Bible Answer Man Converts to Eastern Orthodox!

[Drake]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

That was then this is now. You're the one who brought up "behaving like Dan", NOT Koinonia, NOT me, NOT anyone else.

Was there NO CHURCH IN LOS ANGELES before Witness Lee? Yes or No?

Watch this folks.
-

No.

Drake

[UntoHim]

Thank you kind sir!

I take back the presumptuous "watch this folks" blast. That was not fair to you nor to the rest of the onlookers.

Pray-tell, why did the appearance of Witness Lee bring about the first "church in Los Angeles"?
-

[Drake]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Thank you kind sir!

I take back the presumptuous "watch this folks" blast. That was not fair to you nor to the rest of the onlookers.

Pray-tell, why did the appearance of Witness Lee bring about the first "church in Los Angeles"?
-

No problem. You seemed excited but it happens.

Why you ask. Well, it was a confluence of people and events leading up to that:

- Brother Lee spoke at Westmoreland Chapel and fellowshiped with them a few times between 1958 and 1962,

- Samuel Chang moved to LA in 1959 and spoke about Watchman Nee and the church,

- Some believers from Westmoreland developed a hunger for a deeper enjoyment and to experience the church life,

- in May 1962 they broke bread in Los Angeles,

- A few months later Brother Lee gave a series of messages in Los Angeles.

- Brother Lee decided to stay in the USA as he felt the Lord's leading.

- It took off from there in the surrounding areas of LA.

Drake

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Drake

No.

Drake

Wow, how completely ridiculous.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Wow, how completely ridiculous.

You are experiencing confirmation bias.

Read the question.

Drake

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Drake

You are experiencing confirmation bias.

Read the question.

Drake

Could you help define how you read the question?

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Drake

You are experiencing confirmation bias.

Read the question.

Drake

The question was: "Was there NO CHURCH IN LOS ANGELES before Witness Lee? Yes or No?"

And you answered: "No."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

No.

Drake

It doesn't get any more divisive, arrogant, and condemning than that.

[OBW]

With respect to the question about there being a church in Los Angeles prior to Lee coming to meet with a few there, Drake has the following declaration:

Originally Posted by Drake

No.

Drake

And there, folks, is the evidence that if there is a sect to be discussed, it is the LRC. They think that the church does not exist in a location no matter how many Christians meet in one or more groups because none of them are meeting according to their formula. They misconstrue the word "church" as being a special term restricted to only those who follow their rules. Any other Christians who meet together are not church.

I read the same kind of nonsense on facebook a few years ago when someone declared that with the "taking of the ground" in Rome, there was finally a church in the city for the first time in centuries.

That is exactly the kind of perverted mindset that has been drummed into the psyche of otherwise good Christian people. People who hear about garlic rooms but do not realize that the only one near them is within the walls in which they meet.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

With respect to the question about there being a church in Los Angeles prior to Lee coming to meet with a few there, Drake has the following declaration:
And there, folks, is the evidence that if there is a sect to be discussed, it is the LRC. They think that the church does not exist in a location no matter how many Christians meet in one or more groups because none of them are meeting according to their formula. They misconstrue the word "church" as being a special term restricted to only those who follow their rules. Any other Christians who meet together are not church.

I read the same kind of nonsense on facebook a few years ago when someone declared that with the "taking of the ground" in Rome, there was finally a church in the city for the first time in centuries.

That is exactly the kind of perverted mindset that has been drummed into the psyche of otherwise good Christian people. People who hear about garlic rooms but do not realize that the only one near them is within the walls in which they meet.

Is it not the situation that if any place already has a Catholic church an evangelical protestant denomination will set one up as well? Evangelicals do not recognize the Catholic church as " the church in the city" so they start their own. If you are protestant you cannot talk about our view of Rome being "perverted" without an element of hypocrisy. For example, if Roman Catholicism is "the church" in the city, then why do protestants bother starting a church there? Why not just join them?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Is it not the situation that if any place already has a Catholic church an evangelical protestant denomination will set one up as well? Evangelicals do not recognize the Catholic church as " the church in the city" so they start their own. If you are protestant you cannot talk about our view of Rome being "perverted" without an element of hypocrisy. For example, if Roman Catholicism is "the church" in the city, then why do protestants bother starting a church there? Why not just join them?

This is a mischaracterization. Evangelical Protestants would only require that there be an assembly of genuine born again children of God.

You, however, place extra-Biblical demands on other congregations which you yourself cannot meet. Then you claim "the ground." What a joke.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is a mischaracterization. Evangelical Protestants would only require that there be an assembly of genuine born again children of God.

You, however, place extra-Biblical demands on other congregations which you yourself cannot meet. Then you claim "the ground." What a joke.

Roman Catholic = "assembly of genuine born again children of God" ? If so, why do they setup another church, why not join them? Before you criticize the LRC for "placing extra-biblical demands" I want to know why evangelical protestant denominations setup a new church in a place where a Roman Catholic church has existed first (and is this not itself an "extra-biblical demand").

Regarding "Biblical demands" - no one here so far has been able to provide a verse from the Bible justifying why the Baptist and Presbyterian denominations meet separately.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Roman Catholic = "assembly of genuine born again children of God" ? If so, why do they setup another church, why not join them? Before you criticize the LRC for "placing extra-biblical demands" I want to know why evangelical protestant denominations setup a new church in a place where a Roman Catholic church has existed first (and is this not itself an "extra-biblical demand").

Regarding "Biblical demands" - no one here so far has been able to provide a verse from the Bible justifying why the Baptist and Presbyterian denominations meet separately.

We will bother when you can show us why the LRC meets separately.

As for your "first must be the only one" rhetoric, you deny that there are reasons that people meet together beyond that they are simply Christian. We meet to learn more about Christ. And to learn more about how we are to live as a result of being Christ followers created to bear his image. What would you do if you discovered that your group was not doing a good job in the teaching/learning realm? The first thing you would do is bring it up for discussion. And that is exactly what Martin Luther did. But rather than engage in a serious discussion, he was told to drop it. When he did not simply drop it, he was threatened with respect to his very life. At that point, the only options are 3: 1) capitulate and ignore the problems; 2) stand your ground and die; 3) stand your ground but allow the protection of others as you begin to engage in the discussions that you believe are needed.

And the while we point to the RCC/Lutheran split as a unique event and the splits between Protestants as something different, it is really the same thing. Someone discovers something that he believes is worthy of discussion and study but the system denies them that opportunity. And rather than just letting it go, they step out to do the study anyway and are ousted. So they start a new group. And the result has been a tendency for each group to not simply add something worthwhile to the overall teachings of an otherwise good group, but often a willful cutting off of something that remains worthwhile. And the lack of willingness to engage has allowed errant thinking to go unchecked because once they were their own group, it is harder to point to their errors from the outside.

The LRC is among that latest in this alleged flood of splinters.

But the splintering is less real that it seems. The claim that there are something like 30k+ different churches is based on the fact that everyone does not register with the IRS as a §501(c)(3) organization as simply a location of a denomination. But that does not make each one doctrinally separate from all others. Or separate by stance from all others. It is a fiction created by tax laws. I have attended two different Bible churches. But there is no way to say that Bible churches are a denomination. There is no headquarters. And no one is defining their doctrines on all things for them. They don't agree with each other on every issue. Yet they consider each other such group part of a loose collection of similars. And they do not consider that it is a closed group. They also consider those of very different positions and even denominations to be part of that same collection of similars.

And what is the thing that is similar? Christ. Christ is our unity. Not peripheral doctrine, name, or leader. Only those who want to be separated end out separated of their own volition.

Like the LRC.

There is no magic doctrine that overcomes the fact that it is not dirt or MOTA that makes us one. Only Christ. And if Christ is not divided, we are not divided. Therefore the only division is in the imagination of those who can't accept that Christ is the only unifying factor.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

We will bother when you can show us why the LRC meets separately.

As for your "first must be the only one" rhetoric, you deny that there are reasons that people meet together beyond that they are simply Christian. We meet to learn more about Christ. And to learn more about how we are to live as a result of being Christ followers created to bear his image. What would you do if you discovered that your group was not doing a good job in the teaching/learning realm? The first thing you would do is bring it up for discussion. And that is exactly what Martin Luther did. But rather than engage in a serious discussion, he was told to drop it. When he did not simply drop it, he was threatened with respect to his very life. At that point, the only options are 3: 1) capitulate and ignore the problems; 2) stand your ground and die; 3) stand your ground but allow the protection of others as you begin to engage in the discussions that you believe are needed.

And the while we point to the RCC/Lutheran split as a unique event and the splits between Protestants as something different, it is really the same thing. Someone discovers something that he believes is worthy of discussion and study but the system denies them that opportunity. And rather than just letting it go, they step out to do the study anyway and are ousted. So they start a new group. And the result has been a tendency for each group to not simply add something worthwhile to the overall teachings of an otherwise good group, but often a willful cutting off of something that remains worthwhile. And the lack of willingness to engage has allowed errant thinking to go unchecked because once they were their own group, it is harder to point to their errors from the outside.

The LRC is among that latest in this alleged flood of splinters.

But the splintering is less real that it seems. The claim that there are something like 30k+ different churches is based on the fact that everyone does not register with the IRS as a §501(c)(3) organization as simply a location of a denomination. But that does not make each one doctrinally separate from all others. Or separate by stance from all others. It is a fiction created by tax laws. I have attended two different Bible churches. But there is no way to say that Bible churches are a denomination. There is no headquarters. And no one is defining their doctrines on all things for them. They don't agree with each other on every issue. Yet they consider each other such group part of a loose collection of similars. And they do not consider that it is a closed group. They also consider those of very different positions and even denominations to be part of that same collection of similars.

And what is the thing that is similar? Christ. Christ is our unity. Not peripheral doctrine, name, or leader. Only those who want to be separated end out separated of their own volition.

Like the LRC.

There is no magic doctrine that overcomes the fact that it is not dirt or MOTA that makes us one. Only Christ. And if Christ is not divided, we are not divided. Therefore the only division is in the imagination of those who can't accept that Christ is the only unifying factor.

OBW, we meet separately for obvious practical reason. There is no problem with groups meeting separately within a city. But we do not consider each meeting within the city to be different churches like baptist and presbyterian (or any denomination) do. That is why we call them meetings. My question is about why two so-called churches (baptist and Presbyterian) can meet right next door to each other and what is the biblical precedent for doing that. Why the pastor of one church cannot work in the other church. Why in many cases a presbyterian church will not allow you to become a member if you want to remain a member of another church? If these were simply expressions of the universal body of Christ then these constraints and limitations should not exist. In bible times I am sure that a member of one household meeting in Corinth could travel and be considered a member in another household meeting in Corinth. If Paul wanted to minister today in presbyterian churches first he would have to become a member and get ordained in the presbyterian church.

Please note the clear difference here:
We do not call and setup each meeting within a city as a church
We do not set up our own "church organization"
We do not ordain and hire pastors/priests and allow them only to work/minister in the church organization we have created.
We do not build up and expand an individual meeting group over the whole world (e.g. a presbyterian church in every city).

It must be embarrassing for you that you cannot provide a bible verse to answer my question. A few days have passed now.

Any seeking ones reading this thread may realize there is no biblical support for the division between Baptists and Presbyterians. If we "pull on this thread" a little more we will see there is no biblical support for the difference between Lutheran and Anglican either. We all know the Lutheran church was created for good reason - rejection of the Catholic church and her false teachings. We all should know that the Anglican church was created because of a King's lust. There is no good biblical reason why the Anglican church was created.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Roman Catholic = "assembly of genuine born again children of God" ? If so, why do they setup another church, why not join them? Before you criticize the LRC for "placing extra-biblical demands" I want to know why evangelical protestant denominations setup a new church in a place where a Roman Catholic church has existed first (and is this not itself an "extra-biblical demand").

Regarding "Biblical demands" - no one here so far has been able to provide a verse from the Bible justifying why the Baptist and Presbyterian denominations meet separately.

The LC's have all sorts of meetings, in which they regularly meet separately -- they have their workers' meetings, children's meetings, elders' meetings, middle-aged meetings, Chinese speaking meetings, young people's meetings, college age meetings, sisters' meetings, HS and JH meetings, Spanish language meetings, deacons' meetings, etc. etc. -- and nearly all of these have no scriptural support.

Obviously both the Baptist and the Presbyterian meetings are designed to meet certain needs of certain ones in the body of Christ.

But Evangelical only can justify "LSM-approved" gatherings. Anything and everything else he must condemn.

LSM does it -- good!

Others do it -- bad!

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The LC's have all sorts of meetings, in which they regularly meet separately -- they have their workers' meetings, children's meetings, elders' meetings, middle-aged meetings, Chinese speaking meetings, young people's meetings, college age meetings, sisters' meetings, HS and JH meetings, Spanish language meetings, deacons' meetings, etc. etc. -- and nearly all of these have no scriptural support.

Obviously both the Baptist and the Presbyterian meetings are designed to meet certain needs of certain ones in the body of Christ.

But Evangelical only can justify "LSM-approved" gatherings. Anything and everything else he must condemn.

LSM does it -- good!

Others do it -- bad!

This does not really answer the question.

Your comeback at how LSM has different meetings has nothing to do with the topic here.

Note that I am talking about different churches here.. baptist versus presbyterian. What you call churches and I call sects. We are not talking about children's meetings versus adult meeting's.

If the baptist and presbyterian would redefine themselves as "meetings" and not churches then perhaps you have a valid point and my argument is for nothing. But until then, if you wish to be taken seriously as bible following Christians, then the onus is on you to provide biblical support for the different organizations that you call churches.

Remember, I'm the one "following Witness Lee and the LC" so the onus is on you to provide support for what you believe in from the Bible alone. I think you should answer this according to the Bible not for my sake but for the sake of seekers who may be reading this thread.

If you really are a bible follower and know your bible, you should be able to come up with a better reason than "people have different needs".

That's a reason but it's not an answer to my question:

no one here so far has been able to provide a verse from the Bible justifying why the Baptist and Presbyterian denominations meet separately.

"Obviously both the Baptist and the Presbyterian meetings are designed to meet certain needs of certain ones in the body of Christ. "

I will accept your reason as valid and truthful, but it lacks the biblical support.

Please provide a verse from the Bible that says "meetings are designed to meet certain needs of certain ones in the body of Christ."

If you cannot provide a verse then it will reveal who is following the Bible and who is not.

I am not interested in what man has to say about this, I want to know what biblical support there is for the Baptist and Presbyterians not meeting together.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Is it not the situation that if any place already has a Catholic church an evangelical protestant denomination will set one up as well? Evangelicals do not recognize the Catholic church as " the church in the city" so they start their own. If you are protestant you cannot talk about our view of Rome being "perverted" without an element of hypocrisy. For example, if Roman Catholicism is "the church" in the city, then why do protestants bother starting a church there? Why not just join them?

I do not talk about the RCC as being perverted. So don't talk to me about that. I recognize that, like your group, the RCC has a view that they are the true church. But not at the extreme that you do. They do not deny the others the status as "church." They have used terms like "wounded" or "damaged." But not "perverted."

And if you want to argue about any place that already has a Catholic church, then you are in no better place. Even if there is not a Catholic church, there is already some church. Unless you go to a city that is so small that all of its inhabitants go to church in one or more nearby cities, there is no opening to claim that you are the first church there, therefore the "proper" church.

But by your own words, you declare that the brand and "distinctives" (as the Baptists call it) is important. If the RCC is first, then they are first. If you a first, then you are first. And according to you, no matter how large a city may be, and how many assemblies would be required to reasonably care for the whole of the flock in any particular city, you would claim that one brand must be the only thing present.

And of course, it must be yours.

Your declaration that the denominations are so much opposed to each other and denying each other proper status within the church is not true. Instead it is a casting of your own position onto everyone else as if they are as sectarian as you are.

But as an example, I listened to a podcast for several years that was hosted by four men who were leaders of two different churches (assemblies). One was Pentecostal/charismatic while the other was a nondescript community church most likely in the general leaning of what is known as a Bible church. They spoke on theology of all sorts of issues. And they did not agree on everything. But they did not consider the other reprobate or perverted. Nor did they consider the other's group to be a "damaged" assembly. They would encourage any Christian to join with either. And with groups other than those two. They recognized that not everyone agreed on everything. And they acknowledged the basis on which various beliefs were held. In each case they may agree or have reason to think that something else was of more importance in deciding the issue, but despite that they did not consider the other "not church" or a poor representation of the body of Christ.

These are the kinds of people that I see all the time. Pastors that meet with other pastors. Not just for some kind of false show, but because they recognize that none of them have a corner on truth beyond the basics of the redemptive work of Christ.

But your group is different. It refuses to accept that the basics are what hold us together despite other differences. You demand that other things be agreed upon as well. You make outward declarations that there is no set of doctrines you have to believe, but the truth is that to remain, you will eventually discover that there is a set of very detailed doctrines that must be agreed with, or at least kept silent about. There is no open discussion. Just like here, you don't actually engage in discussion about the substance of your positions. You simply state that they are (and use stories that fit your premise presuming that stories are proof of truth) and demand that everyone bow in awe to them. There is no other way to state it. You don't have evidence that your ways are truly prescribed as doctrine that must be followed. Like sock puppets, they are not real people, but lifeless socks that someone else's hand is making them act alive, and their voice is making it seem that they are talking.