing the author was once connected with. I, on the other-hand, have no such aversion to this one's writings and enjoy them almost daily!

I must admit I don't have many WL books any more, but I purposely kept the one by him I mentioned. The HS just impressed that on me in such a strong and living way that I know it was His speaking to me (now I clearly see that what was spoken in that book was not being practiced in the LC in later years). As different ones have said on this forum many times, it takes some fine discernment to throw the dirty bathwater out and not the baby (Christ) in many of these writings. Some chose to discard it all, and that is fine too. But many of us can't deny that the HS did speak wonderful things through these brothers at some point - but like most all human institutions things went well off the mark eventually.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Your essentials sound good to me! (although "baptized by the Holy Spirit could bring up different interpretations of what that means. Do you mean indwelt by the HS?)


I must admit I don't have many WL books any more, but I purposely kept the one by him I mentioned. The HS just impressed that on me in such a strong and living way that I know it was His speaking to me (now I clearly see that what was spoken in that book was not being practiced in the LC in later years). As different ones have said on this forum many times, it takes some fine discernment to throw the dirty bathwater out and not the baby (Christ) in many of these writings. Some chose to discard it all, and that is fine too. But many of us can't deny that the HS did speak wonderful things through these brothers at some point - but like most all human institutions things went well off the mark eventually.

StG, I never personally owned Nee's or Lee's writing.

If the Local Churches weren't built upon God's truth and teach a different gospel (which I have no doubt about), then Nee and Lee were not led my God's spirit but by the spirit of the world. Therefore, their writings weren't influenced by the Holy Spirit. That's why, to be on the safe side, I recommend anyone seeking God's truth to throw all their literature away lest you become influenced by the same spirits. And try not to waste time in reconciling what they say to scripture, which we know was inspired by God.

As far as being born again, the indwelling of God's spirit is a result of spiritual baptism the moment the old is done away with and the new has come. Jesus at the Jordan, the Apostles at Pentecost, and Saul on the road to Damascus are all examples of spiritual baptism in scripture. Just as a water baptism is a notable occurrence so it is with spiritual baptism. It's an extremely notable moment in time in a Christian's life. It's not merely a tingling or fleeting feeling, it's a powerfully transformative and lasting experience.

Many Christians are like Apollos and only have a water baptism (Acts 18:24–25, Acts 8:16, Acts 19:2 ). You can understand, teach, and live out Christian doctrine well yet not truly know the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

It's not something you can work for and don't try otherwise you may gain a false spiritual experience like you find in the Local Churches and in Charismatic faiths. Being born of the Holy Spirit is like the wind. You can't foresee it so it's not something you can work toward. This happens to individuals only by God's grace and timing. If you're not sure, then you don't yet have it.

Contend each and everyday by keeping faith in Jesus and God's faithful to do the rest.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Jo S

StG, I never personally owned Nee's or Lee's writing.

If the Local Churches weren't built upon God's truth and teach a different gospel (which I have no doubt about), then Nee and Lee were not led my God's spirit but by the spirit of the world. Therefore, their writings weren't influenced by the Holy Spirit. That's why, to be on the safe side, I recommend anyone seeking God's truth to throw all their literature away lest you become influenced by the same spirits. And try not to waste time in reconciling what they say to scripture, which we know was influenced by God.

Well, that could be said of a lot of groups/denominations. A group gets formed based on this or that teaching or practice or whatever, and then they usually continue to degrade from there. But does that mean that the Lord isn't speaking through any of what they produce? As I mentioned (forget if it was on this thread or not), I've heard incredible, uplifting and Christ centered things come through Roman Catholic priests! Now do I believe that all coming out of the church in Rome has been good, Biblically accurate teachings and practice? By no means (and the inverse is definitely true there and you could say their foundation was pretty rotten from the beginning)!

Millions have been helped the world over by WN's teachings and continue to be helped. I know people recently who have gotten into Nee's, "The Normal Christian Life" and have been released from misconceptions and have been drawn into a fresher walk with Jesus. (and they haven't been sucked into any strange beliefs, practices or cultish groups, etc.)

But Jo, if you don't find yourself being fed of the Lord by any of these books, then, by all means, avoid them!

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Well, that could be said of a lot of groups/denominations. A group gets formed based on this or that teaching or practice or whatever, and then they usually continue to degrade from there. But does that mean that the Lord isn't speaking through any of what they produce? As I mentioned (forget if it was on this thread or not), I've heard incredible, uplifting and Christ centered things come through Roman Catholic priests! Now do I believe that all coming out of the church in Rome has been good, Biblically accurate teachings and practice? By no means (and the inverse is definitely true there and you could say their foundation was pretty rotten from the beginning)!

Millions have been helped the world over by WN's teachings and continue to be helped. I know people recently who have gotten into Nee's, "The Normal Christian Life" and have been released from misconceptions and have been drawn into a fresher walk with Jesus. (and they haven't been sucked into any strange beliefs, practices or cultish groups, etc.)

But Jo, if you don't find yourself being fed of the Lord by any of these books, then, by all means, avoid them!

It's true, no denomination has gotten every detail right in doctrine. As scripture says, we all see through a dimly lit mirror.

But this is the main difference between most mainstream Christian denominations and the Local Churches, they don't teach a false gospel and a false Christ.

I sense StG, by you trying to reconcile your experience of the LC's to biblical Christianity, you're trying to validate and justify denial. Doing this, you're not only lying to yourself you're lying to others. I'm sorry if that offends you.

Scripture tells Christians seeking God's truth not to yoke in anyway to groups that do not bring the fundamentals of the apostles teachings. This is my basis for recommending to everyone to discard all Local Church material. I don't see it as a case by case basis. But ultimately it's something God has to personally convict you of.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Jo S

It's true, no denomination has gotten every detail right in doctrine. As scripture says, we all see through a dimly lit mirror.

But this is the main difference between most mainstream Christian denominations and the Local Churches, they don't teach a false gospel and a false Christ.

I sense StG, by you trying to reconcile your experience of the LC's to biblical Christianity, you're trying to validate and justify denial. Doing this, you're not only lying to yourself you're lying to others. I'm sorry if that offends you.

Scripture tells Christians seeking God's truth not to yoke in anyway to groups that do not bring the fundamentals of the apostles teachings. This is my basis for recommending to everyone to discard all Local Church material. I don't see it as a case by case basis.

No offense. I'm fine and at peace with what is on my "reading radar" or my past, and realize all of us have "warts.' Some who have been in prominent public ministries have really big and apparent warts. I choose to eat certain meats, and your conscience doesn't allow it. Great!

God has shown me my experience with the LC was all for a purpose - I was lead there in 1974 and He lead me out in 1988. He amazingly preserved me from many of the most damaging things and 20 years ago He began showing me some key errors I had picked up in the LC. Now everything is the best it can be, according to His love and grace toward me! (that could be a chorus line in a song!)

The terms "biblical Christianity" or "false gospel" or "false Christ" or "fundamentals of apostle's teaching" that you mentioned are pretty loose definitions. What specifically do you think those terms encompass?

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

No offense. I'm fine and at peace with what is on my "reading radar" or my past, and realize all of us have "warts.' Some who have been in prominent public ministries have really big and apparent warts. I choose to eat certain meats, and your conscience doesn't allow it. Great!

God has shown me my experience with the LC was all for a purpose - I was lead there in 1974 and He lead me out in 1988. He amazingly preserved me from many of the most damaging things and 20 years ago He began showing me some key errors I had picked up in the LC. Now everything is the best it can be, according to His love and grace toward me! (that could be a chorus line in a song!)

The terms "biblical Christianity" or "false gospel" or "false Christ" or "fundamentals of apostle's teaching" that you mentioned are pretty loose definitions. What specifically do you think those terms encompass?

I'm glad you were led out, StG. Myself being merely scorched by the Local Churches has even left discoloration that's difficult to wash off. I cannot imagine what the road to recovery looks like for long time members and those born into it.

And you're right, those terms can have pretty loose definitions but so can any term, really.

False Christ in the case of the LC's is a gnostic, modalistic, and esoteric Christ. This is the same Christ that the apostles repeatedly warned the gentiles of.

False gospel in the case of the LC's is one that neglects repentance and baptism by the Holy spirit and instead replaces it with mysticism. It's one that also attacks God's sovereignty through their foundational doctrine of locality.

Biblical Christianity simply means adhering to the simplicity of the gospel of salvation and to the Jesus of scripture.

[Sons to Glory!]

Jo - it says you're from Ohio. Were you with one of the Ohio churches? We were in Columbus as part of the LC there for about 5 years. Ohio LC's were considered something of a renegade and didn't tow the strict LSM line all the time.

We had saints all over the map - some pretty strictly following all things LSM and others not so much. Eventually, after we moved away, this caused a huge split in Columbus, resulting in one half locking the other half out of the meeting hall! I was glad to be lead away prior to that mess!

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Jo - it says you're from Ohio. Were you with one of the Ohio churches? We were in Columbus as part of the LC there for about 5 years. Ohio LC's were considered something of a renegade and didn't tow the strict LSM line all the time.

We had saints all over the map - some pretty strictly following all things LSM and others not so much. Eventually, after we moved away, this caused a huge split in Columbus, resulting in one half locking the other half out of the meeting hall! I was glad to be lead away prior to that mess!

I've had contact with Cleveland and surrounding local churches but not Columbus although I've met a few members from there at conferences.

Titus run LC's definitely look a bit different outwardly than LSM's, from what I've gathered, but they still adhere to the same core doctrines of the Lord's Recovery.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Paraphrasing the gospel essentials in my words would be this;

-Jesus is God's begotten son born as a man of God's will and not man's will, as we were (John 1:13).

-Jesus died for the sins of mankind.

-God rose Jesus after 3 days to demonstrate His resurrecting power and confirm Christ's sonship as firstborn of every creature.

-Whomever has godly repentance (2 Cor 7:10), believes in Jesus and is baptized by the Holy Spirit of God (Mark 10:38) will have eternal life.

So how do you see the LC's beliefs regarding each of those points?

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

So how do you see the LC's beliefs regarding each of those points?

As far as I'm aware, LC doctrine doesn't contradict the first 3 points. The major issue is the last point on repentance and baptism.

The LC's teach that one needs to be "filled" with "the spirit" through calling on the Lord, pray-reading, and other various mystical works based exercises. Where as scripture teaches when true repentance and faith take place in a believer's heart, God reveals Himself and gifts us with His Holy Spirit. Through this we are transformed and given a new heart and mind. This transformation comes by faith and not by any works.

The LC teach this spirit "filling" is something that needs to continuously be topped off by ritual exercises where as God says to His children born of His spirit that He will never leave us nor forsake us so there is no need to have to do rituals in order to "gain" Him.

What really happens through LC practices is not an indwelling of the Holy Spirit but by manipulating the psychic realm through mysticism the practitioner genuinely touches the spiritual plane but it's merely a general fleeting spiritual experience, not a personal encounter with the Lord God. And so by opening the veil by man's effort, and not having Godly discernment, lying and deceiving spirits come through and teach a false gospel and a false Christ.

This is what happened with Nee and Lee. And this is what happens to all those that place their faith in these men's ministry.

[byHismercy]

Originally Posted by Jo S

If Lee ever condoned fellowshipping with other Christians it was for the self-seeking purpose of supplanting that person's faith and making them a member of the Lord's Recovery.

That's the thing with movement's like this. A lot of "truth" is spoken but it's all for the purpose of growing a man-centered movement.

Nee's and Lee's books don't point to the true gospel and the true Jesus of scripture. StG, hanging onto their books and trying to derive good things from them I believe comes from that ultra liberal mindset that I was talking about. Nee too had that eclectic mentality in that there is light available from many different sources.

To use an analogy, it's like rat poison. Rat poison is 99% good food. So even if there was 99% good food in Nee's and Lee's writings, there's that 1% poison that will kill you. You'd do yourself a favor by throwing all their literature away.

Paraphrasing the gospel essentials in my words would be this;

-Jesus is God's begotten son born as a man of God's will and not man's will, as we were (John 1:13).

-Jesus died for the sins of mankind.

-God rose Jesus after 3 days to demonstrate His resurrecting power and confirm Christ's sonship as firstborn of every creature.

-Whomever has godly repentance (2 Cor 7:10), believes in Jesus and is baptized by the Holy Spirit of God (Mark 10:38) will have eternal life.

Yep. Totally agree with Jo S here. Better yet, burn those Nee and Lee books. As soon as I read about the elevation of Lee to MOTA, little acting God on earth, Gods Oracle of the age, etc., I was so repulsed inwardly, in spirit, that I collected every book of theirs and burned them in the fireplace that winter day. That night, a demon rushed me, snarling in my face. I was lying in bed trying to go to sleep and I saw this ugly thing ***with my eyes closed***! I rebuked it in Jesus name and it left immediately.

I have always practiced seeking the Lord when it comes to possessions in my home. Usually books, music, movies, and sometimes patterns on fabrics or pictures, always statues. Some Christians may see this as extreme or even crazy. But He is faithful to shine if you seek His opinion on items. Once my brother traveled all the way to Africa and was kind enough to bring me a wall hanging, it was an image painted on fabric. For so long it troubled me inwardly but I kept it, hanging on my wall, because I cherished this gift from my big bro. Finally, I searched the image online and found out it was an idol. A filthy thing. A 'coco peli', I think it was. I threw it away, and Jesus released me from the 'obligation' I felt towards it, and towards my dear brother.

Come to think of it, not just objects. I remember breaking up with a boyfriend after witnessing a demon snarling out at me from his face. He literally transformed into this things image momentarily. Lol. That was the end of that, praise Jesus!

It has everything to do with standing with Christ. Rejection of things that are against Him, or really, things that are with Antichrist.

I believe the demon that tried to attack me after the Lee book burn was able to hide in those ministry books all along because the Lee jesus is another jesus. It is another gospel. I never would have thought it possible before everything that has transpired over the last couple years. The Lee ministry fruit is rotten. The source was rotten in sin. The tree is bad. Good for burning, though, lol!

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

Yep. Totally agree with Jo S here. Better yet, burn those Nee and Lee books. As soon as I read about the elevation of Lee to MOTA, little acting God on earth, Gods Oracle of the age, etc., I was so repulsed inwardly, in spirit, that I collected every book of theirs and burned them in the fireplace that winter day. That night, a demon rushed me, snarling in my face. I was lying in bed trying to go to sleep and I saw this ugly thing ***with my eyes closed***! I rebuked it in Jesus name and it left immediately..........Some Christians may see this as extreme or even crazy. But He is faithful to shine if you seek His opinion on items.

It's not crazy at all. I have a similar testimony.

Before I knew what the Local Churches were all about, I was gifted some LC literature. With an open mind and a sincere attempt at trying to understand LC culture, I went ahead and started reading one of the pamphlets. While everything read good on the surface, for whatever reason I couldn't get through more than a few pages. It seems whenever I'd pick up the material, my conscience would bother me. I ended up having to return it all.

While I didn't see any demons, I did sense spiritual oppression. It's one of the things that moved me to further research the movement. It is this experience, along with scripture, that persuades me to recommend others to discard Local Church material.

As far as idols in the home, I agree. The Jews wouldn't be caught dead with idols in their temple and since our homes are one place we worship God it only makes sense that we be conscious and respectful to God of what we keep in them.

[byHismercy]

Yes, I have experienced that oppression, too. When my SDA friend gave me 4 Ellen G. White books to 'help' me into her church, I longed to look into them. At that time I was trying to learn all I could about her faith, and then studying, writing, point by point contradictions I found with Gods word. I kept them, but the Spirit said no. They went further and further away from our family living space until eventually being outside the house, in a detached shed. Then the trash can. God is jealous over His children. Even though my intent was to get informed to better share the truth of Christ with her, and I was deeply curious, God would not have it.

I only wish I had that kind of discernment when I first touched the LC material.

[Sons to Glory!]

Jo & BHM - wow! Quite some experiences! It is a little frightening when the veil is pulled away and we see just a bit of the unseen world around us! But hallelujah - we have not been given a spirit of fear, but of power and love and of a sound mind!

Jo - thanks for going through the four items of belief that you gave. At some point I'd like to discuss #4 more, but right now, may we return to the topic I started this thread with?: Is the one church (ekklesia) in one city a bad idea or unbiblical?

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Jo - thanks for going through the four items of belief that you gave. At some point I'd like to discuss #4 more, but right now, may we return to the topic I started this thread with?: Is the one church (ekklesia) in one city a bad idea or unbiblical?

Sorry StG, I didn't mean to steer your thread off topic. May I reduce all my ramblings into a short answer?

Is the one church (ekklesia) in one city a bad idea or unbiblical?

Yes and no.

Christ's version of one church (his raptured body of believers) in one city (New Jerusalem); No, not a bad idea

The Local Churches version of one gathering (ekklesia) in every single city on the face of the earth under a central leadership; Yes, very bad idea

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Jo & BHM - wow! Quite some experiences! It is a little frightening when the veil is pulled away and we see just a bit of the unseen world around us! But hallelujah - we have not been given a spirit of fear, but of power and love and of a sound mind!

Jo - thanks for going through the four items of belief that you gave. At some point I'd like to discuss #4 more, but right now, may we return to the topic I started this thread with?: Is the one church (ekklesia) in one city a bad idea or unbiblical?

I like the fact that the early believers did not call themselves by a religious name as they did not follow an organized 'christian' group. The true believers believed in the Resurrection of Jesus, the Power of His shed Blood, the forgiveness of sins, were filled with the Holy Spirit and were breaking bread from house to house..encouraging one another in Christ.

I don't believe for one minute God is happy with denominations here on earth. But He does not throw out the baby with the bath water. So if a believer considers himself/herself a Baptist, Catholic or whatever yet truly is born again and is following the Lord as best they can, God is not going to judge them for calling themselves a Baptist or whatever.

I am reminded of 1 Corinthians 1:11-13
For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you. 12 Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.” 13 Has Christ been divided?

P.S. I hate it when people ask me 'what church do you go to?'

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

I like the fact that the early believers did not call themselves by a religious name as they did not follow an organized 'christian' group. The true believers believed in the Resurrection of Jesus, the Power of His shed Blood, the forgiveness of sins, were filled with the Holy Spirit and were breaking bread from house to house..encouraging one another in Christ.

I don't believe for one minute God is happy with denominations here on earth. But He does not throw out the baby with the bath water. So if a believer considers himself/herself a Baptist, Catholic or whatever yet truly is born again and is following the Lord as best they can, God is not going to judge them for calling themselves a Baptist or whatever.

I am reminded of 1 Corinthians 1:11-13
For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you. 12 Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.” 13 Has Christ been divided?

P.S. I hate it when people ask me 'what church do you go to?'

Agree with all you said. The "what church do you go to?" question used to drive me a little bonkers too, but less so the older I've gotten. It is just the current state of things, which only He can correct. Even the phrase "go to church" doesn't bother me much any more, as I realize that's just what people's traditional concept is. Actually, if they meant "go to the gathering" then it would be fine, but usually they really mean the physical building. (and the word "church" itself is a funny word too - it's really interesting that ekklesia wasn't translated as gathering or assembly but rather "church"!)

So whatever believers call themselves, my role is to just love 'em and share Christ with 'em.

Originally Posted by Jo S

The Local Churches version of one gathering (ekklesia) in every single city on the face of the earth under a central leadership; Yes, very bad idea

The central authority shouldn't be part of it. I'm simply referring to how the early Christians identified themselves, and it was usually by location of the area they were in. Sometimes it is also identified as the gathering in someone's home. (And yes, the central leadership thing is a really bad idea and usurps Christ's headship - the biggest example, of course, is the Church in Rome!)

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

The central authority shouldn't be part of it. I'm simply referring to how the early Christians identified themselves, and it was usually by location of the area they were in. Sometimes it is also identified as the gathering in someone's home. (And yes, the central leadership thing is a really bad idea and usurps Christ's headship - the biggest example, of course, is the Church in Rome!)

Identifying by a city or denomination makes little difference. Even is Revelation, each city had different influences and characteristics that set them apart from each other.

In the early church, it seemed that the further the gospel got from the epicenter, Jerusalem, the more the Christian faith branched off.

"One church, one city" is a nice sounding ideal but it's not something we can bring to fruition in this age. It's too great of a vision for any one movement or even a combination of movements to handle. Historically when humanity tried to accomplish this by their own strength we got the universal Roman Catholic church. That will be the end for every movement that attempts to fulfill Jesus's vision. Only he can establish his vision and he will do it at his 2nd coming in a twinkling of an eye.

I agree, central authority shouldn't be a part of Christianity but that's just the way it is and will be until Christ returns, raptures his church, and personally establishes his central authority in the New Jerusalem.

The truth is we are inherently a rebellious people so God allows human government to exist within society and all religions for this reason. We may think that we can handle living out our faith without leadership (perhaps some individuals are more capable then others) but as a whole without any governing authority it'll just become spiritual anarchy. We just have to bear with the segregation until Jesus returns.

It should go without saying but when leadership oversteps their bounds and commits crime, call the police! God established the police for that reason.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Jo S

In the early church, it seemed that the further the gospel got from the epicenter, Jerusalem, the more the Christian faith branched off.

"One church, one city" is a nice sounding ideal but it's not something we can bring to fruition in this age. It's too great of a vision for any one movement or even a combination of movements to handle. Historically when humanity tried to accomplish this by their own strength then we got the universal Roman Catholic church. That will be the end for every movement that attempts to fulfill Jesus's vision. Only he can establish his vision and he will do it at his 2nd coming in a twinkling of an eye.

I agree, central authority shouldn't be a part of Christianity but that's just the way it is and will be until Christ returns, raptures his church, and personally establishes his central authority in the New Jerusalem.

The truth is we are inherently a rebellious people so God allows human government to exist within society and all religions for this reason. We may think that we can handle living out our faith without leadership (perhaps some individuals are more capable then others) but as a whole without any governing authority it'll just become spiritual anarchy. We just have to bear with the segregation until Jesus returns.

Agree! And the LC is a good example of that. In the beginning - mid 1960s - the churches in various localities were living and vibrant and pretty much autonomous. But over a few years things started to gravitate more and more to Anaheim.

By the time I hit Berkeley in 1974, things were still living, but Anaheim and WL were starting to exercise a sort of covert authority over local matters. This was even though there was a lot of preaching about how each local church was fully autonomous. But the practice became more and more towards overt central authority. The speed at which this took place certainly seems like an indicator that WL, et. al., had authoritarian designs from the beginning, but I couldn't say for sure. Man's dirty hands were definitely in "the pie."

By the time we made it to the LC in Columbus OH in the 80s, the central authority was getting quite jelled in most areas. But as mentioned before, the churches in Ohio did not come under the authority as well as the command & control liked. This was the same for some of the gatherings in Washington state. Both areas suffered measures taken by Anaheim against them, for not coming fully under the central control of LSM.

Much damage was done to dear ones (church splits, etc.) in both areas because of the overt central control exerted. But I can testify that we're here in Scottsdale as a result of all that, enjoying Christ with one another - thanks be to God - He had a way through it all!

Man's control, whether it is a central church's control over localities or within a particular group, suppresses the working of the Holy Spirit. I'm amazed to experience on a regular basis how much better the Spirit can move and speak, when He is not subjected to a bunch of control!

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Man's control, whether it is a central church's control over localities, or within a particular group, suppresses the working of the Holy Spirit. I amazed to see on a regular basis, how much better the Spirit can move and speak, when He is not subjected to a bunch of control!)

The more rebellious the Jews were, the harsher the government God allowed to rule over them. It's the reason I don't buy the us vs them victim mentality when it comes to laity/clergy.

I personally question what "spirit" is being enjoyed within the majority of the Local Churches. Freely enjoying the wrong spirit is exactly what I was alluding to, spiritual anarchy. Too much control doesn't solve the problem, it just serves as a wake up call.

If you've truly repented of the false beliefs within the Local Churches and as a result were reconciled to Christ and set free from their authority, then praise God. However if you left on your own accord without repentance then the Local Churches still have authority over you. It's one reason I believe a lot of ex-members struggle to shake off the LC's even after decades.

I know one reason God allowed me to become involved with the LC's was because of sin of my own. Witnessing some of the things within the LC's allowed me to realize that I held similar views which led to pride and an exclusive mentality. Even thought it was a painful process God used it for good, humbled me, and hopefully allowed me to reach others because of it.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Jo S

The more rebellious the Jews were, the harsher the government God allowed to rule over them. It's the reason I don't buy the us vs them victim mentality when it comes to laity/clergy.

I personally question what "spirit" is being enjoyed within the majority of the Local Churches. Freely enjoying the wrong spirit is exactly what I was alluding to, spiritual anarchy. Too much control doesn't solve the problem, it just serves as a wake up call.

If you've truly repented of the false beliefs within the Local Churches and as a result were set free from their authority, then praise God. However if you left on your own accord without repentance then the Local Churches still have authority over you. It's one reason I believe a lot of ex-members struggle to shake off the LC's even after decades.

I know one reason God allowed me to become involved with the LC's was because of sin of my own. Witnessing some of the things within the LC's allowed me to realize that I held similar views which led to pride and an exclusive mentality. Even thought it was a painful process, God used it for good and humbled me.

So are you saying that God allows the clergy to be over the laity because the laity is rebellious? If so, that is an interesting thought, which I've not considered before. Is that like we deserve the ineffective, fragmented and polarized federal government we now have, because it's basically a reflection of who we've become?

Concerning the spirit the LC now enjoys, you seem to have a much darker view of these ones than I do. Personally, I try to withhold ultimate judgement of other believers, because that's His job - I don't know that I'm qualified. (And it limits the Spirit flowing in fellowship with others . . . ) My view is that they're just lost in a system and haven't yet been shown what I have (by His mercy & grace).

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

So are you saying that God allows the clergy to be over the laity because the laity is rebellious? If so, that is an interesting thought, which I've not considered before. Is that like we deserve the ineffective, fragmented and polarized federal government we now have, because it's basically a reflection of who we've become?

Concerning the spirit the LC now enjoys, you seem to have a much darker view of these ones than I do. Personally, I try to withhold ultimate judgement of other believers, because that's His job - I don't know that I'm qualified. (And it limits the Spirit flowing in fellowship with others . . . ) My view is that they're just lost in a system and haven't yet been shown what I have (by His mercy & grace).

Yes, I really do believe that's what's shown in scripture. However because God allows clergy, it isn't a free pass for leadership to commit crime.

As for my "dark view" on the spirit's within the LC's. It's not a careless judgment made on a whim. I once had to repent of spiritual adultery and so know what it looks like.

No matter if the "light" you're receiving "feels" good or is even delivered to you by an angel, test it! Because Satan himself transforms into an angel of light...

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Jo S

If Lee ever condoned fellowshipping with other Christians it was for the self-seeking purpose of supplanting that person's faith and making them a member of the Lord's Recovery.

Early 1960's that wasn't the case. Lee would go wherever he was invited. My dad would tell me stories of a brother driving Lee from Las Vegas to Twin Falls where he was invited. Sure there was other places too.
Fast forward to the late 1990's brothers would use the prophesying meeting to illustrate fellowshipping with other Christians as "shaking hands over the fence".

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Terry

Early 1960's that wasn't the case. Lee would go wherever he was invited. My dad would tell me stories of a brother driving Lee from Las Vegas to Twin Falls where he was invited. Sure there was other places too.

Fast forward to the late 1990's brothers would use the prophesying meeting to illustrate fellowshipping with other Christians as "shaking hands over the fence".

My theory would be that Lee and his ideas were rejected at some point early on by other Christians so rather than consider constructive criticism and admit wrong, he projected and made all other Christians the enemy.

This pattern, I believe, started with Nee. Watchman Nee was disfellowshipped by the Brethren so perhaps he thought to himself that he can do better and went ahead to create his very own movement in opposition yet retaining much of the Brethren structure.

Mohamed of Islam was rejected as a prophet by the Jewish Sanhedrin in Jerusalem, in offense he went on to created Islam and made Judaism his enemy yet all the while claiming to be a part of the Abrahamic faith.

It seems to be a pattern with false teachers and prophets... This attitude reminds me of Isaiah 9:10

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Jo S

My theory would be that Lee and his ideas were rejected at some point early on by other Christians so rather than consider constructive criticism and admit wrong, he projected and made all other Christians the enemy.

This pattern, I believe, started with Nee. Watchman Nee was disfellowshipped by the Brethren so perhaps he thought to himself that he can do better and went ahead to create his very own movement in opposition yet retaining much of the Brethren structure.

We were told the reason other Christians rejected WL was twofold: 1) He was against the clergy/laity system; 2) the one church one city idea. That is, both were threatening to the existing system of clergy.

Regarding WN being disfellowshipped by the Brethren, I think I read recently in a T. Austin Sparks writing, that Nee was rejected by them because he was having fellowship with Sparks - whom the Brethren had previously disfellowshipped.

Does anybody have a clear idea about either one of these things with WL and WN?

[Cal]

The LR is against the clergy/laity system? What doublespeak! I think even George Orwell would be shocked. They have the most clergy-dominated laity in the world, yet they claim to be against the clergy/laity system.

Can't make this stuff up, folks. Can't make it up.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The LR is against the clergy/laity system? What doublespeak! I think even George Orwell would be shocked. They have the most clergy-dominated laity in the world, yet they claim to be against the clergy/laity system.
.

Never thought about it like that! But if you look now at some of the things they do, like the full-time trainings, they do have a ton of rules and codes the ruling class has come up with! (at least that's according to what I've heard from those who've been in the full time trainings)

I can say that there was not much like that apparent to me back in the 70s, at least not that I had exposure to. But when some of these overt things really started to come in - in the late 70s and 80s, there started to be the flavor of more and more control. Glad the Lord kept me out of that stuff!!

[byHismercy]

Sorry for going so far off topic, Sonstoglory. May I make a radical suggestion?

There is currently, one church. There is only the body of believers composed of those who have chosen to trust in Christ and receive the Holy Spirit.

There is one city in eternity. The new Jerusalem.

These two things are the one church, one city.

These two are not easily seen by us now, but the spiritual reality of these things is already here. The things we can easily see are just an illusion, in a sense. The denominations are not eternal. Physical cities and deliniations here in earth are temporal. No need to worry about the model set forth by the local church. Just another deception that the Lord needs to shine through.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

Sorry for going so far off topic, Sonstoglory. May I make a radical suggestion?

There is currently, one church. There is only the body of believers composed of those who have chosen to trust in Christ and receive the Holy Spirit.

There is one city in eternity. The new Jerusalem.

These two things are the one church, one city.

These two are not easily seen by us now, but the spiritual reality of these things is already here. The things we can easily see are just an illusion, in a sense. The denominations are not eternal. Physical cities and deliniations here in earth are temporal. No need to worry about the model set forth by the local church. Just another deception that the Lord needs to shine through.

Amen! I struggle to be as eloquent but that about sums it up.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

Sorry for going so far off topic, Sonstoglory. May I make a radical suggestion?

There is currently, one church. There is only the body of believers composed of those who have chosen to trust in Christ and receive the Holy Spirit.

There is one city in eternity. The new Jerusalem.

These two things are the one church, one city.

These two are not easily seen by us now, but the spiritual reality of these things is already here. The things we can easily see are just an illusion, in a sense. The denominations are not eternal. Physical cities and deliniations here in earth are temporal. No need to worry about the model set forth by the local church. Just another deception that the Lord needs to shine through.

Not off topic - right on! Agree with all you said. My question is just as it's stated: Is the one church one city a bad idea or unBiblical?

On this forum we get set to immediately throw out anything the LC has taught as being off the mark. So I was wondering if the OCOC teaching is clearly represented in the Bible - for example, "the church in Ephesus" - or is it a made up teaching? (or is that maybe too simplistic?)

[byHismercy]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Yes, I really do believe that's what's shown in scripture. However because God allows clergy, it isn't a free pass for leadership to commit crime.

As for my "dark view" on the spirit's within the LC's. It's not a careless judgment made on a whim. I once had to repent of spiritual adultery and so know what it looks like.

No matter if the "light" you're receiving "feels" good or is even delivered to you by an angel, test it! Because Satan himself transforms into an angel of light...

Jo, would you say the best way to test a teaching, or 'light's, or doctrine, is to compare it to Gods' word? And pray? This is how the Lord really shone on falsehoods I received from the LC. Are there any other practical ways to test spirit's? Seems like a silly question even as I type it.....

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

Jo, would you say the best way to test a teaching, or 'light's, or doctrine, is to compare it to Gods' word? And pray? This is how the Lord really shone on falsehoods I received from the LC. Are there any other practical ways to test spirit's? Seems like a silly question even as I type it.....

Yes and Yes! Both.

Testing the spirits is simply challenging your views and inward feelings in prayer and by scripture.

If you go day to day with your inner spiritual life unchecked never questioning or challenging yourself, you may be deceived.

However if you do find that courage, be prepared for a battle. Trust Jesus and test all things!

[byHismercy]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Not off topic - right on! Agree with all you said. My question is just as it's stated: Is the one church one city a bad idea or unBiblical?

On this forum we get set to immediately throw out anything the LC has taught as being off the mark. So I was wondering if the OCOC teaching is clearly represented in the Bible - for example, "the church in Ephesus" - or is it a made up teaching? (or is that maybe too simplistic?)

I dunked myself in Galatians 5 for an answer to this question. Paul is marveling at the deception the saints were already accepting, another, perverted gospel of Christ had come in. In chapter 5 Paul exerts the Galatian believers to STAND FAST therefore in the LIBERTY wherewith CHRIST HAS MADE US FREE, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. And, a little leaven leavens the whole lump. And Paul warned that this persuasion comes not of Him.

The law they were being persuaded to keep was regarding circumcision, not OCOC. However it was not from Christ!!!

I don't know if I am right or wrong in thinking this, but I correlate this pressure to keep a law that satisfied the religious Jews DIRECTLY to OCOC. Nowhere in the gospel of Christ, no where in holy scripture do I see such a commandment. It is man made doctrine. A law which is levered against the body of Christ unrighteously, and DOES NOT COME FROM CHRIST. If you cannot satisfy the OCOC law of LSM, you are rejected from fellowship. So the fruit of this doctrine becomes division, which here in Gal 5 after vs19 is similar to the list of the works of the flesh listed....variance, seditions, (discord, dissensions). It is all leavened. The whole LC lump is leavened by a little leaven.

It is ok to throw it all out and start again with the purity of our faith in Christ. And even as Jo said, have we repented from the false things we accepted from the LC?

I know I asked Jesus to wash me of everything LC, and I repented for going along with things which I KNEW in my heart were not from scripture.

I want the Lord to correct me of all false beliefs by His word. And He does.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

I dunked myself in Galatians 5 for an answer to this question. Paul is marveling at the deception the saints were already accepting, another, perverted gospel of Christ had come in. In chapter 5 Paul exerts the Galatian believers to STAND FAST therefore in the LIBERTY wherewith CHRIST HAS MADE US FREE, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. And, a little leaven leavens the whole lump. And Paul warned that this persuasion comes not of Him.

The law they were being persuaded to keep was regarding circumcision, not OCOC. However it was not from Christ!!!

I don't know if I am right or wrong in thinking this, but I correlate this pressure to keep a law that satisfied the religious Jews DIRECTLY to OCOC. Nowhere in the gospel of Christ, no where in holy scripture do I see such a commandment. It is man made doctrine. A law which is levered against the body of Christ unrighteously, and DOES NOT COME FROM CHRIST. If you cannot satisfy the OCOC law of LSM, you are rejected from fellowship. So the fruit of this doctrine becomes division, which here in Gal 5 after vs19 is similar to the list of the works of the flesh listed....variance, seditions, (discord, dissensions). It is all leavened. The whole LC lump is leavened by a little leaven.

It is ok to throw it all out and start again with the purity of our faith in Christ. And even as Jo said, have we repented from the false things we accepted from the LC?

I know I asked Jesus to wash me of everything LC, and I repented for going along with things which I KNEW in my heart were not from scripture.

I want the Lord to correct me of all false beliefs by His word. And He does.

Thanks. But can we remove all the LC taint from the idea? That is, I agree the LC makes this into some big law, which is clearly an error! The thing is, I see churches in various localities mentioned in the NT, as well as churches (ekklesia - gatherings) in certain one's homes. There is little mention of anything else, other than Paul's admonition of not dividing and saying we are of so & so, or even Christ (if meant in a fleshly way, is also divisive).

We don't have to make a law of OCOC, it's just that I see no other principle called out. And no, we are not told to follow OCOC. It's just a simple thing that the apostles called believers according to the location they were in. Pretty simple, right?

[Cal]

The reality of the one church in the city will be realized. We pray about it a lot in my prayer group, where it is referred to as "the big 'C' church of Austin.'

But it will NOT be realized according to the LR model. Where one group claims the ground and then says everyone needs to join them. It will be realized by the willing cooperation believers. Not by the assertion of authority of a few self-appointed leaders.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Thanks. But can we remove all the LC taint from the idea? That is, I agree the LC makes this into some big law, which is clearly an error! The thing is, I see churches in various localities mentioned in the NT, as well as churches (ekklesia - gatherings) in certain one's homes. There is little mention of anything else, other than Paul's admonition of not dividing and saying we are of so & so, or even Christ (if meant in a fleshly way, is also divisive).

We don't have to make a law of OCOC, it's just that I see no other principle called out. And no, we are not told to follow OCOC. It's just a simple thing that the apostles called believers according to the location they were in. Pretty simple, right?

byHisMercy has a good point, StG. My question is; why even focus energy on this ideal? It's not a concept that's explicitly commanded of us to fulfill in scripture but rather the condition of early church fellowship was simply an acknowledgement of the reality in Paul's time. It's not that way anymore, denominations are here to stay.

Will perfecting a concept change the hearts of men? Just as byHisMercy suggested, we need to focus on the purity of our faith in Jesus individually first then maybe one day we'll be witnesses of the perfected OCOC vision in glory. Taking a bottom-up approach will only serve as a yoke and a distraction for believers.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The reality of the one church in the city will be realized. We pray about it a lot in my prayer group, where it is referred to as "the big 'C' church of Austin.'

But it will NOT be realized according to the LR model. Where one group claims the ground and then says everyone needs to join them. It will be realized by the willing cooperation believers. Not by the assertion of authority of a few self-appointed leaders.

Igzy, even if you suggest the transfer of authority from a few leaders to the entire body of believers you're still placing the burden on man to complete Christ's vision.

Is the New Jerusalem something you think will be a result of the concerted effort of Christians?

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Jo S

byHisMercy has a good point, StG. My question is; why even focus energy on this ideal? It's not a concept that's explicitly commanded of us to fulfill in scripture but rather the condition of early church fellowship was simply an acknowledgement of the reality in Paul's time. It's not that way anymore, denominations are here to stay.

Will perfecting a concept change the hearts of men? Just as byHisMercy suggested, we need to focus on the purity of our faith in Jesus individually first then maybe one day we'll be witnesses of the perfected OCOC vision in glory. Taking a bottom-up approach will only serve as a yoke and a distraction for believers.

Nope. Don't read anything into it other than what the question starting this thread out states - that's all I'm asking about. No man-made anything.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The reality of the one church in the city will be realized. We pray about it a lot in my prayer group, where it is referred to as "the big 'C' church of Austin.'

But it will NOT be realized according to the LR model. Where one group claims the ground and then says everyone needs to join them. It will be realized by the willing cooperation believers. Not by the assertion of authority of a few self-appointed leaders.

Agreed. A man-made anything amounts to nothing.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Igzy, even if you suggest the transfer of authority from a few leaders to the entire body of believers you're still placing the burden on man to complete Christ's vision.

Is the New Jerusalem something you think will be a result of the concerted effort of Christians?

I'm not saying the believers will do it. I'm saying that God is working so that we all "arrive at the unity of the faith." So as that approaches we will naturally cooperate and coordinate more, and the church in the city will begin to be seen. But it won't be through our effort, planning or pushing. It will be the natural result of the work of the Spirit. We are already seeing that it the city in which I live. The city church is just the universal church viewed at the local level.

Now I'm not saying we will all start meeting under the same organization. But I don't think God cares much about that anyway. In fact, one human organization, like the LR, actually hinders, not helps, what he he trying to do, because it restricts his ability to move his members spontaneously. History shows that the efforts of man to organize "oneness" ossify and become a hindrance, not a help. I think it is by definition impossible for man to police large scale "oneness" in a healthy way. I just don't think God ever intended that to work.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I'm not saying the believers will do it. I'm saying that God is working so that we all "arrive at the unity of the faith." So as that approaches we will naturally cooperate and coordinate more, and the church in the city will begin to be seen. But it won't be through our effort, planning or pushing. It will be the natural result of the work of the Spirit. We are already seeing that it the city in which I live. The city church is just the universal church viewed at the local level.

I have had that same sense for some time now. That is, when His love is truly experienced in and through us, ALL the nonsensical things that divide us will just melt away!

This morning I woke up thinking that the best way to frame this thread's question is to imagine you had no knowledge of all the divisions in church history, and you were just reading the NT for the first time - how would you see how the church met practically?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I'm not saying the believers will do it. I'm saying that God is working so that we all "arrive at the unity of the faith." So as that approaches we will naturally cooperate and coordinate more, and the church in the city will begin to be seen. But it won't be through our effort, planning or pushing. It will be the natural result of the work of the Spirit. We are already seeing that it the city in which I live. The city church is just the universal church viewed at the local level.

I too agree with this. Visible oneness is not oneness at all. Bible says when they see love, real brotherly love, God would be expressed. It's not some orchestrated oneness, with blue jackets for all reading the same banner, that glorifies God. That's manufactured, distorted oneness. If you can see "oneness" with your eyes, then it is not of faith, it is not of the Spirit.

I believe in one city one church. The many dividing walls are not of God. When love grows in our hearts, as "we all arrive," then we reduce our faith to the basics -- Christ and Him crucified. We then will no longer allow petty things to separate us.

For example, I had a Christian neighbor who I tried to fellowship with for years. But he hated my trees. They were not "my trees," but they came with the house. Many of them were on the right of way. And he hated those trees. It was so hard to fellowship because of that. Think about how many other petty issues have divided God's children.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I'm not saying the believers will do it.

Long before I ever met with the Local Churches, I had the same idea of NT fellowship placed on my heart. I thought how wonderful it would be to live out my faith just as the early church did. We would meet in homes; only us believers and Jesus standing in our midst like in John 20:19. There'd be no 501c3 building and no authoritarian clergy directing our every move. We would be free to worship as the spirit led.

It's what attracted me to the Local Churches.

The idea of living that NT life sounded great...until I realized something.

NT oneness didn't come easy. It was at a time Christians were being slaughtered for their faith. It was a violent time, no kumbaya for our early brothers and sisters. They were decorating Nero's lawn during the day and at night illuminating it. The element of survival was an essential part of what formed the early churches yet here and now there's relative peace. It made me wonder whether I really wanted that same church-life because along with that oneness I also would have to accept the threat of death looming over me. I realized I just couldn't have my cake and eat it too. When that persecution eventually comes, according to scripture, and there's the possibility we are finally meeting in tight knit groups within people's homes because of necessity, I don't think the thought of "how wonderful it is to meet like this" will enter our minds.

Scripture tells us the earth will be in such a chaotic state before Christ returns that nothing like it will have been since the beginning of creation. Christ Himself questioned whether he'd even find faith on the earth when he returns.

All that to say, I no longer have any expectations on how fellowship should outwardly appear. I completely leave this is God's hands. If He wants me to be alone with just Him, like John on Patmos or Paul in Arabia, then so be it. If he wants me to form a relationship with one other brother than so be it. If he wants me to go into a Baptist congregation and fellowship with a group of believers than so be it. I pray that God uses me however His needs require, not for my satisfaction but for His.

I let go of this NT OCOC ideal as something to work toward in this life. I don't see it as something that's shown to us in scripture for the future condition and structure of the church in this age. Yet I can't let go of this idea completely, it's still stays with me as hope in my heart but I realize now that it's for something to come only after Christ returns.

I'm afraid that if you guys retain any expectations of what "The Normal Christian Life" should look like, then you may fall right back into another movement.

The NAR, for one, is just like the LC's but it's much more prevalent in Christendom. Yet, just like the LC's, it has no name and no official membership. It's like a ghost.The NAR doesn't call themselves the NAR. They are just groups of "regular" Christians living out the NT church life. These are people linked together by the same spirit and same mind working toward the same goal. You'll find them in the Baptist churches, you'll find them in the Lutheran churches, you'll even find them in the independent home churches.

I personally believe it's part of the biblical ecumenical end-times great falling away. The great falling away doesn't necessarily mean Christians will loose their faith altogether and stop calling themselves Christians, it means they'll fall away from the Jesus of scripture and buy into another Jesus and another gospel.

Test yourself. Test your beliefs and ideals in prayer and stay with scripture. The last thing we need is other men's concepts planted in our heads. If you do consider other ideas, test them thoroughly no matter how good they sound. Work on your personal and individual faith and relationship with God. This is what will protect you. All else will flow from that.

[Cal]

Jo S,

The church in the city is biblical. That's why you can't let it go completely. The Bible never tells us to figure out how to implement it. It just presents it as something that is real. It just means God sees us as one. Not one organization, but one family. Whether we all meet together and recognize the same pastors is irrelevant. What is relevant is that we receive and honor one another, and are willing to cooperate to some extent.

Through that a lot can be accomplished. I'm already seeing it happen. It's got nothing to do with organizations. It's just Christians getting along and cooperating, putting the majors ahead of the minors. It's nothing to fear.

The forum is a good example. Well, sometimes.

[Sons to Glory!]

Amen. This answers the original question. (and of course this, along with anything else in the Bible, can be abused in a fleshly application of it)

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Amen. This answers the original question. (and of course this, along with anything else in the Bible, can be abused in a fleshly application of it)

"Can be" abused? History repeatedly tells us that it will be abused.

So I have to ask, where does your hope come from if not from history or from God's word, then from where?

If people attempt to recreate what only Jesus can do at his appearing, its end will always be the Catholic church, the Lord's Recovery, the Mormon church, and the NAR ect.

That's a fact.

[Sons to Glory!]

Yup - mankind likes to build their kingdoms!

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Yup - mankind likes to build their kingdoms!

Your response seems like a dodge, StG.

The fact that you used the phrase "can be" tells me you have this hope. If you believe there's the potential of OCOC not being abused then you believe in a successful implementation of this concept.

Do you believe OCOC is possible in this age before Christians are gathered together at the rapture?

If so, where does your hope come from?

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Your response seems like a dodge, StG.

The fact that you used the phrase "can be" tells me you have this hope. If you believe there's the potential of OCOC not being abused then you believe in a successful implementation of this concept.

Do you believe OCOC is possible in this age before Christians are gathered together at the rapture?

If so, where does your hope come from?

No, I don't see a "Dodge."

I DO NOT see any possibility of OCOC happening as it is impossible in outward practice. (Of course, if the Lord did it in and through us, His love can immediately breakdown all barriers!)

My intention, which seems to have been misread, was just to see what folks on here thought of this concept as it is put forth in the NT. That is, is it Biblical - at least from a historical perspective? No other intention than that.

[Cal]

OCOC means one of two things:

1. An abstract reality similar to "the universal church," yet on the local level.
   
   
2. A "practical" church whose boundaries are the locality and which has defined, official leaders, organization, etc. It claims to be the only genuine church, and rejects all other groups in the city which claim to be a, or the, church.

I believe #1 is valid. I believe, as Jo seems to, that #2 is not valid, nor was ever intended to be required in the current age. Attempts to implement it are doomed to result in exclusivity, lording, abuse, division, etc., etc.

The LR is fraught with equivocation and verbal duplicity, which leads to confusion and deception--not to mention that awkward sense of stunned wonderment and embarrassment at how they could be so sophomoric in their reasoning and conclusions

They say things like, "Well, shouldn't we all be one?" One how? One in the one Spirit. Yes! One in lining up under their "Brother Lee can't be wrong" leaders? When pigs fly!

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Igzy

This is just plain silly ---- everyone can see the wings are too small to cause enough lift!

I like to think there is already OCOC. In spirit I don't care where a Christian meets or what they believe, that is beyond the essentials. I try to make this my practice wherever I find myself, and have been rewarded with some good fellowship over the past few years!

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

No, I don't see a "Dodge."

I DO NOT see any possibility of OCOC happening as it is impossible in outward practice. (Of course, if the Lord did it in and through us, His love can immediately breakdown all barriers!)

StG, you're still being a bit vague with what it is you really believe.

I say that because first you state you don't believe OCOC is a possibility in outward practice but then go on to say "if" the Lord does it through us then it is a possibility.

Again, "if" is pointing to hope. So where does your "if" come from?

Let me rephrase my question and be more specific;

Do you think that OCOC is possible in outward practice "if" the inward practice of OCOC is perfected by the Lord through us in this age?

If so, what is your source of hope for believing that?

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I like to think there is already OCOC. In spirit I don't care where a Christian meets or what they believe, that is beyond the essentials. I try to make this my practice wherever I find myself, and have been rewarded with some good fellowship over the past few years!

What if their beliefs, which go beyond the essentials, inadvertently nullify the essentials?

Scripture makes the point that it's extremely important to know and discern other's beliefs (Rev 2:2). You all should know this from being involved in the LC's. It's easy to memorize and profess the essentials yet equivocally believe something totally different.

Putting blinders on and then finding other wearing the same blinders will only land you in a ditch. With that said, you should always try to surround yourself with Christians that caringly make you uncomfortable and lovingly challenge your beliefs.

[Sons to Glory!]

Jo, sorry, but this conversation is more complex than I anticipated and wearing me out - I think I need a nap . . .

[Jo S]

This is an excerpt from Nigel Tomes "LSM's Sacrament- the Ground of the Local Church"

At its basic level the “ground of locality” emphasizes one church, one city, defined by city boundaries. ....the “ground of locality of a local church…is, the very locality—a city, a town, or a village—as the boundary within which a local church is established and exists, with each one locality having only one church”—one church, one city. Hence local churches typically adopt names like, “the Church in Chicago (LA, NYC, etc).” Plus, LSM asserts that, regardless of the believers’ number, there should be only one church with only one eldership. W. Lee states,18 “in one city there should be only one church. The eldership of a local church should cover the entire city where that church is…One city should only have one church with one eldership.” He contends this is Scripture’s unique pattern,19 “One city should have only one church with one eldership. ....”


I wanted to specifically point out the LC's attitude toward what, I agree, is a biblical concept.

While LSM is correct and strongly assert that there should only be one church in one city under one eldership, they're making a fatal mistake.

Take the Jews for example, they knew in their hearts they needed a king to rule over Israel yet God hesitated to give them one. They demanded it be so, so God allowed them a king.

The same is with the Local Churches. They know in their hearts there should be only one church in one city under one eldership. They demand that this be done in this age and so God allows them the freedom to attempt such a thing.

However they disregard God's Word in how and when this will be established.

Scripture says this; God's one church is the body of believers gathered in the air at the last trumpet, God's one city is a literal city that will descend from the clouds; the New Jerusalem, and God's one eldership is Jesus Christ come in the flesh, Israel's only worthy king.

But because the LC's will not wait on the Lord, they'll be given a Saul. And just like Israel under fallen leadership, movements like the Lord's Recovery will be conquered, given over to idolatry, and then destroyed again and again by the enemy until the rightful heir of God's church returns and establishes his rule.

[Sons to Glory!]

Had that nap and feel more better! So here's a thought: The oneness is a reality in Spirit now. We are one with all born agains in the world and in a particular area already. Everything that (apparently) divides Christians is not reality. The divisions are something we see, that is, more in the physical/soulish realm. But in the unseen realm of the Spirit, oneness is already there.

So no, I really only have one hope, and it's Christ in all of us, our hope of glory. If OCOC is to be manifested by Him before He returns, then hallelujah! That would be Wonderful. If not, same response - hallelujah!

In the meantime, all we can do is look away to Him, right? Anything else we try to do apart from Him adds up to exactly nothing.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Had that nap and feel more better! So here's a thought: The oneness is a reality in Spirit now. We are one with all born agains in the world and in a particular area already. Everything that (apparently) divides Christians is not reality. The divisions are something we see, that is, more in the physical/soulish realm. But in the unseen realm of the Spirit, oneness is already there.

So no, I really only have one hope, and it's Christ in all us us, our hope of glory. If OCOC is to be manifested before He returns, then hallelujah! That would be Wonderful. If not, same response - hallelujah!

In the meantime, all we can do is look away to Him, right? Anything else we try to do apart from Him adds up to exactly nothing.

I know, this is heavy stuff. I'm glad you feel better yet I still can't help but sense you're holding onto false hope like your holding onto Nee's books.

Jesus said, "Let your 'yes' be 'yes' and your 'no' be 'no'". There are no "ifs" or "maybes" when God speaks. It either will be or it won't. So which is it?

God is not one to keep things hidden. He gave us His revelation. Nothing will be added to it or taken from it. The question is, what did God speak concerning the future condition of His church?

Will that oneness be manifest in practicality, in this age, or not? What did He say?

[Sons to Glory!]

My responses.

Originally Posted by Jo S

I know, this is heavy stuff. I'm glad you feel better yet I still can't help but sense you're holding onto false hope like your holding onto Nee's books. That's just your sense/feeling. I really have no idea.

Jesus said, "Let your 'yes' be 'yes' and your 'no' be 'no'". There are no "ifs" or "maybes" when God speaks. It either will be or it won't. So which is it? How am I supposed to know this, Jo? I don't even know what I'm having for dinner tomorrow! And He may take me tonight, or He might not - up to Him!

God is not one to keep things hidden. He gave us His revelation. Nothing will be added to it or taken from it. The question is, what did God speak concerning the future condition of His church? It is, and will be, glorious from what I read. Apart from that, I have no clear revelation as to whether He would manifest OCOC in this age again.

Will that oneness be manifest in practicality, in this age, or not? What did He say? Same response. Seriously. Did He tell us all things? No. Certain things are even evidently kept from the Son, like His exact time of returning. So can't agree that we know all these things!

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Will that oneness be manifest in practicality, in this age, or not? What did He say?

Well, now you are being vague. Because what does "in practicality" mean? And who decides what the true definition is?

Jo S, you've made you point. Lighten up on StG. So he's a little idealistic? Let him have that. He's not hurting anyone.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Well, now you are being vague. Because what does "in practicality" mean? And who decides what the true definition is?

Jo S, you've made you point. Lighten up on StG. So he's a little idealistic? Let him have that. He's not hurting anyone.

God doesn't seem to think the same way as you do, Igzy (Rev 13:6)

So who should I listen to?

I think you know the answer to that. I humbly reject your rebuke.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Jo S

God doesn't seam to think the same way as you do, Igzy (Rev 13:6)

So who should I listen to?

I think you know the answer to that. I humbly reject your rebuke.

No surprise there.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

My responses.

That's just your sense/feeling. I really have no idea.

It's not "just" feeling, StG. I have good reason from our previous discussions to back my feeling.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

How am I supposed to know this, Jo? I don't even know what I'm having for dinner tomorrow! And He may take me tonight, or He might not - up to Him!

We weren't left completely in the dark, we have scripture. That's how we can know and be sure. The answer to this question is there.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

It is, and will be, glorious from what I read. Apart from that, I have no clear revelation as to whether He would manifest OCOC in this age again.

I agree, it WILL be glorious but when has it ever been glorious? That's what your "again" implies, right?

Clearly you have a belief, StG. You keep alluding to it with your "can be's", "if's", and "again's" but you're afraid to share. You seem to have justifications for everything else so why not this? Are you waiting for a group of Christians that you know will validate your beliefs before you share them openly?

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Same response. Seriously. Did He tell us all things? No. Certain things are even evidently kept from the Son, like His exact time of returning. So can't agree that we know all these things?

Time's a relative thing, heavenly timing is simply not possible to comprehend. That's why it's not made known to us. But other things to come can be and are made known to us. You just have to look. But in order to do so you have to let go of your preconceived ideas. It's all there in scripture.

BTW, thank you for this thread start, StG. I know I can be hard, but in my view this is the single most important topic we can discuss concerning the Lord's Recovery. Needless to say I take it seriously.

Originally Posted by Jo S

As far as I'm aware, LC doctrine doesn't contradict the first 3 points. The major issue is the last point on repentance and baptism.

The LC's teach that one needs to be "filled" with "the spirit" through calling on the Lord, pray-reading, and other various mystical works based exercises. Where as scripture teaches when true repentance and faith take place in a believer's heart, God reveals Himself and gifts us with His Holy Spirit. Through this we are transformed and given a new heart and mind. This transformation comes by faith and not by any works.

The LC teach this spirit "filling" is something that needs to continuously be topped off by ritual exercises where as God says to His children born of His spirit that He will never leave us nor forsake us so there is no need to have to do rituals in order to "gain" Him.

What really happens through LC practices is not an indwelling of the Holy Spirit but by manipulating the psychic realm through mysticism the practitioner genuinely touches the spiritual plane but it's merely a general fleeting spiritual experience, not a personal encounter with the Lord God. And so by opening the veil by man's effort, and not having Godly discernment, lying and deceiving spirits come through and teach a false gospel and a false Christ.

This is what happened with Nee and Lee. And this is what happens to all those that place their faith in these men's ministry.

The practice is to revive your weaken spirit. It's like singing a hymn, doesn't that recover your relationship or focus back to Christ says after you've watched a movie? The practice to me is alright but I do agree Lee teaching has a little bit of mysticism. Like someone has pointed that out the LR is a little bit of reformation + pentecostalism.

[Sons to Glory!]

Dear Jo, I've responded pretty much what I can. It doesn't seem like we're effectively communicating and I don't know that any further back & forth on this would result in much. Sorry, but my style of communication doesn't always seem to work well with certain other styles, therefore let's leave the current sub-topic behind.

So let's go back and explore something you mentioned before that I was curious about. What is your definition of a Christian Mystic?

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by justALittleBrother

The practice is to revive your weaken spirit. It's like singing a hymn, doesn't that recover your relationship or focus back to Christ says after you've watched a movie? The practice to me is alright but I do agree Lee teaching has a little bit of mysticism. Like someone has pointed that out the LR is a little bit of reformation + pentecostalism.

I'm not aware of scripture teaching the use of hymns to God to alter our state of mind.

I understand that it can do that, that's typically what most people use music for in general, but for a Christian I do believe it's a misuse.

Scripture tells us to richly allow Christ's word to dwell in us and with all wisdom teach and admonish one another in songs and hymns. (Col 3:16)

I take the use of the word "dwell" in this verse as meaning to work or to influence.

It's this allowing, or you can say trusting, that results in the outflow of song to God. The end is to teach and exhort, not to make us feel good. We should already have joy and from that joy sing hymns.

All that to say, the implication is Christ's word is already in us and from that we sing songs to glorify him, not to gain him or recover him.

It's a slight change of perspective from a "'means to end" mindset to one of "it's already finished"

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Dear Jo, I've responded pretty much what I can. It doesn't seem like we're effectively communicating and I don't know that any further back & forth on this would result in much. Sorry, but my style of communication doesn't always seem to work well with certain other styles, therefore let's leave the current sub-topic behind.

So let's go back and explore something you mentioned before that I was curious about. What is your definition of a Christian Mystic?

No worries StG, I understand.

As far as "Christian mystic" goes, I believe that's an oxymoron.

I say that because mysticism is a method that relies on "secret" knowledge and certain mind altering practices in order to gain spiritual wholeness. It's antithetical to Christianity in that we are already complete in Him (Col 2:10).

A Christian doesn't have to work in order to gain a relationship with God. Through repentance, faith, and trust in God alone salvation comes to a believer. It's like a newborn, they don't have to do anything to receive love and attention from their parents. Just by virtue of being their child, they receive everything they need.

You don't have to work toward salvation through high-peak truths and repetitious practices, simply trusting God fully in our hearts and keeping this faith each and every day is what transforms us. And that transformation is very tangible, it's not imagined.

With that said, a mystic who calls themselves Christian, isn't Christian at all but a mystic looking at things through a Christian worldview.

A more accurate term for a so called "Christian mystic" is a gnostic.

The early church was constantly battling these mystics or gnostics.

Watchman Nee and Witness Lee were, in my estimation, gnostics.

[Sons to Glory!]

Okay, thanks. According to things I've read in church history, it seems that oftentimes those who experience and speak about the indwelling Christ are called Christian Mystics. This is as if experiencing Him living in and through us is something unusual according to scriptures. Many times, I think, those who are more outwardly legal in their practice, look at someone who has freedom in Christ as different or weird.

To be sure, Christ in us is a mystery, and certainly something unseen to the eyes. Some describe this as a "mystical union." But mystical or mystic can mean a wide range of things to different people, from weird and totally unacceptable to wonderfully mysterious and awesome.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Okay, thanks. According to things I've read in church history, it seems that oftentimes those who experience and speak about the indwelling Christ are called Christian Mystics. This is as if experiencing Him living in and through us is something unusual according to scriptures. Many times, I think, those who are more outwardly legal in their practice, look at someone who has freedom in Christ as different or weird.

To be sure, Christ in us is a mystery, and certainly something unseen to the eyes. Some describe this as a "mystical union." But mystical or mystic can mean a wide range of things to different people, from weird and totally unacceptable to wonderfully mysterious and awesome.

As long as your "experience" of Christ is based on repentance and faith alone in the cross and not practice then great but if not it's good to test your indwelling spirit.

You're right, there are those that are learned in the scriptures but are without experience and understanding but then you also have those that focus primarily on experience yet because they don't properly know the scriptures are left without understanding.

The Local Churches are the latter.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Jo S

No worries StG, I understand.

As far as "Christian mystic" goes, I believe that's an oxymoron.

I say that because mysticism is a method that relies on "secret" knowledge and certain mind altering practices in order to gain spiritual wholeness. It's antithetical to Christianity in that we are already complete in Him (Col 2:10).

A Christian doesn't have to work in order to gain a relationship with God. Through repentance, faith, and trust in God alone salvation comes to a believer. It's like a newborn, they don't have to do anything to receive love and attention from their parents. Just by virtue of being their child, they receive everything they need.

You don't have to work toward salvation through high-peak truths and repetitious practices, simply trusting God fully in our hearts and keeping this faith each and every day is what transforms us. And that transformation is very tangible, it's not imagined.

With that said, a mystic who calls themselves Christian, isn't Christian at all but a mystic looking at things through a Christian worldview.

A more accurate term for a so called "Christian mystic" is a gnostic.

The early church was constantly battling these mystics or gnostics.

Watchman Nee and Witness Lee were, in my estimation, gnostics.

Maybe that's cuz Jessie Penn-Lewis caught onto the Christian mystic Madame Guyon, and then so did Nee and Lee.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by awareness

Maybe that's cuz Jessie Penn-Lewis caught onto the Christian mystic Madame Guyon, and then so did Nee and Lee.

Or because they Nee and Lee already were mystics. Birds of the same feather ...

[Cal]

"Christian mystic" can mean more than one thing. The benign meaning is someone like Brother Lawrence, who had 24/7 fellowship with God. I recall A.W. Tozer being called a mystic by one of his posthumous publishers. But no one more respected the Bible, nor was more suspicious of gnostic knowledge, than Tozer.

The term has fallen out of favor in the recent years, I would think, as 24/7 fellowship with God has come to be considered normal, rather than rare.

I never liked the term. It reeks of new ageism and Eastern counterfeits.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Igzy

"Christian mystic" can mean more than one thing. The benign meaning is someone like Brother Lawrence, who had 24/7 fellowship with God. I recall A.W. Tozer being called a mystic by one of his posthumous publishers. But no one more respected the Bible, nor was more suspicious of gnostic knowledge, than Tozer.

The term has fallen out of favor in the recent years, I would think, as 24/7 fellowship with God has come to be considered normal, rather than rare.

I never liked the term. It reeks of new ageism and Eastern counterfeits.

It's difficult to discern between a mystic "Christian" and a truly born again Christian. Both have fellowship with the spiritual realm and use the same terminology.

It's easier for a seasoned Christian to discern but for a babe in Christ it's hard. It's why the apostles repeatedly warned of them in scripture.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Jo S

It's difficult to discern between a mystic "Christian" and a truly born again Christian. Both have fellowship with the spiritual realm and use the same terminology.

It's easier for a seasoned Christian to discern but for a babe in Christ it's hard. It's why the apostles repeatedly warned of them in scripture.

Are you saying they warned of mystics? Please cite verses.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Are you saying they warned of mystics? Please cite verses.

The term "mysticism" is a modern creation but it's derived from the Greek "mustikos" which means "secret", "mysterious", or "hidden".

A mystic (or gnostic in Christianity) wasn't specifically called such in scripture but these "false converts", "false prophets", or "false teachers" were referred to in generalizations.

Simply put, the term mystic points to someone seeking or teaching hidden knowledge or interpretations not plain to scripture.

To paraphrase the first lie recorded, it's this; Eat of the hidden knowledge and you shall be like God. This is mysticism in it's simplest form.

To break it down;

"Eat" alludes to a work or practice. In the LC's, this is the mystical practices of "Pray-reading", "calling on the Lord", ect.

"Hidden knowledge" refers to just that, knowledge not plainly revealed to us. In the LC's you'll find this type of special knowledge referred to as "high-peak truths" which are derived from the bible but from a manner which relies more on subjectivity rather than a literal and historical context.

And finally "be like God" refers to spiritual enlightenment. The teaching to attain Godhood in the LC's is found in their God-men doctrine.

In other words; Practice hidden knowledge in order to unite with the divine.

Truth is light. Light's plain to see if you only open your eyes. After all, truth was and is a human being. Satan, however, offers "deep" hidden spiritual knowledge (Rev 2:24) which ultimately leads to death.

In scripture we are warned not to deviate from the simplicity of Christ (2 Cor 11:13) into hidden knowledge such as promised to Adam and Eve by the serpent. By this, we can be led into a different Christ and a different gospel (2 Cor 11:4).

Such false teachers that taught "secret" interpretations not plain to scripture, ended up ultimately twisting Christ's nature. (1 John 4:1-3). This is why in the LC's you ended up with a mysterious, esoteric, and modalistic Christ rather than the humble and meek servant of God taught in scriptures.

To summarize, those that claim to be christian yet seek or teach unique spiritual knowledge through eisegetical biblical interpretations contrary to how Jesus and the apostles taught are technically what we today refer to as mystics or gnostics. These type of practitioners will always have a works based form of spirituality in one fashion or another.

[Sons to Glory!]

Maybe this definition between Gnosticism and mysticism I found here
would be helpful:

Simply put, they differ in their emphases. Mysticism values the supernatural, but seeks to unite the physical world to the valuable spiritual world. Gnosticism despises the physical world, and seeks to leave it behind in favor of the spiritual world.

Do you agree with that?

Another question: Are all people who experience Christ mystics in your view?

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Maybe this definition between Gnosticism and mysticism I found here
would be helpful:
Do you agree with that?

There's a lot of variety within mysticism and gnosticism so it's easy to get lost in semantics. It's best to try and stay as close to the root meanings as you can.

From all my study on this topic, and from my own experience, this is how i understand it;

A mystic is one who practices union with the divine through various practices and hidden knowledge. This can generally refer to many spiritual practitioners from all sorts of different backgrounds. For example you could be Sufist, a Kabbalist, a Gnostic, or a New Ager but at the core be a mystic.

A Sufist is a person that practices mysticism through a Islamic worldview

A Kabbalist is a person that practices mysticism through a Judaic worldview

A Gnostic is a person that practices mysticism through a Christian worldview

A New Ager is a person that practices mysticism through a eclectic mix of various spiritual beliefs.

The thing they all have in common is that they use various mind altering practices in order to gain spiritual experiences and through that, knowledge. That's mysticism.

A Christian's faith is based on trust, not practice. And through that trust we gain a tangible relationship with God.

Another question: Are all people who experience Christ mystics in your view?

I'd first ask you what you mean by "experience Christ".

Just consider your terminology for a moment.

Christ is a person and as a person has expectations. He seeks our trust, honesty, and respect.

Mysticism however seeks spiritual benefits without the struggles that accompany the willingness to trust.

Relationship vs relationship experience. That's the main difference between Christianity and mysticism.

A mystic or gnostic doesn't have a real relationship with God. Basically, sensations that are gained through general spiritual experiences are personified and then attributed to "God" but there's no semblance of an actual tangible relationship with God in their spiritual life.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Dear Jo, I've responded pretty much what I can. It doesn't seem like we're effectively communicating and I don't know that any further back & forth on this would result in much. Sorry, but my style of communication doesn't always seem to work well with certain other styles, therefore let's leave the current sub-topic behind.

StG, I had trouble communicating also.

It might help if you removed "Ohio" from your signature line.

Just sayin'

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

StG, I had trouble communicating also.

It might help if you removed "Ohio" from your signature line.

Just sayin'

That's it!! I've wondered for so long what the problem was!

[Sons to Glory!]

Jo, here's a quote from a PhD thesis found (pg 20;quoting Andrew Louth) that I find interesting: here

For Christians love is the love of Christ which unites us to him and
through him to one another. And so Christian theology, and in particular
Christian mystical theology, is ecclesial, it is the fruit of participation in
the mystery of Christ, which is inseparable from the mystery of the
Church.

I don't know how much that quote helps define what a Christian Mystic is, but perhaps it helps at least a little . . .

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Jo, here's a quote from a PhD thesis found (pg 20;quoting Andrew Louth) that I find interesting:

For Christians love is the love of Christ which unites us to him and
through him to one another. And so Christian theology, and in particular
Christian mystical theology, is ecclesial, it is the fruit of participation in
the mystery of Christ, which is inseparable from the mystery of the
Church.

here
I don't know how much that quote helps define what a Christian Mystic is, but perhaps it helps at least a little . . .

StG, I dare not argue with a PhD, BUT I will let Paul argue for me. If those standards existed back in day, Paul definitely would've qualified as a Doctor of divinity, being that he was a pharisee of pharisees;

He said;

When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit.

So we read that Christ and the church is no longer a mystery to those that have the Holy Spirit. There is no deep meaning left to understand, it's revealed to us. That's why I say mysticism is antithetical to Christianity and the term "Christian mystic" is an oxymoron.

To a born again Christian, Christ is no longer a mystery. But a Mystic leader, however, is so mystery-centric that they would like to keep Christ and the church a mystery and convince others of the same. That way you'd have to rely on a guru to decipher those mysteries for you. But in order to indoctrinate...I mean explain those mysteries to you, you first have to chant Jesus's name 5 times or pray-read in order to get into a suggestible frame of mind. Only then will you be ready to receive the vision... Sound familiar?

/sarcasm

The pharisees were the same way in that they shut the doors of heaven in people's faces, not entering themselves nor letting those who try (Matthew 23:13).

Members of the LC's are taught mysticism in the guise of biblical Christianity. Because of that, separating the two becomes difficult and unfortunately for some it's just easier to throw it all away after leaving. For others they continue to try and reconcile mysticism to Christianity in vain. And then there are those that discard all the leaven and go on to develop a healthy and fruitful relationship with Jesus Christ.

Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves.

To make a point on how it all connects, take Jewish mysticism for example. Kabbalism is all about collecting "sparks" . It's said that the world originally was a perfect vessel but then it was destroyed and now it's up to us to collect all the pieces. Each time you do a good deed, you're collecting these sparks and taking one step toward the Messiah.

That sure sounds similar to dominion theology within Christianity in that Satan caused the fall and took control of creation by force. So now, as God's army of overcomers, we have to accomplish certain tasks in order to take dominion back.

Dominionism within the LC's is setting up a single church in each city with the expectation that this deed will defeat Satan's kingdom on earth and take them one step closer to the 2nd coming of Jesus and the New Jerusalem.

This is just one example. If you look hard enough, you'll see that all the heretical doctrines within Christianity are rooted in older systems of mysticism.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Jo S

To a born again Christian, Christ is no longer a mystery. But a Mystic leader, however, is so mystery-centric that they'd like to keep Christ and the church a mystery and convince others of the same. That way you'd have to rely on a guru to decipher those mysteries for you. .

A few related points:

1. In the NT one sees "exoteric" plain public teachings demarcated from "esoteric" private teachings. It was a way indeed for the Guru (Jesus) to keep them at close rein. Mark 4:34 "He didn't say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything." But that was to be temporary. John 16:25 says "I've spoken these things to you in figures of speech. A time is coming when I will no longer speak to you this way, but will tell you plainly about the Father." Today Jesus and the apostles are gone, so we'd have to invent our own mysticism. Which of course many have done, often with disastrous results.

Not saying mysticism is forbidden, but one should be really, really mature, and really, really careful. Circumspect. Mysticism packaged and sold by Mssrs Nee & Lee was flat-out disastrous. You want certified, over-the-top Krazy Kults? Go check out Church of the Almighty God, or the Lord Changshou Shouters.

https://bitterwinter.org/Vocabulary/...-almighty-god/

2. The chanting part. I saw a video smuggled out of China during the early/mid '90s. They were singing a Lee-penned hymn, and shouting the verses at each other. Everyone was excited. And it went on and on. They'd sing, then shout, then they'd sing again, then they'd shout. I watched 35 minutes or so. Not a word of scripture. Just euphoric "experience" of Witness Lee's esoteric dogma, as a gateway to what?

3. I sat in a chair many times and quietly listened to Witness Lee blast Christianity. He had this phrase, "poor Christianity" that he used a lot. With his pronunciation it didn't sound like the word "pour", but rather it rhymed with "sewer", or, "pooh-er"… he'd say, "Pooh-er Christianity... too pooh-er". And we sat there quietly, and took it. He was essentially cursing our brothers and sisters in faith. Would you sit there quietly if someone came up and started slagging your family?

Such, occasionally, was our LC "experience of life". In such a mystical or mystery-centric atmosphere the danger is to focus on [manufactured] subjective experience (thoughts, sensations, emotions) and not the scriptural word, or common sense, or conscience, with such sensations or "experiences" then to be subject to manipulation by forces of the air, the so-called principalities and powers. It can get really, really weird, and the subjects just sit there pinned helplessly in their chairs. And if any brave souls try to point out the nuttiness they call them rebels! Really?!

[Sons to Glory!]

I wrote a response on the topic of Christian mysticism, but had no peace to post it. Instead, let me say that I'm fine with the answers to how Christian Mystics are viewed, and I learned a couple things. Thank you.

Now, as the originator of this thread, let me steer us back to the thread topic: "Is One Church One City a bad idea or UnBiblical?"

To summarize the discussion thus far, I think there is consensus for the following:

1. OCOC is in the New Testament as the way the early church met (and also ekklesia in homes are mentioned too)

2. The LC has abused this idea and it's just become yet another example of fleshly elitism resulting in divisiveness

3. In the present age, OCOC is not going to happen, as it is impossible to do

4. Only the Lord can make us one. We are one in Spirit already, regardless of the names and doctrines dividing us.

A tentative #5 might be that while OCOC is currently impossible for man, all things are possible with God. Paul does say in Ephesians 4:13, "until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ." But whether the Lord does OCOC before His return is not clearly presented in scripture (at least no verses have been cited clearly showing this).

What thinkest thou oh ye saints of the Lord?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

To summarize the discussion thus far, I think there is consensus for the following:

1. OCOC is in the New Testament as the way the early church met (and also ekklesia in homes are mentioned too)

I frankly don't see evidence that this was "the way" the early church met. Several epistles by Paul seem to contradict this pattern.

As one writer so aptly said, "there is far more evidence in scripture for 'head covering' than for the OCOC model."

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I frankly don't see evidence that this was "the way" the early church met.

StG's Point 1) makes no sense to me. If you have house churches, you can have more than OCOC. There's obviously more than one house per city.

Jesus mentioned "my" ekklesia in Matthew 16, strongly implying that there are ekklesia not of Jesus. The ekklesia dismissed by the City Counselor in Acts 19:41 was clearly not of Jesus. In order to make OCOC "the way of the NT" we need ekklesia that aren't churches and churches that aren't ekklesia. And I'm not sure the NT gives us that liberty.

Wherever 2 or 3 are gathered in his name, the Lord said he'd be there. Is that perforce limited to one location per metropolis? I find no suggestion in the NT; rather the opposite. So "church" in this vein then becomes instead an ecclesiastical administrative body, which we try, like Watchman Nee and the Brethren, to re-create (and impose) today, whole cloth, from a few verses. (But it doesn't mean "meeting" as it did in NT-era Greek.)

And it looks like Nee modified his NT-modeled Church every few years, as the situation on the ground changed. Turns out the Bible was a prop. And I daresay it would be for us all, if we had to play "acting God". No, better to meet with whomever (even the [gasp!] Baptists and [gasp!] Congregationalists) than to impose our seemingly-sanctioned OCOC model.

I've said it before, if you focus on the church you get weirdness. If you focus on Jesus Christ you get the church. "We see Jesus, made a little lower than the angels, crowned with glory..." That's it. There's nothing else. Either you see Jesus or you don't. Adding other conceptual layers doesn't add clarity but veils.

I know, I know, "Christ and the Church, Christ and the Church, Christ and the Church" the mantra begins, but I still reply that the Church only sees Christ. If the Church sees the Church she becomes the Mystery Harlot, just like that - pouf! Don't do it. Look at Jesus.

The Church is a mirror you don't want to look into. Just gather with those who look at Jesus. The rest of it will follow. He said so. Can you plumb the depths of Jesus? Can you chase him to the end? There is nothing else. All reality flows out of him.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I frankly don't see evidence that this was "the way" the early church met. Several epistles by Paul seem to contradict this pattern.

Okay, so they practically may not have meet in the same building (since there were often hundreds or thousands of them), but they were still addressed as the church in that city or area, right?

If otherwise, please give scripture to support what you seem to be conveying (i.e., no evidence for OCOC).

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by aron

StG's Point 1) makes no sense to me. If you have house churches, you can have more than OCOC. There's obviously more than one house per city.

We have OCOC now. Or one church one country, or one church period. There is only one Lord, one Spirit, one body. This is the spiritual reality already. Everything else is a lie.

OCOC isn't mentioned in scripture, so therefore I shouldn't be too dogmatic about it, nor is it essential to the faith. It's just a reality in Spirit.

OCOC maybe has too much "baggage" associated with it. And gathering or assembly seems to be much less confusing than the archaic "church." So yes, many gatherings in a city, but they are still of one body in that area - is that maybe a better way to put it?

[Sons to Glory!]

My response below:

Originally Posted by aron

Wherever 2 or 3 are gathered in his name, the Lord said he'd be there. Is that perforce limited to one location per metropolis? I find no suggestion in the NT; rather the opposite. So "church" in this vein then becomes instead an ecclesiastical administrative body, which we try, like Watchman Nee and the Brethren, to re-create (and impose) today, whole cloth, from a few verses. (But it doesn't mean "meeting" as it did in NT-era Greek.) Good points! So from a spiritual view the believers in an area are one ekklesia, but in a practical sense it's many gatherings . . .

And it looks like Nee modified his NT-modeled Church every few years, as the situation on the ground changed. Turns out the Bible was a prop. And I daresay it would be for us all, if we had to play "acting God". No, better to meet with whomever (even the [gasp!] Baptists and [gasp!] Congregationalists) than to impose our seemingly-sanctioned OCOC model.Yes, then it becomes just another divisive doctrine.

I've said it before, if you focus on the church you get weirdness. I like that! Yes, anything we focus on apart from Him, is just apart from Him!If you focus on Jesus Christ you get the church. Well put - amen!"We see Jesus, made a little lower than the angels, crowned with glory..." That's it. There's nothing else. Either you see Jesus or you don't. Adding other conceptual layers doesn't add clarity but veils.

I know, I know, "Christ and the Church, Christ and the Church, Christ and the Church" the mantra begins, but I still reply that the Church only sees Christ. If the Church sees the Church she becomes the Mystery Harlot, just like that - pouf! Interesting observation . . . Don't do it. Look at Jesus. Again, can't go wrong there!

The Church is a mirror you don't want to look into. Just gather with those who look at Jesus. The rest of it will follow. He said so. Can you plumb the depths of Jesus? Can you chase him to the end? There is nothing else. All reality flows out of him.

Thanks. Appreciate all you said, and it makes sense. Yes, we can get all wrapped up in ANYTHING other than Him, and it becomes a big distraction. I think there's a little more light on this now for me. The spiritual oneness is true, and the Lord addresses the gathering in a locality as being one, that is: "The Church in _____" existing together as the one body.
So from that aspect they are one, but perhaps many gatherings.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Okay, so they practically may not have meet in the same building....

What if a group of believers all did meet in the same building? Would that group be considered the church? Now say half of those gatherers were tares and the other half wheat. Would that particular group still be considered the church in that area?

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Jo S

What if a group of believers all did meet in the same building? Would that group be considered the church? Now say half of those gatherers were tares and the other half wheat. Would that particular group still be considered the church in that area?

Let's use "gathering" or "ekklesia." I gets me all confused using "church."

This sounds a little like a high school math problem . . . They are the ekklesia in that area, right? See my response to Aron in messages #95 & 96, and that may address your question.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Let's use "gathering" or "ekklesia." I gets me all confused using "church."

This sounds a little like a high school math problem . . . They are the ekklesia in that area, right? See my response to Aron in messages #95 & 96, and that may address your question.

I'm jealous, StG. None of my threads got up to a 100 posts so quickly. Quite an achievement. But to give credit where credit's due, most of them were mine so you're welcome in advance

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Jo S

What if a group of believers all did meet in the same building? Would that group be considered the church? Now say half of those gatherers were tares and the other half wheat. Would that particular group still be considered the church in that area?

Sorry, but numerous LSM trolls in the past pushed questions like this.


Sniff, sniff. I thought I smelled a skunk. Anyone else?

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Sniff, sniff. I thought I smelled a skunk. Anyone else?

Yes, me.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by aron

1. In the NT one sees "exoteric" plain public teachings demarcated from "esoteric" private teachings. It was a way indeed for the Guru (Jesus) to keep them at close rein. Mark 4:34 "He didn't say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything." But that was to be temporary. John 16:25 says "I've spoken these things to you in figures of speech. A time is coming when I will no longer speak to you this way, but will tell you plainly about the Father." Today Jesus and the apostles are gone, so we'd have to invent our own mysticism. Which of course many have done, often with disastrous results.

I appreciate the train of thought here.

Originally Posted by aron

Not saying mysticism is forbidden, but one should be really, really mature, and really, really careful.

Aron, before I make any assumptions I have to ask; what's your definition of mysticism and why do you have to be "really mature" in order to practice it?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

So yes, many gatherings in a city, but they are still of one body in that area - is that maybe a better way to put it?

Tes. There is one King, Jesus. One God, one faith, one confession, one hope. But many expressions. Many tribes tongues, nations. But one Father if all.

Sorry if I was too dogmatic back there. It's just how I write. Your assembly there in Scottsdale may be mind-blowingly good. I never mean to disparage others' experiences. But OCOC never made it far with me once I left the LC. But I probably overstated my case, as per usual.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Aron, before I make any assumptions I have to ask; what's your definition of mysticism and why do you have to be "really mature" in order to practice it?

Mysticism = seeking direct revelatory contact with God. Jesus did it. The word is the 'medium' for vicarious access to spiritual, heavenly realms.

More mature means more mature than me. Because our God is a consuming fire. Jesus is the High Priest. I'm the Prodigal journeying home. Mysticism is a trap, a supposed shortcut. Look what it did to Watchman Nee.

Mysticism packaged and sold to the masses has been unremittingly awful. I won't get into specifics, and there may have been some blessings, but there's an awful lot of yuck. No thanks.

What spirit is behind group shouting of Witness Lee slogans? No thank you.

[Sons to Glory!]

Thanks Jo and Aron for your replies - I think Christ lives in y'all! Jesus is Lord!

Interesting definition of Christian mysticism by Aron: "Mysticism = seeking direct revelatory contact with God. Jesus did it. The word is the 'medium' for vicarious access to spiritual, heavenly realms." So I think what you're saying is this is a good thing, but if taken too far . . . (like everything else)?

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Jo S

I'm jealous, StG. None of my threads got up to a 100 posts so quickly. Quite an achievement. But to give credit where credit's due, most of them were mine so you're welcome in advance

Yes, most of my threads don't go that fast it seems.

And congrats on getting to 300 messages - that's a milestone I think!

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by aron

Mysticism = seeking direct revelatory contact with God. Jesus did it. The word is the 'medium' for vicarious access to spiritual, heavenly realms.

So I understand a bit better, can you give me a scriptural example to more clearly describes what you mean?

Here's a thought I had while reading this; I do agree, access is available to the spiritual realm. But my argument essentially is; repeated access versus continual access to the spiritual realm.

Can you show in scripture where Christ had to access the spiritual realm through a practice (mysticism)?

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Jo S

So I understand a bit better, can you give me a scriptural example to more clearly describe what you mean?

Here's a thought I had reading this; I do agree, access is available to the spiritual realm. But my argument essentially is; repeated access versus continual access to the spiritual realm.

Can you show in scripture where Christ had to access the spiritual realm through a practice (mysticism)?

I too will like to see Aron's reply. My thought is you could label about anything that is toward the unseen as mysticism. By that definition, someone could label all Christians as mystics, as we practice faith in the unseen.

[aron]

Paper: The divine and mystical realm: Removing Chinese Christianity from the Fixed Structures of Mission Church and Clergy By Teresa Zimmerman-Liu

In: Brill Social Sciences and Mission 2014

"Indigenous Chinese preacher Watchman Nee is considered to have had the greatest theological influence on China’s vibrant house church movement, yet there are few studies detailing his influence on church practices. This paper analyzes the writings of Watchman Nee and other Local Church members to show how Nee contextualized the message of Western missionaries to China, using subaltern strategies of returning to scriptural fundamentals and reducing the scale of organization and worship. He divested mission Christianity of its hegemonic trappings and created flexible Christian practices, which take place in the ‘divine and mystical realm,’ out of reach from ‘worldly’ power structures."

The above is how I came into mysticism. In the Local Churches, under Witness Lee. Today I see it as pure manipulation. Nee got caught, then Lee, then others, then eventually I was there. Thankfully I got out.

As far as practice, Jesus withdrew and prayed. He sang hymns with the disciples. Nothing out of the ordinary Jewish life. He spurned the asceticism of John the Baptizer (and the Qumranians). But he was "always connected". He was either a megalomaniac who thought the Bible was about him (!!!!!) or he was the Christ.

Now, my objection is this: how many have tried to follow. Watchman Nee, Witness Lee, Sun Myung Moon, Elizabeth Claire Prophet, Joseph Smith, Haile Selassie, Jim Jones, David Koresh, David (Mo) Berg, Mary Baker Eddy, Apollo Quiboloy. All of them today's Christ. God's Unique Television Channel.

Now, Jesus, I give him a pass. He said, "All these things were written about me". But anyone else, no. There is only One Christ. The only thing I know about "The Divine and Mystical Realm" is from a book by Witness Lee. And I reject it today.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by aron

Indigenous Chinese preacher Watchman Nee is considered to have had the greatest theological influence on China’s vibrant house church movement, yet there are few studies detailing his influence on church practices. This paper analyzes the writings of Watchman Nee and other Local Church members to show how Nee contextualized the message of Western missionaries to China, using subaltern strategies of returning to scriptural fundamentals and reducing the scale of organization and worship. He divested mission Christianity of its hegemonic trappings and created flexible Christian practices, which take place in the ‘divine and mystical realm,’ out of reach from ‘worldly’ power structures.

So what does that mean? On the surface, I don't see much wrong there . . .

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by aron

The above is how I came into mysticism. In the Local Churches, under Witness Lee. Today I see it as pure manipulation. Nee got caught, then Lee, then others, then eventually I was there. Thankfully I got out.

This is it.

The danger with Mysticism is that it allows for subjectivity. You're taught to focus only on the "now" ie "What is the spirit speaking now". That's the type of thing you'll hear within mystic circles.

By just having an "in the now" type of spirituality, you can justify contradictions in teachings because in a sense what was spoken of in the past no longer matters, it's the fresh new teaching that matters.

It allows for ambiguity and makes doctrine malleable to whatever the current situation calls for.

Compare that to Christ where he always pointed back to what was spoken of in the past through the prophets in order to reconcile God's Word to the present situation.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Jo S

This is it.

The danger with Mysticism is that it allows for subjectivity. You're taught to focus only on the "now" ie "What is the spirit speaking now". That's the type of thing you'll hear within mystic circles.

By just having an "in the now" type of spirituality, you can justify contradictions in teachings because in a sense what was spoken of in the past no longer matters, it's the fresh new teaching that matters.

It allows for ambiguity and makes doctrine malleable to whatever the current situation calls for.

Compare that to Christ where he always pointed back to what was spoken of in the past through the prophets in order to reconcile God's Word to the present situation.

Originally Posted by SonstoGlory

My thought is you could label about anything that is toward the unseen as mysticism. By that definition, someone could label all Christians as mystics, as we practice faith in the unseen.

So considering the above two quotes (by Jo and me) isn't what we're talking about for the proper Christian walk a mix of spirit and the word? If we just have the word without Spirit, then it can be just the dead letter. If just spirit without the word, then we have mysticism - is that a correct view?

I'm seeing this as a spectrum, whereby there is danger of falling into either extreme.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

So considering the above two quotes (by Jo and me) isn't what we're talking about for the proper Christian walk a mix of spirit and the word? If we just have the word without Spirit, then it can be just the dead letter. If just spirit without the word, then we have mysticism - is that a correct view?

I'm seeing this as a spectrum, whereby there is danger of falling into either extreme.

StG, it isn't a matter of finding proper balance. Mysticism and Christianity are antithetical to each other. These are two different spirits at work. It's not the same spirit + or - scriptural understanding. You can't have the Holy Spirit and not understand scripture and you can't understand scripture without the Holy Spirit.

Kabbalism (or Jewish mysticism) was wrought out of this same situation we find in today within a large part of Christendom.

The mystic Jews separated themselves from traditional Judaism because they viewed the other side as being too "scholarly" meaning overly focused on the academic study of scriptures rather than the experience of the spiritual realm. But the truth was that they were divided against each other because both sides rejected their savior.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Jo S

This is it.

The danger with Mysticism is that it allows for subjectivity. You're taught to focus only on the "now" ie "What is the spirit speaking now". That's the type of thing you'll hear within mystic circles.

By just having an "in the now" type of spirituality, you can justify contradictions in teachings because in a sense what was spoken of in the past no longer matters, it's the fresh new teaching that matters.

And we would see "later Nee" and "later Lee" flatly contradict the early models, but, hey, it's today's oracular utterance. One now-Blended called it "fresh bread". He'd say, "We've got the fresh bread." (That brother is currently on LSM payroll, and wife, and children.)

Originally Posted by Jo S

It allows for ambiguity and makes doctrine malleable to whatever the current situation calls for.

Compare that to Christ where he always pointed back to what was spoken of in the past through the prophets in order to reconcile God's Word to the present situation.

Christ was fully constrained by Scripture: "It is written". Lee was so deluded by his mysticism that he often panned scripture as fallen human concepts. Only the Psalms cited by the NT passed his muster: e.g., 2, 8, 16... the others, 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12.... were "fallen". Completely absurd. Yet there I was, pumping my fist and yelling in sync.

Contrast how Christ allowed himself to be defined by scripture, versus how Lee allowed scripture to be defined by exigencies. Mysticism gave him a pass, to redefine the word for today, and allowed him to slide it on others. We really thought it was "the divine and mystical realm." I bought the book. We used to sing/chant, "reality, reality, reality" as if that transposed us into reality itself and our subjectivity swallowed objective truth. But it did not.

But Christ was the Word. Only his mysticism was true. The rest of us are automatically suspect. To me, this is Christianity 101. If you look at the list of names I put in the second-to-last paragraph in post #109, they all failed Christianity 101. They all thought they could define the word, instead of being defined by it.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Jo S

StG, it isn't a matter of finding proper balance. Mysticism and Christianity are antithetical to each other. These are two different spirits at work. It's not the same spirit + or - scriptural understanding. You can't have the Holy Spirit and not understand scripture and you can't understand scripture without the Holy Spirit.

Kabbalism (or Jewish mysticism) was wrought out of this same situation we find in today within a large part of Christendom.

The mystic Jews separated themselves from traditional Judaism because they viewed the other side as being too "scholarly" meaning overly focused on the academic study of scriptures rather than the experience of the spiritual realm. But the truth was that they were divided against each other because both sides rejected their savior.

Just to be clear, this is your definition, right?

Quote from two previous posts: By that definition, someone could label all Christians as mystics, as we practice faith in the unseen. I've asked the question twice regarding whether all Christians could be labeled as mystics on account of believing in the unseen One, but I haven't seen where you've replied directly to this.

We can categorize all believers into this box or that definition . . . to me that doesn't promote fellowship and labeling some Christian Mystics seems a bit of tilting at windmills. Sure, if you can demonstrate that someone is all "about the spirit without any regard for the word," then I might say that yes, that is an unhealthy mysticism.

Does that make sense?

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Just to be clear, this is your definition, right?

Quote from two previous posts: By that definition, someone could label all Christians as mystics, as we practice faith in the unseen. I've asked the question twice regarding whether all Christians could be labeled as mystics on account of believing in the unseen One, but I haven't seen where you've replied directly to this.

We can categorize all believers into this box or that definition . . . to me that doesn't promote fellowship and labeling some Christian Mystics seems a bit of tilting at windmills. Sure, if you can demonstrate that someone is all "about the spirit without any regard for the word," then I might say that yes, that is an unhealthy mysticism.

Does that make sense?

StG, it won't make sense until you stop trying to reconcile the two things.

Mysticism vs Christianity isn't a matter of faith in the unseen. Every person practices faith in one form or another. It's a part of who we inherently are.

Mystics have the faith that through hidden knowledge and certain practices salvation and unity to the "divine" will be attained.

Christians already have a real tangible relationship with God and through that a guarantee of salvation.

The difference between Christianity and mysticism is; working out your salvation (allowing a process to proceed directly from faith) vs working toward salvation (faith that salvation will come from the attainment of deep spiritual knowledge through certain practices).

The LC's taught mysticism.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Jo S

The difference between Christianity and mysticism is; working out your salvation (allowing a process to proceed directly from faith) vs working toward salvation (faith that salvation will come from the attainment of deep spiritual knowledge through certain practices)

Okay. Well that's interesting. Where did you get that definition - working out vs. working toward?

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Okay. Well that's interesting. Where did you get that definition - working out vs. working toward?

From a combination of scripture and personal experience.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Jo S

From a combination of scripture and personal experience.

Thanks!

Well anyaways - have we beat this horse to death yet concerning the whole OCOC concept, or does anybody have anything else burning they need to add or say?

[UntoHim]

Is one church one city a bad idea or unbiblical?

I would slightly rephrase this to read:
Is the one city one church idea biblical?

And the answer to my rephrased, unabashedly rhetorical question would be a thundering, resounding YES! The next question - one which is equally as important and impactful as the base question - is this biblical idea descriptive or prescriptive? To the vast majority of Christian teachers, scholars and apologists over the centuries the answer is that one city one church is descriptive, not prescriptive.

Unfortunately, and for a multitude of reasons, those sects, ministries and movements which have chosen to interpret the one city one church as prescriptive have become the most dogmatically strict and abusive towards their brothers and sisters in Christ who see the one city one church model as certainly ideal, but at the end of the day, simply descriptive. Church history has borne this out again and again.

A slightly less dramatic example of the descriptive vs. prescriptive issue concerns how the New Testament describes the early Christians meeting in homes (Acts 2:46; 20:20; Romans 16:5; 1 Corinthians 16:19; Colossians 4:15). Some interpret this to mean that Christians today should only meet in homes, and, therefore, meeting in church buildings is wrong. Yet none of the passages that describe believers meeting at home prescribe that believers only meet in homes. In fact, the New Testament nowhere instructs believers to meet in homes. The Bible describes believers meeting in homes, but there is no command to do so. So, meeting in homes is allowable, but it is not advocated or even necessarily preferred.
-

[Sons to Glory!]

.................................................

Now that was succinct and downright scholarly sounding! Descriptive (good) vs prescriptive (not so good) - a fine explanation indeed.

[Sons to Glory!]

While traveling I read this in the T. Austin Sparks daily devotional (Daily Open Windows) for August 25th:

"Man has put his hand on heavenly things and tried to bring them onto this earth. It might be a 'New Testament Church' of a composite nature: certain things taught, enacted and done in conformity to the record in the New Testament; a certain order, technique and construction; these things have been drawn together as a creed, a form of procedure and made the 'basis' the form and standard, the 'constitution' of a body, an institution, a society, a man's mind and man's hand defining, controlling, holding. The verdict of history is that God will just not commit Himself to any such thing . . .The apostles did not take with them a "Blue Print" of New Testament churches wherever they went. The outcome of their work was a crises, a climax to an old creation and the fiat of a new."

This made me think of a particular group when I read this. I wonder if this makes you think of any particular group . . .

[TexasStreetPreacher]

Meeting as the church in a city is not a bad idea, nor is it unbiblical. But it's not the only pattern given to us in the NT of how to meet as a church, as there are other examples of how to meet/what to call one's church. So it's not a bad idea, but it's not the only idea. It's not unbiblical, but other ways other than that are not unbiblical either.

When someone says you HAVE to meet in this way, like us, and the rest of the world who doesn't meet like us is wrong, then that's a big red flag and typical cult behavior. Cults specialize in not only isolating passages of Scripture to the neglect of many other passages, but also specialize in isolation - isolating their group and their members from the "outsiders" (read: the rest of humanity) in order to prevent differing opinions, suppress critical thinking, and control their followers in word, thought, and deed.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Talking about the idea itself, not what all was necessarily associated with it through WN & WL. For instance, in the Kingdom, will there be any names the Lord's people will be known by other than Christ and perhaps the area they would be living in? Will there be any other distinctions other than area or locality? Or will the Lord's people continue to call themselves by other names - Baptist, Methodist, LCer, non-denominational, etc.?

In other words, in the kingdom would the Lord say to someone, "Go and fellowship with my dear Presbyterian saints in Boston," or would He just refer to "My dear saints in Boston?"

In the Kingdom (as coming and not what is here now) there will be no cause for names other than those by which we are individually known.

In this pre-NJ part of the Kingdom, getting caught-up in the names is to major in minors. There is no "biblical mandate" for designations. Surely there is evidence of discord in the fact that we do not all see eye-to-eye on everything, but it has been noted many times over the years that we are one in Christ, not in doctrines, practices, or traditions. And it seems that the ones that specialize the most in getting the doctrines, practices, and traditions "right" are the ones that ignore the oneness in Christ the most.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by TexasStreetPreacher

Meeting as the church in a city is not a bad idea, nor is it unbiblical. But it's not the only pattern given to us in the NT of how to meet as a church, as there are other examples of how to meet/what to call one's church. So it's not a bad idea, but it's not the only idea. It's not unbiblical, but other ways other than that are not unbiblical either.

When someone says you HAVE to meet in this way, like us, and the rest of the world who doesn't meet like us is wrong, then that's a big red flag and typical cult behavior. Cults specialize in not only isolating passages of Scripture to the neglect of many other passages, but also specialize in isolation - isolating their group and their members from the "outsiders" (read: the rest of humanity) in order to prevent differing opinions, suppress critical thinking, and control their followers in word, thought, and deed.

Well said, and I think it's the same conclusion many have come to. Have any group in mind, in particular?

[TexasStreetPreacher]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Well said, and I think it's the same conclusion many have come to. Have any group in mind, in particular?

Me? Thinking of any group in particular? No, not me!

[Raptor]

Considering the line of OCOC in the NT as a descriptive concept:

It seems that the early NT believers had a common experience, sharing, witnessing and simply started gathering as an assembly or assemblies in the city they lived in. They did not know anything else, there was no prescribed teaching or instructions on the way they had to meet or form their assemblies, they just did; they gathered in large assemblies probably in some kind of building and sometimes smaller ones in their homes. It is to those existing assemblies that Paul wrote to and addressed as the church in that city, sometimes in the home. But Paul included all the believers.

What if Paul was suddenly here today, and wanted to reach the believers? If he decided to write a letter to the believers in a city where there is no "local church" but dozens of other kind of assemblies, would he just not write to them, not reach them because none meet as the local church in that city? And if he saw a city with a local church of 25 saints, and 5,000 other believers in other kind of assemblies, would he just write to the 25 and ignore the rest?

I think his heart would be to reach and include all the believers regardless of how they are meeting. One main problem in the Recovery when trying to practice the OCOC is that it ignores all the other believers because of the way they are meeting.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Raptor

Considering the line of OCOC in the NT as a descriptive concept:

It seems that the early NT believers had a common experience, sharing, witnessing and simply started gathering as an assembly or assemblies in the city they lived in. They did not know anything else, there was no prescribed teaching or instructions on the way they had to meet or form their assemblies, they just did; they gathered in large assemblies probably in some kind of building and sometimes smaller ones in their homes. It is to those existing assemblies that Paul wrote to and addressed as the church in that city, sometimes in the home. But Paul included all the believers.

What if Paul was suddenly here today, and wanted to reach the believers? If he decided to write a letter to the believers in a city where there is no "local church" but dozens of other kind of assemblies, would he just not write to them, not reach them because none meet as the local church in that city? And if he saw a city with a local church of 25 saints, and 5,000 other believers in other kind of assemblies, would he just write to the 25 and ignore the rest?

I think his heart would be to reach and include all the believers regardless of how they are meeting. One main problem in the Recovery when trying to practice the OCOC is that it ignores all the other believers because of the way they are meeting.

Agree overall, but don't we basically have OCOC in the letters to the churches in chapters two and three of the book of Revelation? Who are those letters addressed to? Do you think there were no divisions among them at the time? They had let various fleshly things come in, and division is also a fleshly thing.

The point is I don't know that He wouldn't just address something now to the saints living in a particular area or city . . .

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Raptor

What if Paul was suddenly here today, and wanted to reach the believers?

Back in the early days in greater Cleveburg, we even had a brother write a song about this to the tune of "Time in a Bottle" by Jim Croce.

Because we had a 20th Century mindset, we thought this was a valid question. It just reinforced our conviction that OCOC was an integral part of God's Economy and all other Christian gatherings were illegitimate.

Thankfully my mindset has changed. Did those 7 LC's in Revelations 2-3 have addresses? Websites? Did they have their names registered on some lookup postal directory? Did they even have a post office? Pony Express? Were they registered as a 501C.4 with the Roman Government? Did they even have a meeting hall? I seriously doubt any of these. These are all 20th century considerations.

Perhaps this is why each of these letters were directed to the "messenger" of the church. I'm thinking that each church had a messenger, perhaps covert, known only to trusted leaders. These "messengers" provided a means for these small assemblies to communicate. Did you know that these 7 churches were on a circuit? They were 7 adjacent towns on a traveled route, like exits on a highway.

I'm thinking that the "messenger" to Ephesus had a way to circulate the letter to the saints in Ephesus. Perhaps he then hand-carried the other 6 letters to Smyrna to find the next messenger. That messenger to Smyrna would contact his local bro/sis, and then take the next 5 letters to Pergamos. This would then be quickly repeated to the rest of the churches. If there was an eighth letter, the next church would be Colosse.

And let's be honest here. OCOC exclusivism is a farce. We know that Rome and Colosse had a second gathering in homes. Were there not Judaizers in most cities connected to Jerusalem who also met as assemblies? Did they not claim legitimacy by their connection to the Apostles at headquarters? If there was a printing press with scribes I'm sure it was in Jerusalem too.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

And let's be honest here. OCOC exclusivism is a farce. We know that Rome and Colosse had a second gathering in homes. Were there not Judaizers in most cities connected to Jerusalem who also met as assemblies? Did they not claim legitimacy by their connection to the Apostles at headquarters? If there was a printing press with scribes I'm sure it was in Jerusalem too.

Yes, the exclusivity is an unwarranted farce! However, the letters in Rev are addressed to reach the saints in a articular town - Ephesus, Smyrna, etc. (not so sure about the messenger idea you presented . . .)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Yes, the exclusivity is an unwarranted farce! However, the letters in Rev are addressed to reach the saints in a articular town - Ephesus, Smyrna, etc. (not so sure about the messenger idea you presented . . .)

The point of that old song, Raptor's point, and the very basis for the existence of the Recovery are all the same -- How does the Son of Man send a letter to these saints? Are they all sitting in a meeting hall? Think about it. Can anyone refute my suggestions?

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The point of that old song, Raptor's point, and the very basis for the existence of the Recovery are all the same -- How does the Son of Man send a letter to these saints? Are they all sitting in a meeting hall? Think about it. Can anyone refute my suggestions?

You mean about the messenger to each church/city? If so, I can't refute or confirm . . .

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

You mean about the messenger to each church/city? If so, I can't refute or confirm . . .

Sure. We heard that "to the messenger of the church" was an angel or the elders.

Perhaps the messenger was a courier. Brother(s) who could travel and keep the churches in fellowship.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Sure. We heard that "to the messenger of the church" was an angel or the elders.

Perhaps the messenger was a courier. Brother(s) who could travel and keep the churches in fellowship.

Okay, could be - like FedEx? Seriously, it could be. (and I kinda like that better than an angel)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Okay, could be - like FedEx? Seriously, it could be. (and I kinda like that better than an angel)

There are a number of places where Paul sent a brother or two with epistles, messages, or gifts to the churches. Paul himself cited where travel was made difficult by "road robbers" and the elements.

Actually none of my posts here were lighthearted. I have always wondered who the "messenger" to the church was. Unless another more suitable idea is brought up, I think my ideas here are better than any I have ever heard.

Note all the churches on the map below. Towns, valleys, rivers, roads, mountain ranges, the sea, and scales are included. Try to envision travel in those days, and how difficult it would be for fellowship between churches. Most of these churches are 20-30-40 miles apart. Have you ever walked 20 miles in one day?

Try to connect the 7 churches together. One writer said by "connecting the dots" we could see a rainbow arch from the oblique.

[Sons to Glory!]

Good map! Again, it could be yer onto something . . .

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Talking about the idea itself, not what all was necessarily associated with it through WN & WL. For instance, in the Kingdom, will there be any names the Lord's people will be known by other than Christ and perhaps the area they would be living in? Will there be any other distinctions other than area or locality? Or will the Lord's people continue to call themselves by other names - Baptist, Methodist, LCer, non-denominational, etc.?

In other words, in the kingdom would the Lord say to someone, "Go and fellowship with my dear Presbyterian saints in Boston," or would He just refer to "My dear saints in Boston?"

More “church” discussion.